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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (75880)	1/13/2008 3:43:22 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Hillary's Surrogates Sling Smut at Obama huffingtonpost.com Posted January 13, 2008 \| 03:00 PM (EST) By Byron Williams Now that we are in full primary mode and Super Tuesday just weeks away, we've witnessed divergent interest within the Democratic Party playing their respective cards last week in New Hampshire. If we start with the candidates, Hilary Clinton played the experience card; Barack Obama the hope card, John Edwards the populist card (but this is morphing into the desperate card), and Bill Richardson played his last card. But other cards are being played at the same time, none more than the Clinton campaign and its surrogates. Gloria Steinem, a Clinton supporter, in a New York Times op-ed last week played the gender card. Her hypothetical opening paragraph, where she oversimplifies Obama's background, but assumed in her analogy that instead of Obama it was a woman with those qualifications. After setting up this defenseless straw man (or would it be straw woman) she asks: "Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?" On its face, it is hard to argue with Steinem's assumptions. To make her point, however, Steinem must ignore that Clinton did not possess as much experience as former candidates Dodd, Biden, or Richardson. If Obama being male got him in the presidential sweepstakes, what was it for Clinton? Was it gender, 35-years experience, or the benefits associated with having a certain nom du famille? But as Steinem attempts to argue that the sex barrier is not taken as seriously as the racial one, she omits that Obama must walk the constant tight rope of putting white voters at ease by not playing the vaunted race card without alienating a segment of black voters who worry that he has somehow neglected their issues. But perhaps the most troubling card played was that of former president Bill Clinton; he played the petty card. When it seemed that Hilary was headed for certain defeat, the former president managed to take a question about strategist Mark Penn, who sent an email to the media erroneously suggesting there was no post Iowa bounce for Obama and transform it into a 3-minute slash and burn session. The former president manipulated two of Obama's statements and justified his position using I, me, and my several times over to describe how he was skewered, while mentioning Hilary twice, calling Obama's run the "the biggest fairy tale" that he has ever seen. The level at which the former president is involved in a contested presidential primary charts new ground for American politics. He certainly did not look like a former president; and he did not exhibit much respect for a current member of the Senate. Perhaps he has good reason to be frustrated, but to exhibit it in such a pathetically brazen way devalues the stature granted to former presidents. Having fallen from the crest of inevitability the Clinton campaign was forced to quickly retool. The result: If we can't win above the fray, we'll settle for victory down in the gutter. I found it quite telling when Clinton showed a rare sign of emotion last week, she stated: "You know, this is very personal for me." Does that include transforming into Nixon and going after Obama as if we were Helen Gahagan Douglas? The cards played by the Clinton campaign may have been the difference in winning New Hampshire, but at what cost? Clinton's negatives consistently poll in the mid-40 percentile. In a CNN/Gallup poll taken last month she had a 48% unfavorable rating. That leaves little margin for error for victory in November should she get the nomination. Maybe Nixon's 1968 playbook is the answer for the 2008 Clinton campaign. You don't have to be liked, just be tough, formidable, smart, and divisive enough to carve out a majority of the electorate to secure the nomination in the summer and 270 electoral votes in the fall. _________________ -Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist.

To: American Spirit who wrote (75880)	1/13/2008 10:04:52 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

The exit polls matched the final results I don't think that is the case. All day long the networks were taking exit polls and predicting Obama by about 10 percent. The final count, especially where Diebolt machines were used, did not match the exit polls in the Democratic race, but did match the exit polls in the Republican race. I don't think Rove thinks a Republican can beat Hillary, but I surmise that he thinks he can keep attacking her through her administration and thereby keep the electorate divided. Obama could make the Republicans irrelevant for decades. TP

To: American Spirit who wrote (75880)	1/13/2008 10:26:24 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

May I ask you a question please? Are you involved in real life, in local politics like I have been for years? Over 30 years.. Or are you just a "cyber" person sitting on your ass, spouting stuff, sent to you, getting paid for it and never getting out there as a true volunteer.. Like I have.. Have never been paid a goddamn dime for my time or expenses.. And so today I was gladly and happily accepted, more material to phone people to get them to our caucus.. When I really don't have a VESTED interest as far as heirs and stuff go in what happens to this country or the Earth. But I have a conscience and a belief in the American way and that's why I put my time and energy into trying to save it.. I am NOT like a right wing or neocon hypocrite that only lives for the day and could give a good goddamn about what the country or even the Earth looks like when their children or grandchildren inherit it.. So why the HELL should I do when so many with a TRUE vested interest don't? The last is just rhetorical and not named at you.. :)