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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (120796)	4/16/2008 11:13:37 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 173976

When the radical Muslim cockroaches you defend honor the Geneva convention, get back to me. Immediately. I'll be right here. I promise.

To: Land Shark who wrote (120796)	4/16/2008 11:19:35 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 173976

8:30 p.m. Charlie Gibson's question to Barack Obama about exactly when he heard offensive remarks from Rev. Wright puts the Land-of-Lincolner on the spot. Gibson asks Obama to explain why he disinvited Obama from blessing his presidential campaign a year ago, but failed to speak out publicly against him until very recently. Obama tried to draw a distinction between generally controversial remarks from Wright and the specific remarks that have been playing over and over again on YouTube, including the GD America comment. He seems to be walking a very fine line. He failed to clear up precisely why he withdrew the invitation to Wright. Clinton twisted the knife by saying that the choice of pastor is a personal choice, and she would not have remained a member of Wright's congregation.

To: Land Shark who wrote (120796)	4/17/2008 12:24:32 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 173976

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government. With a few exceptions — one being when he recalled Mrs. Clinton’s dismissive statement in 1992 about not wanting to spend her life at home baking cookies, an attempt to counter her attacks on his recent statements about religion and small-town values — Mr. Obama chose not to go after his rival aggressively, even when he was asked whether voters considered her honest. The political implications of his performance remained unclear. As Mrs. Clinton was again reminded by a poll Wednesday in The Washington Post, there are risks to going on the attack as she has over the past six weeks: She is viewed unfavorably by an increasingly large number of voters. Mrs. Clinton can afford nothing short of a strong victory in Pennsylvania’s primary on Tuesday as she looks for a rationale to proceed with her candidacy and stir doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to appeal to white, blue-collar voters. But Mrs. Clinton’s audience in attacking Mr. Obama and his electability was not just voters here, but also the unaligned Democratic superdelegates — elected officials and party leaders — whose choices are going to determine who gets the nomination. That was particularly clear when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama tangled over his statement at a California fund-raiser that many small-town voters who are bitter over their economic circumstances “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Mr. Obama said that he had misspoken and that he understood why voters would be offended by those remarks. But he accused Mrs. Clinton of seeking to parse his words for political gain in a way that he said accounted for widespread cynicism about politics.