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 (57591)	1/14/2009 12:45:38 PM
From: JakeStraw	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224758

>>...in which Charlie Gibson and Stephanopolis gave Obama such a hard time Expound on how they were allegedly giving Obama "a hard time". Do you see it that way because they asked him direct questions?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (57591)	1/14/2009 1:37:47 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224758

Ken, you're desperate for the most miniscule sliver of evidence. ABC is slightly less narrow minded than CNN, MSNBC, etc. If Jake Tapper works for ABC -- sliver identified. He's a throwback to the days when journalists made a scrupulous attempt to be fair and unbiased. He should be cloned to replace all the silly drama queen reporters(both female and male).

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (57591)	1/14/2009 3:04:59 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224758

Kenneth----that was a debate between two Democrats. Also, was an introductory debate to both Democrat candidates. Charlie Gibson ask the questions that needed to be ask in an intra-party debate. See the difference------------between intra-party and inter-party. mj

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (57591)	1/14/2009 4:40:42 PM
From: DizzyG	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224758

Is this the debate you are referring to, Kenneth? No Whining About the Media April 16, 2008, 10:46 pm By David Brooks Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight: First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions. I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault. We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues. The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two: Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues. Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration. The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment. The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance. Final grades: ABC: A Clinton: B Obama: D+ campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com Note the source, Kenneth, your precious New York Times. LOL! Diz-