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: Skywatcher who wrote (121428)	4/24/2008 6:35:40 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Take a hike, you hateful ignoramus.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (121428)	4/24/2008 9:15:43 PM
From: Jane4IceCream	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

So in other words what you are saying is Bush is going to be responsible for Armageddon. If you ask me I think there is a better chance that the aliens from outer space will strike first and zap us all. Either way.....guess I better cash in my cd's now! Jane

To: Skywatcher who wrote (121428)	4/25/2008 10:22:09 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 173976

E. J. Dionne at The Washington Post looks at one Pennsylvania statistic that hasn’t received as much play: “6 percent of Clinton’s own voters said that they would defect to John McCain in the fall against Clinton herself. These Pennsylvania Democrats clearly were not Clinton enthusiasts. They were voting against Obama.” The question here is how much race played a role in this. The answer is it had some bearing, but it’s difficult to say how much. One in six white voters said race was a concern and of those, three-quarters backed Clinton. Then again, Clinton also beat Obama 3 to 2 with whites who said race didn’t matter. “Nonetheless, elections are usually decided at the margins, and these findings will (and should) prompt a more open and candid discussion of race’s role this year,” Dionne says. The media are the latest to jump ship and start questioning whether an Obama candidacy could actually lead to a win in November, Thomas B. Edsall writes on The Huffington Post. Of course, Clinton has been pushing this idea from the start — that Obama has problems with white, middle-class voters that will ultimately cause him to lose the nomination. “Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws,” Edsall notes. “For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal…” Edsall lists a few examples to prove his point. An article in The New Republic compares Obama’s supporters to George McGovern’s in the 70’s and 80’s, essentially a group of very liberal young voters and minorities. Washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza rolled out a blog post called “How Clinton Can Win It.” And finally, Karl Rove wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal summing up Obama’s Rev. Jeremiah Wright debacle and his poor choice of comments about Americans who “cling” to guns, concluding: “Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.” Permalink \| Trackback URL: blogs.wsj.com Save & Share: \| Print