Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (20006)	1/3/2008 2:38:00 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224668

January 3, 2008, 2:24 pm Obama Will Get Richardson’s Second-Choice Votes By John Harwood Barack Obama’s drive to win tonight’s Iowa caucuses is getting a boost from two of his putative rivals. After earlier winning the support of Dennis Kucinich, Obama’s campaign has reached an agreement with Bill Richardson for the second-choice votes of Richardson supporters in caucuses where the New Mexico governor can’t clear the threshold for competition, according to a senior Obama campaign adviser. The adviser estimated that the deal puts Mr. Obama in position to claim support from roughly half of the 15 percent of Democratic caucus-goers expected to support second-tier candidates. In return, the Obama adviser said, Obama forces will lend support to Mr. Richardson at caucuses where Mr. Obama turns out more backers than he needs to win any additional delegates. Mr. Richardson drew 6 percent of the vote in the most recent Des Moines Register Poll, trailing Mr. Obama’s 32 percent, Hillary Clinton’s 25 percent and John Edwards’ 24 percent. In a close race, such a deal could make an important difference. John Edwards’ 2004 campaign credits a similar deal with Mr. Kucinich then as helping fuel his strong second place showing. But the specter of backroom deal-making could also raise questions about Mr. Obama’s stance as an opponent of traditional politics. The national spokesman for Mr. Obama’s campaign, Bill Burton, said word of a deal “isn’t true.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (20006)	1/4/2008 10:35:42 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224668

2008 Finds Democrats In State Of Denial on Iraq and Education >By Michael Gerson January 04, 2008 WASHINGTON -- If 2006 was a year of denial for the Bush administration, 2007 was a period of awakening. Like Abraham Lincoln before him, the president discovered the cathartic pleasure of replacing generals. In Petraeus, Bush found his Grant. He also found that war, like politics, is the art of adjustment. As the political blitzkrieg of 2008 begins in earnest, it is the Democrats who, on a number of key issues, are living in a state of denial. In Iraq, coalition casualties are down significantly along with Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside bombings and suicide attacks. Large sections of Baghdad have been pacified, and the military rolls toward Mosul. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in reeling retreat. And most impressively, we have seen the first example of a large scale Sunni Arab uprising against Islamic extremism. By one estimate, 30,000 former insurgents and tribal leaders are now fighting the enemy in Iraq, adding their surge to our own. This progress is reversible, especially while Moqtada al-Sadr's militias maintain the capability to mount their own mini-Tet Offensive. But the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy has succeeded with disorienting speed. Its combination of vision and competence will fill chapters in military textbooks. In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal -- the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who declared that the surge "failed" even before it was fully implemented -- now contends that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Bush was hurt by his late and grudging acknowledgement of military failure. Democrats deserve to be hurt by their late and grudging acknowledgement of military success. Democratic rhetoric on education is also an assault on reality. Attacking No Child Left Behind is a reliable campaign applause line -- Hillary Clinton promises to "end" the law, because it is "just not working." Actually, the imposition of educational standards and testing has improved math and reading scores and begun narrowing the gap between disadvantaged and affluent students. There is an angry backlash against NCLB among some Democratic interest groups. Suburban districts resent being labeled as failures just because some minority and disabled children aren't making progress. But that is the whole purpose of the law -- to prevent districts from hiding the poor performance of minorities behind the success of other students. Such districts should feel less resentment, and more shame. Teachers unions object to standardized tests, preferring more subjective, nonacademic measures of school success. And that, from one perspective, is understandable. Failing corporations do not like accurate financial disclosures. Slow runners resent those pesky stopwatches. The unions want underperforming schools and ineffective teachers to be shielded from objective scrutiny. But testing is the only way to determine when disadvantaged students are being betrayed -- and by whom. Democratic candidates attack the Bush tax cuts as a fiscal disaster -- just as a growing economy has boosted tax revenues to their highest level in history, halving the federal deficit in three years. In 2008, Democrats are convinced that their time has come. But elections are not won by appealing to the clock. Political vacuums are filled by ideas. And Democrats in denial require some adjustments of their own. Instead of criticizing an increasingly successful Iraq strategy, it would be helpful to hear some realistic proposals to improve American prospects in Afghanistan, where violence has reached its highest level in four years. NATO's military efforts in that country are uncoordinated, even incoherent -- demonstrating the risks of multilateralism. The resolve of some European nations is now wavering. An al-Qaeda ministate is developing across the Pakistan border. How would a Democratic response differ from the current one? Instead of attacking a successful education reform, it would be helpful to hear some practical ideas on improving teacher quality. In the real world of failing schools, the main problem is not too much accountability; it is too few effective instructors. Why should teacher pay be determined by collective bargaining instead of teacher competence, especially in low-income schools that need to reward and retain good teachers? Why not give districts more flexibility to fire teachers who would serve children better by changing professions? Taking a distasteful dose of reality is one of the most difficult things in politics. Clearly it was hard for the president on Iraq -- but it was good for the country. And it would be good for America if Democrats opened wide for a dose of their own.< realclearpolitics.com