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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26107)	2/15/2008 11:38:33 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I think he wants to be just to the left of Clinton on a number of (but not every issue). To far to the left of Clinton and even liberal democrats might hesitate to vote for him. To the right of Clinton and he probably won't win the nomination. So he picks being to the left of Clinton by just a bit, on most of the Dem talking points (with the noticeable exception of health care, where she favors mandated health insurance purchases for everyone and he only favors a mandate for parents to buy insurance for their children). These views may represent a principled position for him. If they are not, if they are finely calculated, than he probably figures he is enough to the left to beat Hillary, without being so far as to lose the election to the part with an unpopular sitting lame duck president. He's also apparently careful how he phrases things. He uses the Democratic codewords "a living wage", "universal health care", "fair trade", "reverse the tax cuts on the rich", rather than putting it plainly. He doesn't specify the wage he wants. He doesn't say he will oppose freer trade. He doesn't say "I want to increase taxes".