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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20255)	1/13/2008 2:43:46 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

Obama Slams Clinton's 'Meet' Appearance Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) dismissed an appearance made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on "Meet the Press" this morning as "political point scoring," condemning his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination for seeking to recast the events of the last several years. "What we saw this morning was why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play," said Obama in a conference call announcing the endorsement of Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) "[Clinton] started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending some time rewriting it." On the recent controversy regarding remarks Clinton made about Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in the civil rights movement, Obama called the comments "unfortunate" and blasted Clinton for accusing his campaign of distorting her words for political gain. "The notion that this is somehow our doing is ludicrous," he said. The raised rhetoric from Obama came in the immediate aftermath of Clinton's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" -- an appearance in which she sought to drive home the idea that the Illinois senator is all rhetoric while she has a record of results. "When the cameras are gone and the lights are off, what do you do next?" Clinton said of Obama, adding: "He does not have a record of producing change." Of Obama's comments following Clinton's appearance, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said that Obama was seeking to make a "rhetorical point because he can't dispute the substance of what was said about his record." Singer said that while Obama gave a speech opposing the war in 200, that speech was removed from Obama's website when he started running for Senate in 2003. "By 2004, he said he didn't disagree with George Bush's approach to the war and by 2005, 2006 and 2007, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war," Singer added. "Voters should have complete information about the records of all the candidates." That contrast strategy paid dividends for Clinton in New Hampshire's primary last Tuesday as Clinton scored a comeback victory over Obama just five days after placing third in the Iowa caucuses. It appears to be the message Clinton will push between now and Feb. 5, a day which is rapidly shaping up as a huge showdown between the two Democratic senators. McCaskill's endorsement of Obama -- known in advance but announced formally on a call this morning -- is aimed at boosting his profile in Missouri, which is one of 24 states set to vote on Feb.5 "It would be a terrible disappointment to our country if we didn't grasp this opportunity right now," McCaskill said of electing Obama. She said her 18-year-old daughter urged her strongly to come out for Obama. The Missouri senator also said that her brief experience in Washington -- she was elected in 2006 -- has taught her that she and Obama are ideological allies. "I have staked a tent in the middle ground, and with some frequency I found Barack Obama there," McCaskill said McCaskill described Clinton as a "smart woman" and a "strong leader," but said she ultimately chose Obama because "at this moment in history it is very important that we look forward." McCaskill is the second-high profile woman in a Feb. 5 state to announce her support for Obama in recent days. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano was the first. By Chris Cillizza \| January 13, 2008; 11:18

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20255)	1/13/2008 3:04:53 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 224755

You know that won't work. Obama's used a real estate agent. and ... In June of 2005, Obama used money from a book advance to purchase a house (”Georgian revival,” “four fireplaces”) in a ritzy neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side for $1.65 million — $300,000 below the asking price. The same day, Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the neighboring plot for $625,000 dollars — the asking price. Rezko, who has been friendly with Obama since the latter was in law school, was under criminal investigation, a fact that was known, but not widely. Seven months after the purchase, the Obamas approached the Rezkos about buying a piece of Rita’s plot to preserve what the Tribune called the “aesthetic balance” of the land — since once upon a time the house and neighboring property were a single package — and the Rezkos agreed. Land was sold (Obama paid well above the appraised value), a fence was built (Rezko supposedly paid), and lawns were mowed (Obama paid). Things were neighborly as punch until October 2006, when Rezko was indicted and pleaded not guilty to unrelated charges of influence-peddling. That’s basically it. An indicted real-estate developer sold Obama part of his yard. Why did Obama get the house at below-market value? Because the house had been on the market for four months and the seller was anxious to make a deal. Did Obama and Rezko have some kind of influence-peddling deal? No, Obama opposed gambling interests that stood to help Rezko make money. In fact, for all the media-generated buzz about Obama’s “shady” real estate deal, no one, anywhere, has actually accused the senator of doing anything wrong. EXCEPT what is found on Hillary 44. com And that is not having an effect on anything.