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 (55712)	11/18/2008 5:35:20 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224749

Life time NRA guy, that must hurt

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55712)	11/18/2008 5:43:42 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Holy wright ken.... are dems gonna start to devour each other now? won't that be fun. :-) Cabinet post for Clinton roils Obamaland By BEN SMITH \| 11/18/08 politico.com Barack Obama's serious flirtation with his one-time rival, Hillary Clinton, over the post of secretary of State has been welcomed by everyone from Henry Kissinger to Bill Clinton as an effective, grand gesture by the president-elect. It's not playing quite as well, however, in some precincts of Obamaland. From his supporters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to campaign aides of the soon-to-be commander-in-chief, there's a sense of ambivalence about giving a top political plum to a woman they spent 18 months hammering as the compromised standard-bearer of an era that deserves to be forgotten. "These are people who believe in this stuff more than Barack himself does," said a Democrat close to Obama's campaign. "These guys didn't put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons." An overlooked theme in Obama's primary victory was his belief that the Clinton legacy was not, as the Clintons imagined, a pure political positive. The Obama campaign had no compunctions about poking holes in that legacy and even sent out mailings stressing the downside of the last "8 years of the Clintons" – enraging the former president in particular. And the clearest opposition to the Clinton appointment comes from Obama's backers on the left of his own party, whose initial support for him was motivated in part by a distaste for the Clinton dynasty, and who now view her reemergence with some dismay. "There's always a risk of a Cabinet member freelancing and that risk is enhanced by the fact that Hillary has her own public and her own celebrity and that she comes attached to Bill," said Robert Kuttner, a Clinton critic and co-editor of the American Prospect whose new book, Obama's Challenge, implores the president-elect to adopt an expansive liberal agenda. "The other question is the old rule – never hire somebody you can't fire. What happens if her views and his views don't mesh?" "The silver lining, for those of us who are skeptical, is that it drastically limits the number of other Clinton administration alums that he can appoint, and that's a blessing," Kuttner said. Kuttner hastened to add that Clinton is "very smart" and capable, and that her appointment would be "greeted very well worldwide. And other Democratic foreign policy thinkers who are eager to work in, or with, the Obama administration declined to comment on the record, though they noted that foreign policy was an area that marked some of the deepest disagreements between Clinton and Obama. Some key Obama-Clinton differences: Whether to meet face-to-face with leaders of hostile regimes (he was more open to the idea than she was) and her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. "The specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren't all that well-aligned," wrote the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias. On Capitol Hill, however, even some of the left’s most normally unshrinking violets publicly backed a plan that appears to be almost a fait accompli. "Sen. Clinton is one of the brightest people in Congress and she would be an excellent choice," Vermont's independent senator, Bernie Sanders, told Politico through a spokesman.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55712)	11/18/2008 5:47:50 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Where's the birth certificate? November 17, 2008 © 2008 worldnetdaily.com Incredibly, we are just nine weeks away from inaugurating the next president of the United States and millions of Americans still have citizenship eligibility questions that have never been addressed by Barack Obama and his entourage. All that Barack Obama would have to do to put this issue to rest is to release his complete birth certificate, revealing where he was born and who were his parents. It seems a simple thing. Personally, I doubt the Democratic Party would be so stupid as to run an ineligible candidate for president of the United States. I doubt Hillary Clinton would have accepted defeat at the hands of a candidate ineligible for the job. So it would seem Obama is simply thumbing his nose at the Constitution and the concerns of millions of American people. After all, he has made it clear the Constitution doesn't mean what it says anyway. It's all a matter of opinion. Maybe his intransigence on this seemingly ridiculous matter is just his way of showing he will, as president, consider himself above the Constitution. I don't know any other way to interpret his behavior, do you? Until last week, no one in the Obama camp would even comment on the controversy surrounding his complete birth certificate, which has never been released publicly. That changed after much hounding by WND staffers who managed to get one official Obama representative to proclaim – anonymously, I might add – that seven lawsuits filed by citizens trying to secure the birth certificate are "pure garbage." Obama's record of non-cooperation and secrecy has now resulted in conspiracy theories that will plague him throughout his administration if he doesn't address them now with utter transparence. Do I expect him to do so? No, I don't. He not only thinks those lawsuits are "garbage," evidently that's also what he thinks of the people who truly believe the Constitution means what it says and those who believe there ought to be some controlling legal authority determining Obama's eligibility for the highest office in the land before he is sworn in Jan. 20. Count me among those who really want to see that birth certificate now. Imagine the level of secrecy we can expect from an Obama administration that guards his birth certificate with such tenacity. I'm calling on Barack Obama today to release the entire birth certificate. And just so there is no mistake about what I am calling for, I want the part of the birth certificate that shows which hospital he was born in and who his parents were. That is the only way to establish if he is truly a natural-born citizen. Further, I am asking as a journalist and pundit that if there is any government agency or government official anywhere on the planet who has inspected the birth certificate and can provide those details to the American people, the time to do so is now. I'm also calling on all my colleagues, from coast to coast and around the world, not to let this matter drop. Apparently it is a point of real sensitivity with Obama people. Good. Let's rub it in. Let's demand he produce the birth certificate at every turn – at every press conference, at every appearance, on every talk show. Could anything be more important than enforcing the requirements of our Constitution? This is hardly a laughing matter. The longer this soap opera drags on, the more suspicions it will raise – the less credibility our electoral system will have, the more many people will believe the whole political system is rigged. Whom does that benefit? I honestly can't imagine. What possible motivation could Obama have for not producing this simple, innocuous document that every citizen must produce to get a passport, driver's license or Social Security card? Are you curious? So am I. Where's the birth certificate, Sen. Obama?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55712)	11/19/2008 7:53:29 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224749

The mythmakers are also the myth busters Media fervor over the election of Obama is already being tempered by stories about the harsh realities facing the incoming president. By JAMES RAINEY November 19, 2008 Reporting from On The Media -- Newspaper people are an odd, conflicted sort. They desperately love to be where the action is. They crave the chance to identify a new phenomenon. Then they race to be first to reverse direction -- declaring the new and different hopelessly overblown, or just more of the same old thing. On the Media: Commentary by James Rainey Into this ingrained set of collective impulses rushes the story of Barack Obama, who will be the first African American president, and Howard Kurtz, who is the Washington Post media columnist and (perhaps) first to declare fervor over Obama's election overblown. "Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks on the next big thing," Kurtz wrote this week. "But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking." Given, Kurtz has compiled an impressive list of effusive headlines, hyperbolic Obama-jargon ("Generation O" and "Obamaism") and cultural candy corn -- new songs by Jay-Z and will.i.am and Obama Girl's frothy, flirty YouTube video "I've Got a Crush on Obama." Indeed, we have been, and will be, treated to an entire oeuvre devoted to Michelle O's slammin' wardrobe (OK, excluding that election-night mistake) and serialization of the nationwide search for the hypoallergenic First Puppy. Writing a little breathlessly about all the breathless coverage, Kurtz asks: "Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed 'Generation O'?" Not exactly. That suggestion willfully ignores a lot that papers are writing. On front pages, you can find Obama stories with a decidedly different theme that amounts to this: Man, did this guy ever put himself in the middle of a big fat mess, and how's he going to get himself, and this country, out of it? Besides writing about Generation O, the New York Times wrote within days of Obama's victory about the many promises the candidate made and the many high hurdles the president would have to clear to fulfill them. The story raised the prospect that the president-elect might: find it "extremely challenging" to pay for promised early-childhood education; struggle to find the savings he promised to pay for health insurance for the uninsured, who number 45 million; face a reversal of gains in Iraqi security if he followed through on his promise to withdraw troops in 16 months. Many other cautionary stories have filled the media in recent days. Just Tuesday, the New York Times noted the potential conflicts of interest that could come into play if Obama selects as his secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband has made millions from speaking engagements around the world and raised millions more for his foundation. In another article, it described apparent divisions among Obama's advisors on how forcefully to investigate the domestic wiretapping he once vigorously condemned. That's hardly light and frothy stuff, or suggestive that the nation's paper of record will shrink from challenging our new leader. Similarly, Kurtz tweaked the Chicago Tribune (like the Los Angeles Times, owned by Tribune Co.) for rhapsodizing that Michelle Obama "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" OK, that seems pretty goofy. But it hardly begins to account for the paper's role as earnest hometown watchdog over Obama, including the young pol's relationship with corrupt investor Antoin Rezko. Since election day, the Trib has waged a veritable smackdown against the notion that Obama may be on a glide path to immortality, with several stories detailing the bureaucratic, legislative and financial barriers in his path. "This is a huge story as a matter of policy and government and as a matter of history, including racial history. It's also a fascinating social and cultural moment," said Richard Stevenson, who has directed the New York Times' political coverage. "We don't need to temper that in order to still maintain some distance and report aggressively." Recent history suggests the media will have little pause shouting out when it sees a new president even approaching trouble. Just two weeks after he won election in 1992, Bill Clinton faced a Los Angeles Times article saying his 43% plurality gave him a "fragile base for governing." That's nothing compared to the dark clouds the press painted over the Clinton presidency after 100 days, that mythical moment the press agrees is both an artificial watershed, and an irresistible moment to pass judgment. Stories in the L.A. Times and other papers suggested that Clinton had squandered his election momentum, been distracted by a plan to allow gays in the military and failed to follow through on his pledge to focus on the economy like a "laser beam." Less than three months into President George W. Bush's administration, similarly, an analysis in the L.A. Times concluded that "his presidency is perpetuating -- and perhaps intensifying -- the cycle of partisan hostility he pledged to end as a candidate." Fast forward to the present. Kurtz wonders, "Can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?" No. No one can imagine McCainamania. Just as no one could have imagined a public and media furor over the election of Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Just as no one can imagine how hard the new president will get it, the first time the high-flying rhetoric collides with the low-down realities of the world we live in. Rainey is a Times staff writer. james.rainey@latimes.com latimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55712)	11/19/2008 11:03:04 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224749

Ken, are you dabbling in screenwriting for this lame liberal pap and Hollyweird propaganda from ABC? Weak leftist minds can't distinguish between reality and fiction--they represent the lion's share of the audience for this hate-filled and juvenile fodder: Boston Legal says 55 Million McCain/Palin Supporters are 'Idiots' and Bloggers are 'Entry-Level Life Forms' By Kristen Fyfe November 18, 2008 The scribes of ABC's Boston Legal scripted a show that said McCain/Palin supporters are idiots. Went out of its way to trash Sarah Palin and elevate the election of Barack Obama to mythical status. Oh. And bloggers are "entry level life forms that intellectually have yet to emerge from the primordial ooze." The thrust of the storyline was a lawsuit brought by a woman who claimed she was fired from her job because she voted for McCain. As it turns out her Republican boss fired her because he thought she was stupid and based his conclusion on the fact that the woman was an ardent Hillary supporter who voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin. A double slam from the left-loving writers of Boston Legal. The Obama-supporting characters "Alan Shore" and "Shirley Schmidt" played by James Spader and Candice Bergen represented the Hillary/Palin-supporting woman even though they did think she was stupid...for supporting the McCain ticket. "Schmidt" tells the character "Martha" as much in a conference. "SHIRLEY SCHMIDT:" Honey, the sexist in all this is you. ... You claim to be a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter. You--you walked into that booth and voted against everything Hillary stands for, and why? Because the republicans added to their ticket someone they referred to at the convention as "the hot chick." But it was the character played by Spader who really delivered the Hollywood slapdown of half the country in a dialogue exchange with Bergen's character in which they gauzily reflected on what it means to be "American" and the election of Barack Obama. (My emphasis added.) "SCHMIDT:" Do you think... Martha and Sarah and Joe the... is he an electrician? " "ALAN SHORE:" Plumber, unlicensed. (Chuckles) "SCHMIDT:" are-- are they the real Americans? "SHORE:" Not necessarily. I think that's what this election just proved, that real Americans aren't just rural and white. The portrait of real Americans has been redrawn in this election. Real Americans are of all ages, races, ethnicities. They live in cities and apartments as well as... farms. I... we have a president-elect who fits into no category or demographic whatsoever other than he's an American. "SCHMIDT:" God, I wept that night. (Chuckles) did you? "SHORE:" No, I just... watched and watched and... didn't want the night to end. I already miss Sarah Palin, though. (Laughs) she was fun while she lasted. I hope they let her keep the wardrobe. "SCHMIDT:" I still have to say, though, as heartened as I am by the election and by America... "SHORE:" What? (Laughs) "SCHMIDT:" Martha's a little bit of an idiot. "ALAN SHORE:" Shirley, almost 47% of this country didn't vote for Obama, perhaps because they disagreed with him on the issues, which is fine. But some, no doubt, because they thought he was Muslim with terrorists on his speed dial, and others because th-they were convinced he was not only socialist, but even worse, a bad bowler, and others still because they simply loved those cream-colored jackets Sarah may have to give back. (Laughs) But there's one thing all those idiots have in common. "SHIRLEY SCHMIDT" What? "SHORE:" They still get to vote. (Laughs) In addition to offending 55 million Americans with this storyline (click here for viewer feedback on Boston Legal's web site), the show's writers also took aim at the blogosphere, Dick Cheney, and the American electorate in a monologue delivered by Spader's character arguing on behalf of his "stupid" client. "SHORE:" The unassailable right to vote is the core principle of any democracy. And people have the right to cast their ballot for whomever they want-- for good reasons or for bad reasons or for no reason at all. Let's face it, your honor, we as a nation are horribly uninformed when it comes to politics. Approximately one-third of the people in this country, people of voting age, couldn't tell you the name of our current vice president. Now admittedly, some of us like to block it out, but even so, only two in five adult Americans know we have three branches of government. And Mr. Feldcamp expects his employees to actually know the political issues of the day? Well, today our news programs consist solely of sensational headlines and sound bites. People forgo newspapers for the internet, where instead of relying on credentialed journalists, they turn to these bloggers-- sort of entry-level life-forms that intellectually have yet to emerge from the primordial ooze. This is how we've gotten the elected officials we've gotten. We've never really cared about issues. Come on. We're more concerned with how Hillary looks in a pantsuit or whether Barack can bowl. We don't always go for the best or the brightest. We elect the guy we'd most like to have a beer with or the gal we'd most like to feel up in the back of the car. Now I certainly wouldn't pick my airline pilot that way or my accountant or doctor, but for my president, so often, it's, "give me the blue-collar, lunch-bucket, good ol' boy who fits in best at the pancake breakfast." The problem with Mr. Feldcamp, and forgive me, I hesitate to say this about anybody, but he's an elitist. [...] I realize that's much worse than being called stupid. [...] The message is, we vote for who we like. It's as simple as that. We don't need to have a reason. It's as simple as that. The founding fathers did not form a meritocracy. This is a democracy. We can be as stupid as we choose. We're Americans. We're as simple as that. newsbusters.org