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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/22/2008 8:18:27 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542004

Anyway, why would you want to compliment a President of the opposite party Perhaps because a significant portion of the country does admire that ex-President and acknowledging that he had some ideas that moved the country is a good way to gain the respect (and perhaps the vote) of that half of the electorate. It does no harm, and is nice example of an olive branch to the other half of the country. Slacker

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/22/2008 9:51:11 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542004

"especially when his policies were so cruel to the very people your party is trying to protect?" Who is it that we dems are trying to protect, and why? I would like to get to the bottom of this because frankly I don't really want to protect hardly anyone (maybe orphan kids and indigent old ladies ... if I am having a good day) ... am I in the wrong party? And what did Reagan's policies do to those people that was so cruel? I'm not above spitting in the general direction of his grave if it turns out he was feeding homeless elderly people Alpo or something like that.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/22/2008 9:57:39 PM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542004

Mary, I think I know what Obama was trying to say but it didn't come out the right way. He does have a right to be questioned about his remarks.The republicans will do far worse than what happened on stage last night. If he gets the nomination, just think of it as training for the general election. I haven't paid as much attention but it was my impression that he gives as good as he gets. I still think Obama gets a pass on most things. Does anyone think that a caucasian candidate would get away with that dancing remark he made? Is there any truth to the comment that hrc made about his slumlord client in Chitown? Instead of playing the sparring soundbites endlessly, I would welcome someone coming in and actually researching what the candidates say for truthfulness. That would be much more helpful than all these silly soundbites. I only watched a small part of the debates but was turned off by the commercials that ran. It seemed like any time I turned on the debate, the next thing I knew there was a commercial. Maybe it was bad timing on my part. My impressions of Obama are different than what many here feel about him. I get the impression of him as the intellectual who gives a good speech but will have difficulty getting things done. I would like to be proven wrong about this but I have yet to see where anyone has talked about some actual significant accomplishments that he has had as a legislator. I see Clinton as a junkyard dog type of fighter who, because of all the battles she has been in, has learned some degree of compromise but who can't seem to say that she was wrong on her vote on the war. That bothers me but I think she is more ready to be president than Obama. Edwards seems to me to be a bit of a pretty boy candidate. He has some good ideas but he seems to liberal to me. I get the impression that he is somewhat to the left of Obama. Those are just my impressions. All that being said, like I and others have said here, I look for any of the democrats to be better at striking a better balance on the supreme court than exists now. As of right now, I don't think there is a republican that I can vote for, basically for that reason. Neal

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/22/2008 11:37:32 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542004

>>It is not the crime that is horrible, it is the cover up. Anyway, why would you want to compliment a President of the opposite party, especially when his policies were so cruel to the very people your party is trying to protect?<< Mary - Again, I don't think Obama is covering anything up. I believe he has simply explained the point he was trying to mak after his comments were taken out of context and misrepresented. And the point he made about Reagan is an important one. It has to do with how the Democrats can forge a winning alliance, and create a new political climate. Thus, it made sense for him to say it in that context. - Allen

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/23/2008 5:38:08 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542004

Anyway, why would you want to compliment a President of the opposite party He was the President of the nation, not the President of the Republicans. Complimenting Reagan ties directly into Obama's view that a leader should unite the nation and not just look out for his "side".

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (46569)	1/23/2008 11:48:03 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542004

Mary, regarding the Obama republican "good ideas" debate, you wrote that he tried to twist his way out of it and you wrote, "It is not the crime that is horrible, it is the cover up." Maybe I missed something. What is it that he said that he later "twisted" and what was it that made you label him as trying to cover up? I watched that debate in SC and Hillary attributed the same "good ideas" statement to Obama, saying something like "I have the quote and I can provide it. I've seen the quote and if she had the quote she had to have known that her statement was a gross exaggeration. That was the fact because later in the debate she modified her statement saying something like "I think it could be said that you 'implied' that they were good ideas." So, unless you can come up with the quotes, the "twisting" by Obama and the "cover up" by Obama, I'll have to conclude that Hillary out and out lied. The fact that it worked, evidently convincing you and others, doesn't excuse it. What was remarkable was Hillary's lamenting that she had to undergo "16 years" of unfounded attacks by the Republican machine. The same sort of unfounded, twisting, mischaracterizing attacks that's she's leveled against Obama. And don't get me started on the question of whether she deliberately created the "racial" questions to highlight the fact that Obama is a black candidate and to encourage an over reaction. Her already thin chances of winning the general election against McCain are dimming rapidly. Ed