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: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (29405)	5/31/2008 12:14:45 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224749

It's a positive omen for Hillary...another forum title change might be necessary in the next few wks.

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (29405)	5/31/2008 12:50:50 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

Looks as tho' Hillary will be Obama's VP >The Argument for Nominating Hillary By LANNY J. DAVIS May 31, 2008, wsj.com After the votes are in from Puerto Rico tomorrow and South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will be able to make a facts-based case that they represent a significant majority of grass-roots Democrats. Chances are Sens. Obama and Clinton will virtually split the more than 4,400 delegates – including Florida and Michigan – elected by more than 34 million people over the past five months. Sen. Clinton has already won the most votes, but there is controversy over including the over 300,000 votes from Michigan, since Sen. Obama was not on the ballot (by his own choice). But if Sen. Clinton wins a substantial victory in Puerto Rico tomorrow – with an expected record turnout exceeding two million voters – she could well end up with more popular votes than Sen. Obama, even if Michigan's primary votes are excluded. Worst case, she could come out with a 2% deficit in elected pledged delegates. But that gap can be made up, if most of the remaining 200 or so unpledged superdelegates decide to support Sen. Clinton as the strongest candidate against John McCain – or if others committed to Sen. Obama decide to change their minds for the same reason. A number of superdelegates previously committed to Sen. Clinton later announced support for Sen. Obama, so it's certainly possible that, when confronted with growing evidence that Sen. Clinton is stronger than Sen. McCain, they might switch back. The final argument for Hillary comes down to three points – with points one and two leading to the third. First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good president, I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both "in" and "outside" the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That's just a fact. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the "experience" issue. Second, Sen. Clinton's position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain's total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama's position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won't challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton's plan. Despite the fact that Sen. Obama's campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton's. In 2004, Sen. Obama said he "did not know" how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage" of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush's position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed. Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate). According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. "On this basis," Gallup concludes: "Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election." The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation's voters, but "represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes." Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%). Gallup's state-by-state polling in seven key battleground "purple" states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points – a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states – constituting 105 electoral votes – are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan. Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses – Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half – 54 – of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading. The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup's findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days: - Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied. - Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%. - Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!) - North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%). - Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%. Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of "red" states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin – one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain. Finally, one unfortunate argument is making the rounds lately to convince superdelegates to go for Sen. Obama. That is the prediction that if Sen. Obama is not the nominee, African-American and other passionate Obama supporters will conclude that the nomination had been "stolen" and will walk out of the convention or stay at home. On the other side are the many women and others strongly committed to Sen. Clinton promising that if she is denied the nomination, they will refuse to vote for Sen. Obama. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are progressive, pro-civil rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice Democrats. Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters who care about the issues, the Supreme Court, and the need to begin withdrawing from Iraq can truly mean they will actively or passively help Sen. McCain get elected. Threats of walkouts or stay-at-homes by good Democrats are not the answer, nor should they be a factor in superdelegate decisions. But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008: A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket. Stay tuned. Mr. Davis was special counsel to President Clinton in 1996-98.

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (29405)	5/31/2008 1:45:51 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224749

Remedies are not simple. Companies want to be in Iowa because wages are lower than elsewhere in the nation or region, except South Dakota. But low wages also drive young college graduates out of the state, especially as student debt loads have risen, and they discourage workers from other states from moving to Iowa. Some, like Mr. Tew, accept relatively low wages in exchange for Iowa’s low cost of living. Companies compete on amenities and benefits more than salary, said Craig Jackman, president of Paragon IT Professionals, a recruiter and consultant firm. Steven Smith, who runs a small technology company called GCommerce, was not deterred. After starting the company in the New York suburbs, he moved to downtown Des Moines in 2004, and expects to expand to 50 employees by the end of the year, from the mid-30s now. He said the costs of business were less than half what they were in New York, primarily because salaries and real estate prices are lower. But he said it was difficult to hire people for advanced technical positions. “I plan a certain amount of my time during the week, 5 to 10 hours, recruiting. You’ve got to work at it. They’re not just going to come to you.” Like many executives here, he has adopted programs to lure recent retirees back to work part time. To retain staff, he provides stock options, flex time and short Fridays in the summer. And he has had to be flexible on salary. “People who have a real marketable skill, they know they can call their shots,” he said. Several companies are starting to reach into the high schools, identifying students and promising to pay their community college costs, with the guarantee of a job after graduation. Others are looking to the prison system. Forty employers recently participated in a job fair for about 300 inmates in the downtown convention center. The community college system is at the center of many efforts to address the jobs surplus. The state and private employers like Wells Fargo and Principal Financial, which are both based in Des Moines, have made $23 million available for students to take courses to prepare them for specific jobs, with promises at the end of tuition reimbursement and positions starting at $30,000 to $40,000 for graduates with a two-year degree. But programs for the jobs in highest demand, including nurses and welders, have long waiting lists. “Employers come to us, asking, ‘Do you have any graduates coming up in this field?’ ” said Scott Ocken, dean of industry and technology. “A lot of times we have to say, ‘We do, but they’re already hired.’ ” Robert Anderson, executive chef at the college’s culinary institute, said he had two or three job offers for every student. For Michael LeVere, 38, a database administrator at Wells Fargo who recently accepted a newly created position at Federal Home Loan Bank, the jobs surplus has been both a balm and a chore. On a recent afternoon, he was struggling to find someone to replace him. The only applicant from Iowa was already working at Wells Fargo. As for his new job, he said, “If this doesn’t work out, in a year there’ll be opportunities.” To try to keep young professionals, the government and industries have poured nearly $2.8 billion into development projects in downtown Des Moines, including a new neighborhood of shops and lofts that wears its ambitions in its name: the East Village. On a recent weekend, a few restaurants had hour-plus waits for tables, and bar traffic was brisk. Mr. Tew, who lives and works downtown, said that until a few years ago, the neighborhood emptied after business hours. “Now I’m out till 12:30 or 1 in the morning,” he said. “I don’t leave the downtown area if I can help it.” China Wong, who runs Salon W in the East Village, said her business was expanding. She recently signed a lease on a bigger space and hired two new stylists. Being out of sync with the national economy has its advantages, she said. “We have extra income for stocks that are undervalued right now,” said Ms. Wong, who previously worked for an investment research firm. “I’ve increased my stock purchases by 20 percent.” For Jessica Miller, 23, the changes in downtown Des Moines were enough to draw her back after college in Chicago. She found her job — in marketing and advertising at a magazine group — by the city’s extensive networking channels. She said networking added to her sense of security, because she always hears of openings. “We decided at work, we’re not participating in this economic downturn,” she said. But the state remains a tough sell with young Iowans. For Jessamyn Thomas, 18, a high school senior who hopes to move to Chicago after she graduates from Iowa State University, life in an economic bubble is not enough. “There’s opportunities here,” she said. “But it’s also the same place you’ve lived all your life, and it’s Iowa, so it’s not very exciting.” Her classmate Tucker Slauson, 17, agreed. “There’s jobs here,” he said, “because everybody leaves.”