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: American Spirit who wrote (22062)	3/2/2008 11:47:18 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224744

Deliverance or Diversion? By PAUL KRUGMAN (DEMOrAT ON OSAMA) Published: March 3, 2008 After their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections, it seemed a given that Democrats would try to make this year’s presidential campaign another referendum on Republican policies. After all, the public appears fed up not just with President Bush, but with his party. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows Democrats are preferred on every issue except terrorism. They even have a 10-point advantage on “morality.” But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election. Unless Hillary Clinton wins big on Tuesday, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And he’s not at all the kind of candidate one might have expected to emerge out of the backlash against Republican governance. Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing. But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity. That — along with his adoption of conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care — is why Mr. Obama’s rise has caused such division among progressive activists, the very people one might have expected to be unified and energized by the prospect of finally ending the long era of Republican political dominance. Some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken: they wanted another F.D.R., yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead. Others, however, insist that Mr. Obama’s message of hope and his personal charisma will yield an overwhelming electoral victory, and that he will implement a dramatically progressive agenda. The trouble is that faith in Mr. Obama’s transformational ability rests on surprisingly little evidence. Mr. Obama’s ability to attract wildly enthusiastic crowds to rallies is a good omen for the general election; so is his ability to raise large sums. But neither necessarily points to a landslide victory. Polling numbers aren’t much help: for now, at least, you can find polls telling you anything you want to hear, from the CBS News/New York Times poll giving Mr. Obama a 12-point national advantage over John McCain to the Mason-Dixon poll showing Mr. McCain winning Florida by 10 points. What we do know is that Mr. Obama has never faced a serious Republican opponent — and that he has not yet faced the hostile media treatment doled out to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1988. Yes, I know that both the Obama campaign and many reporters deny that he has received more favorable treatment than Hillary Clinton. But they’re kidding, right? Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.” If Mr. Obama secures the nomination, the honeymoon will be over as he faces an opponent whom much of the press loves as much as it hates Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton can do nothing right, Mr. McCain can do nothing wrong — even when he panders outrageously, he’s forgiven because he looks uncomfortable doing it. Honest. Bob Somerby of the media-criticism site dailyhowler.com predicts that Mr. Obama will be “Dukakised”: “treated as an alien, unsettling presence.” That sounds all too plausible. If Mr. Obama does make it to the White House, will he actually deliver the transformational politics he promises? Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else. And some Illinois legislators apparently feel that even there Mr. Obama got a bit more glory than he deserved. “No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit,” one state senator complained to a local journalist. All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart.

To: American Spirit who wrote (22062)	3/3/2008 3:42:52 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224744

There may be nothing more in Mr. Obama's dealings with Mr. Rezko beyond an "appearance of impropriety." Still, Mr. Obama does have an obligation to explain how he fits into Chicago politics. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's Karl Rove, is a longtime spoke in the Daley machine that's dominated Chicago for a half century. Gov. Blagojevich, also part of the machine, shared key fund raisers with Mr. Obama. "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News. He notes that, while Mr. Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he has "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians." Mr. Obama will eventually have to talk about Illinois, if only to clear the air. After John McCain last month was attacked for cozy ties to lobbyists, he held a news conference and answered every question. Hillary Clinton held a White House news conference on Whitewater and her cattle futures. Mr. Obama must do the same for questions about Mr. Rezko and "the Chicago way" of politics. If he doesn't, they may increasingly haunt his candidacy. Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

To: American Spirit who wrote (22062)	3/3/2008 10:01:27 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224744

What is Hillary hiding? >Two year hold on phone logs-Archives to release Clinton schedules By ANDREW DeMILLO Associated Press Writer LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- The National Archives said Monday it expects to release Hillary Rodham Clinton's schedules as first lady later this month, but has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years. Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives, said a representative for former President Clinton has reviewed about 10,000 pages of Hillary Clinton's schedules and last week approved them for release. The archives will soon notify the White House, which must also sign off on the papers' release. "We are preparing the materials and we still have to give the White House notification. We'll finish processing the materials for opening and we estimate the opening will be before the end of March," Cooper said. She said longtime Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey told the Archives he believes it withheld and redacted materials too stringently, and the Archives is now going back through materials and removing some redactions and re-reviewing documents that might be released after all. The archives said in court papers filed Saturday that it needs more time to process 20,000 pages of Clinton's phone logs that also have been sought by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group that has accused the library of delaying the documents' release. The Archives has said limited staff has hampered the release of records and has accused Judicial Watch of trying to jump ahead of other pending Freedom of Information Act requests. "The library would require a stay of at least one to two years before which it will begin processing the remaining records as the request arises in the queue structure," the Archives said in a motion filed in federal court in Washington. Clinton has faced criticism from fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republicans over the number of White House documents from her husband's administration that have not been made public. A year's delay would keep them from public view until after the Nov. 4 presidential election. Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson said during the weekend that Lindsey had completed his review of the schedules and expected they would be released soon. "We've given the records back over to the Archives. They are now back in the Archives' hands. Our say in the process is over, and I assume that they will be releasing them very expeditiously," Wolfson said on ABC's "This Week." The schedules were forwarded to Lindsey, who is also chief executive officer of the Clinton Foundation, for review on Jan. 31. There is no fixed timeline for the White House review. Messages left for Lindsey with the Clinton Foundation's offices in New York and Little Rock were not immediately returned Monday. Cooper said Lindsey approved releasing some documents from the schedules that the Archives had recommended withholding, but did not know how many pages he approved. Archivists have been sorting through 80 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mails from Bill Clinton's two terms, but few records have come out of the library in response to Freedom of Information requests since the archives began accepting them in January 2006. The library processes requests based on when they were received. Judicial Watch also has sued the Archives to force the release of documents from a health care task force Hillary Clinton chaired as first lady. The Archives has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit or delay the documents' release for at least a year. Judicial Watch last week asked the court to deny the Archives' request.<