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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (26466)	4/22/2008 9:31:31 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224748

Fact is Obama’s risky-McCain Ties Obama in Mass. By Michael Graham \| April 22, 2008 \| bostonherald.com \| Op-Ed Barack Obama, meet John Adams. Adams noted during the Boston Massacre trial that “Facts are stubborn things.” And it appears that, for the moment, the facts have caught up with Obama here in Massachusetts. How else to explain the amazing, astounding and unthinkable results of the latest SurveyUSA presidential poll: Republican John McCain is tied with Barack Obama in the Bay State. The last Republican to win Massachusetts? Ronald Reagan. The last Republican before that? Dwight Eisenhower. Even George McGovern managed to carry Massachusetts in 1972, the one Democratic holdout in Richard Nixon’s 49-state landslide. Replace “McGovern” with “MoveOn.org” and you’ve seized the essence of the Obama candidacy. He’s the most liberal U.S. senator, advocating tax increases on the “wealthy” and enjoying the support of Gov. Deval Patrick, Sen. Ted Kennedy, The Boston Globe-Democrat and every 9/11 conspiracy kook in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. He’s got all the players in Massachusetts behind him except the ones who actually vote. While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error. Holly Robichaud, the “Lone Republican” of Boston Herald fame, blames Patrick for Obama’s woes. “We’ve already elected one inexperienced candidate running on a vague platform of hope in Massachusetts, and it’s not working out. This is a classic example of ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’ ” Not a bad theory, given that SurveyUSA also found only four in 10 residents approve of the job Gov. Patrick is doing. But I think that the question driving Obama’s numbers down of late - Clinton passed him in Gallup’s national head-to-head this past weekend for the first time in weeks - is that liberals wonder if he can give them that which they crave most. Not socialized medicine. Not surrender in Iraq. Not even higher taxes on evil, rich, white oil company executives. What they want is victory - at virtually any cost. Typical Americans want to know if Obama, a liberal community activist with little political or executive experience, is tough enough to face our enemies in a troubled world. Massachusetts Democrats could not care less - they just want to make sure he’s tough enough to take on McCain. And because the answer is “probably not,” Obama is struggling among what should be his most ardent admirers. Massachusetts liberals like him as a guy, and they certainly support his politics. But they really hate losers. The Democratic passion for victory is palpable. The sting of 2004, when exit-poll reporting had John Kerry supporters cheering at 4 p.m. and crying at midnight, is a painful memory. For a while, Obama was the golden child. His campaign allegedly inspired Obamacans to abandon the GOP in red states like Montana. As long as he looked like a winner, the Obama Express could not be stopped. Now, it’s the post-Rev. Wright Obama - insulting “clinging” rural voters, running attack ads of questionable veracity, making public statements on things from gun control (for it) and higher taxes (for them, too) that are demonstrably untrue.cw-2 This may be the righter “left” way to govern, but is it the way to beat McCain? Until Democrats have an answer, Hillary Clinton won’t be dropping out of the race. Why should she?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (26466)	4/22/2008 9:47:32 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Hamas rebuts Carter's claim of concession By Joshua Mitnick April 22, 2008 Former President Jimmy Carter said after meeting with Hamas that it had agreed to accept Israel's right to exist, a statement Hamas repudiated later yesterday. (United Press International) JERUSALEM — Hamas said yesterday it was prepared to accept a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, but contradicted a statement by former President Jimmy Carter that it would accept Israel's right to exist if that was the will of the Palestinian people. State Department officials said the Hamas statement fell far short of what was needed for the militant movement to play a constructive role in the administration's drive for a Middle East peace deal before President Bush leaves office. Mr. Carter — who infuriated Israeli leaders by meeting in Damascus, Syria, with Hamas' political leader, Khalid Mashaal — announced what appeared to be a significant concession in an address yesterday to the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations. Hamas "said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians, and that they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor in peace, provided the agreements negotiated by [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians," Mr. Carter said. The Islamic militants have opposed any recognition of the Jewish state, speaking only of accepting a two-state solution in the framework of a long-term truce rather than a peace treaty. However, at a later press conference in Damascus, Mr. Mashaal backed away from the concession announced by Mr. Carter. "We accept a state on the [1967] line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees, but without recognizing Israel," Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. Officials and analysts were divided on the significance of Hamas' talks with Mr. Carter, who has been barnstorming through the Middle East for the past eight days to make the argument for engaging the Islamic militants. "For the first time, there's a public indication of Hamas' willingness to accept a peace deal with Israel," said Gershon Baskin, co-president of the Israel-Palestinian Center for Research and Information. "It's the first indication that Hamas has said in public that it's turning its back on its own covenant of never recognizing Israel and never making peace with Israel. This is enormous news." However, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington that it was clear "nothing has changed in terms of Hamas' basic views about Israel and about peace in the region." "They still refuse to acknowledge or recognize any of the basic Quartet principles, including recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and acknowledging all the previous agreements that have been made between the Palestinian Authority and Israel itself. "I think," he said, "if you look back at the history of the rhetoric from Hamas, you see... language about truces and other kinds of issues. "But the bottom line is, Hamas still believes in the destruction of the state of Israel. They don't believe Israel has a right to exist. And it's pretty hard to see how Hamas becomes any kind of legitimate partner for Israel or for President Abbas, for that matter, as long as its fundamental view is that the person that you would achieve a peace agreement with doesn't have a right to exist." An Israeli government spokesman declined to comment on the Hamas remarks relayed by Mr. Carter. The Palestinian Authority was similarly mum. Any ratification of a peace treaty by the Palestinian people would be problematic since it is hard to see how a vote could be held without a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions. Mr. Abbas has said he plans to put a peace treaty to a vote, but it is unclear whether it would be in a referendum or a vote for the legislature, and who would be eligible to vote. • Nicholas Kralev contributed to this report from Washington.