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: Dale Baker who wrote (52721)	3/9/2008 7:17:18 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 543198

How Clinton camp justifies Obama VP but not CinC by Mike Dorning Does Hillary Clinton believe Barack Obama is good enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still a second-rate choice for commander-in-chief? As Clinton’s campaign simultaneously questions Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and enthusiastically promotes him as a vice-presidential choice should she win the nomination, a Clinton surrogate this morning made the unusual argument that Obama is “qualified” to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still falls far short of Clinton’s readiness for the job. Tim Russert, moderator for “Meet the Press,” bored in on the seeming inconsistency in questioning Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, a surrogate who appeared on behalf of the Clinton campaign. ...contd at weblogs.baltimoresun.com While the Clinton campaign’s recent rhetoric suggests that Obama may not meet the standard of readiness voters would expect in a commander-in-chief, Rendell argued that Obama is in fact “ready” for the job.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (52721)	3/9/2008 7:37:13 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543198

<<<They are clearly part of the problem yet if we don't pick one of them we are making a terrible mistake and running an awful risk and believing in dreams and fairy tales and all the rest.>>> I don't think Obama gets it. There is division in our country over the vision for the future of our country. There is the future that is defined by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR. Al Gore, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and the democratic party adhere to those principles as they have been laid out. Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, Newt Gingrich, and the right wing of the republican party wants us to go into a different direction. George W. Bush and John McClain are their foot soldiers. These two visions are clear. People have to choose. Ronald Reagan was indeed the master communicator. He was able to communicate to his followers, without using the exact words, but he offered the alluson they want to throw the "welfare queen" under the bus. Admittedly, the "welfare queen" is not a sympathetic character, but we can not allow her to be thrown under the bus. We can not tolerate that. What Obama does not understand is that we do not need a new vision. We have a vision. We have to understand that vision and to make that happen. We can not make that happen by embracing the extreme elements trying to "throw all of us under that bus".