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: tonto who wrote (27402)	5/3/2008 9:06:19 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Everybody agrees - McCain and Clinton are pandering with the proposal on gas tax holiday.

To: tonto who wrote (27402)	5/4/2008 9:25:06 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224729

Obama, Wright: How Much Damage? Saturday, May. 03, 2008 By MASSIMO CALABRESI Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright Voters have been running from Barack Obama since the Jeremiah Wright scandal erupted. A Zogby poll conducted this week in Indiana ahead of its key primary next Tuesday found that 21% of likely Democratic primary voters said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result of his former pastor's statements. But why, exactly, are these and other voters fleeing? The answer could make the difference in Obama's chances to win the nomination and to pull out election victory in November. And it could tell us something about the state of racial politics in America. There is a very small subset of voters who are sympathetic to Wright's expressions of respect for Louis Farakhan, his condemnation of America's 60-year bipartisan approach to Israel and his suspicions about U.S. involvement in the creation of the AIDS virus. The vast majority thinks his views on those issues are at least wrong, if not outright offensive. But what conclusion do those voters draw about Obama as a result? Do they imagine that Obama believes the same things? Or do they think Obama disagrees with them, but question his credibility because of his belated disavowal of the preacher who holds them? Obama can marshal a lot of evidence to show he doesn't believe what Wright believes: his personal history, his professional life, his voting record all show he has fairly mainstream if somewhat liberal views on U.S. domestic and foreign policy. But Wright's inflammatory statements in the past week forced Obama to make a renunciation that undermined the credibility of his well-received Philadelphia speech on race, in which he explained why he listened to Wright's speeches to begin with. "The difficulty people would have is precisely that: if he has been going to that church for a long time how could he not know?" says Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. The question now for Obama is which is worse — people thinking you agree with Wright, or people not believing your high-minded explanations for associating with him. A Rasmussen poll out Friday tries to peel back some of these issues, and the answers are not particularly heartening for Obama. In a survey of 800 likely voters, Rasmussen finds that 58% think Obama has denounced Wright because it's politically convenient, while 30% say he did so because he was outraged (13% say they're not sure). Only 33% say they think Obama was surprised by Wright's views, while 52% say they think he was not. Just as troubling for Obama, a majority of people associate his views with those of Wright: despite his denials, 56% said that it was somewhat or very likely that Obama shares some of Wright's views, while 35% said it was not very or not at all likely (8% were unsure). The survey shows a racial divide in the response: 55% of whites think Obama shares some of Wright's views, versus 47% of blacks and 74% of those identifying themselves as "other." Associating Obama with Wright's radical views raises the specter of racial stereotyping. Those who impute to Obama radical views about AIDS, Israel or black nationalism are knowingly discounting his stated positions and making assumptions that may be influenced by his race. Just how much of that is going on is hard to measure. But if there's a racial component to voters' abandonment of Obama in the wake of the Wright affair, it's safe to say those voters aren't coming back. Wounds caused by damaged credibility, of course, are also hard to heal. "The problem with credibility," says Pew's Keeter, "Is that people think of it as a fundamental character trait. Some measure of lack of honesty is damaging because it leads to a broader generalization." Obama's approach to the problem appears to be to empahsize his mainstream views and shore up his credibility through other associations. Endorsements from people like former Hillary Clinton supporter and onetime Democratic chairman Joe Andrew "can help you stop the damage from this kind of affair," says Keeter. Maybe. But at least repairing damaged credibility is possible; healing the country's racial divide is a lot more difficult. time.com lol looks like Time didn't use spell check. "empahsize"? <g>

To: tonto who wrote (27402)	5/4/2008 10:00:34 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224729

Clinton zooms from grim to a grin BY KENNETH R. BAZINET, MICHAEL McAULIFF and DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Sunday, May 4th 2008, 4:00 AM Raedle/Getty Hillary Clinton walks on stage Saturday as she is introduced during a taping of the MomLogic.com show at Cary High School in Raleigh, North Carolina. Barack Obama is leading among pledged delegates. He's won twice as many states as rival Hillary Clinton. His campaign is leagues ahead in fund-raising. So why is Clinton smiling so much these days? Because behind that smile, insiders say, there is rising hope that all is not lost, and that the former First Lady's new strategy of being her own attack dog - striking at Obama whenever he lets his guard down - is proving effective. She won big in Pennsylvania and, said one insider, "Her poll numbers are skyrocketing, she's broken her superdelegate drought. "She's a human being. Who wouldn't be smiling?" Yes, Clinton is still a longshot for the nomination, conceded the insider, but that's better than having no shot, which is where she seemed to be a few weeks ago. With critical primaries in North Carolina and Indiana set for Tuesday, there's no question that Clinton - while still facing steep, maybe insurmountable hurdles in the all-important delegate race - has finally found her game. It turns out to be a full-contact sport in which Clinton - rather than some surrogate - is increasingly the one to throw an uppercut the moment the Illinois senator leaves himself open. Clinton reveled in that role Saturday - pausing amid a series of shots at Obama and President Bush to say so. "Oh, I love campaigning," a smiling Clinton told a crowd in Gastonia, N.C., that cheered many of her zingers. It's a shift that advisers trace back to January when, during a fierce debate in South Carolina, Clinton tagged Obama for representing developer Tony Rezko "in his slum landlord business." For weeks before that, Clinton's campaign had tried to quietly steer reporters toward Rezko, an Obama contributor who was on trial for fraud. "It was all business page stuff," one Clinton insider said of the muted response. But once Clinton picked up the baton, stories about Rezko vaulted into the front of the paper. The lesson inside Hillaryland? The hits only stick when Clinton throws them, even though aides insist she remains a reluctant grenade-thrower and is happier to let her husband fill that role. The strategy was employed again in late March, when Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with a nuanced speech on race. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton dug. When the Illinois senator committed his inartful guns-and-God gaffe in Pennsylvania, she pounced again, calling the comments "elitist and divisive." And when Obama this week declared he had broken all ties with Wright, she dug still deeper. "Finally," she said. Her fortunes seemed to rise with each hit, as Obama struggled to regain his stride. What's still not clear is whether this is a winning strategy for Clinton, or simply a way for her to run out the clock in the hopes that support for Obama craters. Obama still has more delegates. And the math suggests that unless Clinton wins 70% of the vote in all nine remaining contests - a nearly impossible margin - and roughly half of the remaining undecided superdelegates, she can't catch him. "Her chance of winning the nomination may still be slim," one Clintonista conceded, "but it's a lot better than it used to be." dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com nydailynews.com