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 : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2605)	4/3/2008 8:38:27 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 3215

A Hotel Boosted by a Bedtime Story By Ylan Q. Mui Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 3, 2008; Page D01 Sometimes, a little scandal can be good for business. Ever since news of then-New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's purported $4,300 tryst broke last month, the Mayflower Hotel -- where his assignation with a call girl supposedly took place -- has been awash with tourists, gawkers and assorted voyeurs all wanting their own piece of the action. The center of the storm has been the hotel's tiny gift shop, tucked away on the first floor and stocked with merchandise bearing the Mayflower logo and the catchphrase coined by Harry S. Truman: "Washington's Second Best Address." Sales have increased sharply since the Spitzer scandal, resident manager Joseph Cardone said. There has been a rush on the Mayflower's luxuriously soft white terry-cloth bathrobes, stocked in every guest room (yes, including the infamous 871) and available to take home for $69.99. Mayflower mints were also popular, with one person snatching up two cases. The coffee mugs sold out after another shopper bought several dozen. Other people have been less scrupulous. A few weeks ago, the sign for Room 871 was stolen from the hotel. Cardone said he doesn't know who took it or even how it was removed. The only sure thing is that it was gone. The numbers have been replaced. "It's a chance to remember the names in the paper," Cardone said. "The mystique and aura of the hotel have come through." More middling players are offering Spitzer campaign buttons and copies of newspaper coverage on eBay. One person is hawking an official Spitzer inauguration invitation, but bid activity has been slow. The Web counter lists only 14 visits. The Mayflower boasts cachet that few other hotels can match. It has long been a stop on the tour bus circuit, but Cardone said he has noticed more people hopping off to nose around. The concierge gives them free postcards, and there are plaques throughout the hotel commemorating notable moments in Mayflower history -- like the time Winston Churchill told a bawdy joke in one of the domed ballrooms that carried across to the women at the other end. As for Spitzer, history will be left to the souvenir hunters. There are no plans for a plaque, Cardone said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2605)	4/3/2008 8:40:48 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

If we are tortured with another Dimocrat debate, please ask Barack Hussein on my part; Senator Obasama, RAT wants to know: Should God Damn America for allowing you to be a Senate Representative, for Not electing you as an un-qualified President, or for being sooooooo stupid as to allow a Socialist Racist like yourself, to actually be the President? His inquiring little Mind, wants to know! ;~) Posted by: rat-the \| April 3, 2008 02:29 PM blog.washingtonpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2605)	4/3/2008 8:41:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 3215

Oh great another debate?! {SARCASM!} I'm sure the Hillary camp was excited to get asked for another debate. It means free publicly because financially the Hillary camp has problems. These debates don't resolve anything relevant to Americans. The debates will simply focus on issues like Rev. Wright, Bosnia Trip, Drop-out pressures, Michigan/Florida revotes and etc. I already know both their positions on the major topics. The main stream media just wants a prolonged Democratic race fight for viewship. The more people who watch the more commercials during this timeframe cost. Posted by: ajtiger92 \| April 3, 2008 03:29 PM

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2605)	4/3/2008 8:44:02 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 3215

Here's why I say CBS, especially Couric, are blatantly biased: For instance... There were clear differences in CBS's two most comprehensive reports on the Democratic candidates in "For the Record," which ran in late February, prior to the Texas and Ohio primaries. For the story on Clinton, CBS (Evening News Managing Editor Katy Couric) assigned Nancy Cordes, a reporter with under 10 years of national experience, primarily in Washington and New York, who has covered one presidential campaign and now covers Transportation and Consumer Safety -- not exactly a seasoned pro. For the story on Obama, CBS assigned Dean Reynolds, a 23-year veteran of national and international news, the son of legendary broadcaster Frank Reynolds, and the recipient of three Emmys, who has covered multiple presidential campaigns and is based in Obama's political birthplace, Chicago. The story on Clinton was much more positive and more than a minute longer than the story on Obama -- a lifetime in network news. Not until nearly five minutes into the eight-minute Clinton profile did Cordes interrupt the fawning tone of her piece for a few mentions of Clinton scandals, which Cordes quickly dismissed, never to revisit them for the remainder of the piece. Her tone was glowing, comparing Clinton's U.S. Senate persona as "work horse" to Obama's "show horse" persona. The piece began as it ended, on an upbeat note, with barely a trace of criticism aimed at Clinton, and that bit primarily on her closed-door health care planning. There was no mention of her Senate record or her anti-union service on the Wal-Mart board of directors -- curious omissions, given that Clinton's Senate record nearly mirrors Obama's and that Ohio is a bastion of pro-labor sentiment. The only mention of any charge leveled against her in the campaign concerned her vote on Iraq. In the first 30 seconds of his report, Reynolds called Obama a "traditional liberal," citing such non-issues thus far in the campaign as "marijuana use" (huh?!!). Then came was a left-handed testimonial from Illinois state Sen. Bill Brady that began with Brady noting "I can't think of a tax increase he didn't embrace." At just under one-and-a-half minutes into his piece, Reynolds repeated the Clinton campaign's attack that Obama voted "present" more than 100 times out of over 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate, offering a source's "It's not that unusual" as the only explanation. From there Reynolds barely noted Obama's accomplishments, citing only a few in less than 30 seconds. Then followed a litany of criticism that ran virtually unabated for the remainder of the report. Reynolds raised unproven charges, questionable dealings and provocative innuendo that he never addressed, rehashing such questions as "Is Obama Muslim," providing Obama's own words as the only evidence he is not, rather than any of the considerable body of supporting evidence already on file at other news organizations. On the patriotism questions "no flag pin on the lapel?" and "no hand over the heart?" Reynolds never even bothered to give any answers to his own questions, not even Obama's own explanations or CSPAN footage of Obama leading the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Reynolds then linked Obama to Louis Farrakhan and to Tony Rezko, providing no evidence that Obama has done either of these two men any favors or committed any unethical wrongdoing. Contrast this with Cordes' complete omission of Clinton's million-dollar bundling from questionable supporters, including one wanted for three years on a warrant for arrest. From start to finish, the tone of the two reports was starkly different. Cordes' narrative lavished praise on Clinton's intrepid rise to stature as a woman who has worked hard to even the odds for herself. But the Reynolds piece called into question every aspect of Obama's rise to prominence, suggesting without evidence that his success was due to shady political connections, political cowardice, a $1.2 million donation from a single company (actually, the total from that company's employees), ephemeral speeches and "a charmed life," rather than crediting Obama's own hard work against the intimidating odds. As a journalist of 25 years, I can think of nothing to justify the obvious bias represented by the contrast between the Obama attack piece and the Clinton puff piece. Couric leads an appallingly transparent charge to elect Clinton. This is but one example of why a CBS-sponsored debate would only add to the network's list of abuses. Posted by: rippermccord \| April 3, 2008 04:49 PM