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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (24900)	6/28/2008 9:25:10 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

To me, she looked very subdued when she was on the stage with Obama. She left her kitchen sink home and if she continues with that stance, she would be a good choice as Obama's running mate.

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (24900)	6/28/2008 9:40:10 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

No green pastures after Bush Chris Patten \| June 27, 2008 THERE is a marvellous painting by Brueghel in a Brussels art gallery. British poet W.H. Auden was sufficiently impressed to write a poem about it. The painting shows Icarus, his wings melted, plunging to a watery grave. No one seems very interested. The world goes on, the peasants continue plowing their fields, getting on with their lives. They show no interest in the dramatic fall of Icarus. Real life often seems simply to tick on like that, regardless of headline news and momentous events. So President George W. Bush will go back to Crawford, Texas at the end of the year. Will anyone notice? Does anyone care any more? His wings scorched from Iraq to Guantanamo, Bush already seems to be yesterday's story; his minders carefully steer audiences into the front rows at public events, lest the absence of interest in what he is doing and saying becomes too obvious. The reason we should take more notice of his departure is not what his absence will make possible, but what will remain absolutely the same. Consider four examples. First, we will still have to find better ways of managing the world's economy, reducing its inequities, and coping with its environmental hazards. Most importantly, American and European leadership is required to avoid a lurch into protectionism and the consequent killing off of the Doha trade round. At the same time, the West needs to develop together a negotiating position on carbon emissions and climate change that will engage China and India. It will have to take account of its historic responsibility for global warming, of size of population, and of present economic strength. Second, the Palestine-Israel struggle will continue. Moreover, the US presidential campaign has shown that it is not only the absence of a responsible hands-on US policy in the past seven years that has contributed to today's bloody stand-off. Even senator Barack Obama, who has demonstrated a clear commitment to building a more open-minded, less unilateral relationship with the rest of the world, has said things about Palestine and Israel that would appear to rule out the sort of initiatives required for a peace agreement. Indeed, far from criticising continuing Israeli settlement of the West Bank, Obama has pledged his support - more than some members of the Israeli cabinet have done - to Jerusalem as an undivided capital of Israel. This looks like a green light for all those intransigent supporters of the settlers who have campaigned for the development of East Jerusalem deep into the West Bank, a line of settlements running down to the Dead Sea. It is difficult to see how any future American diplomacy based on this approach will attract Palestinian support. So the Middle East will continue to dominate diplomatic argument and debate. Third, nuclear proliferation will still plague us. How do we deal conclusively with North Korea, which probably already possesses a handful of nuclear weapons? How do we manage our relationship with Iran, which may or may not wish to develop a military nuclear capability as well as civil nuclear power? These questions, with all the knock-on effects in East and West Asia, must be tackled in the run-up to discussions about the renewal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010. The nuclear powers that signed the NPT believe it is solely about preventing proliferation. Other countries argue that it is about disarmament, and that the nuclear countries have clearly agreed to work towards giving up their nuclear weapons. This fudge has been the foundation for the international approach to proliferation. It now seems clear that if we want a non-proliferation treaty with more teeth - for example, tougher monitoring and surveillance - countries with nuclear weapons will have to honour what others believe is their side of an unfair bargain. Finally, even after Bush - who became so unpopular in Europe (not always fairly) - the European Union will find it hard to become the partner in tackling global problems that the US needs and seeks. The latest row about the so-called Lisbon Treaty, caused by its rejection in a referendum in Ireland, reminds everyone of Europe's main problem. Europe sometimes seems more concerned about its own institutional arrangements and internal affairs than about its global responsibilities. But global poverty, environmental catastrophe, proliferation, Afghanistan and the Middle East are not problems that can be put on hold while Europe talks to itself. Moreover, Europe too often gives the impression that its citizens can be taken for granted. If what Europe's leaders decide among themselves is criticised or rejected by those who elect them, it just shows - the elite seem to suggest - how correct it was to ignore them in the first place. But Europe cannot be built on this democratic deficit. The EU must increase the involvement of its own voters in endorsing and supporting the decisions taken in Brussels. This lesson needs to be learned fast. So, Bush and Dick Cheney will go. But a lot of the same old problems will be around. Welcome to the real world. Chris Patten is a former governor of Hong Kong and European commissioner for external affairs. He is chancellor of Oxford University and co-chairman of the International Crisis Group. theaustralian.news.com.au

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (24900)	6/28/2008 3:22:23 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

'Bounce' from beating Hillary Clinton has Barack Obama out in front BY DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT Saturday, June 28th 2008, 2:16 PM Barack Obama was all smiles as he spoke to a group of Latino officials in Washington Saturday. Most polls show him significantly ahead of rival John McCain. Barack Obama was all smiles as he spoke to a group of Latino officials in Washington Saturday. Most polls show him significantly ahead of rival John McCain. Barack Obama's got his bounce back. Six months after he bounded out of Iowa with his first upset win - and 128 days before voters pick a new President - the Democratic hopeful appears to be settling into a clear front-runner position over GOP opponent John McCain. Two national polls last week placed Obama's lead in the double digits, while a smattering of others had him up four to six points - a healthy spread most pundits credited to the Democrat's hoped-for "bounce" from his primary victory over Hillary Clinton. Another survey had Obama up in four key swing states - Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin - by five to 17 points. "It confirms the bump which Obama was expected to get after his grueling battle with Hillary," said Iowa State University politics Prof. Steffan Schmidt. "But on the other hand, we've seen Hillary Clinton go from being an 'unbeatable' 25 points ahead to losing the nomination." Indeed, in a year when nothing seems to have gone as predicted (remember GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani?), no one is breaking out the champagne just yet. No one expects Obama to implode. He has more money than McCain and a seemingly sure-footed campaign team, and polls show most Americans think the nation's on the wrong track - a mood that should favor Democrats. If anything, some argue, Obama ought to be further ahead, given growing opposition to the Iraq war, President Bush's dismal poll numbers and the financial pinch many Americans feel every time they pull up to the gas pump. "McCain is swimming into a hurricane with an anvil tied around his neck," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "So in that context, I'd say he's doing quite well." What McCain's campaign seems most worried about is allowing talk of double-digit leads and a possible blowout to harden into a running, self-reinforcing theme. McCain himself did his best last week to lecture reporters on the meaninglessness of early presidential polls. "The first lesson I want you to draw is that people are really not gonna start focusing on the campaign until the conventions," McCain told reporters. "So a lot of this polling data is pretty much, sort of, you know, 'Who do you like?' " That may be. But plenty of others believe McCain's drooping numbers also reflect his campaign's failure to deliver a consistent message as the general election comes into focus. Not helping was a comment last week from top adviser Charlie Black, who said another terror attack would be a "big advantage" for the veteran McCain. "McCain's campaign has just had a lot of glitches," said Schmidt. "He recovers from them, but I think those things each leave a small dent in him." dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com