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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (5523)	9/26/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 67261

Gore rivals embolden by scandal WASHINGTON (AP) - The Monica Lewinsky and campaign fund-raising investigations have ambitious Democrats thinking harder than ever about challenging Al Gore for the presidential nomination in 2000. By nearly every measure, the vice president is still the odds-on favorite: He can raise loads of money, organize key activists and tap the political powers of the White House. Yet his rivals see weakness. Their supporters point to a recent poll showing Gore's advantage over Democrats slipping in New Hampshire, and another that had Republican Gov. George W. Bush of Texas ahead of the vice president in a head-to-head matchup. They also note that Gore may soon have his own special prosecutor investigating allegations of wrongdoing in the 1996 presidential campaign. Yet the vice president and two potential challengers showed no sign of division as they addressed the Democratic National Committee on Saturday. Gore, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson unleashed a united attack on how Republicans are handling the Lewinsky inquiry. Jackson accused Republicans of judging ''character through a keyhole.'' Gephardt said GOP lawmakers can only promise ''two more years of inquiries and investigations.'' Typically loyal, Gore called Clinton ''my friend'' and accused Republicans of wallowing in ''investigations and personal attacks.'' Jackson was the only speaker to mention the presidential race, promising to push the agenda of Americans in most need. ''I have not decided to run the race in 2000, but I will set the pace in 2000,'' he declared. Nearly every potential Gore rival has had a voice in the Lewinsky affair. Each wrestles with the same dilemma: Denounce Clinton and risk alienating primary voters; go easy on him and risk falling behind the political curve. Gephardt, as leader of the Democratic effort to win back the House, at first talked seriously about impeachment. He was trying to shield Democratic candidates from Lewinsky fallout, but has been more supportive of Clinton lately. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska have tried to appear statesmanlike. Jackson, typifying the overriding sentiment of black voters, has strongly supported Clinton. Gore's loyalty may be improving his standing among hard-core Democratic voters who are crucial in presidential primary elections. ''People are beginning to look and see who is loyal, who is a friend when a friend is in need,'' said Betty Liggins, a DNC member from Tuscon, Ariz. ''The African-American community feels that loyalty is important, and Gore is nothing if not loyal,'' said DNC member Lisa Webb, an aide to Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer. ''I think those who are keeping a distance (from Clinton) are making a mistake.'' Without lifting a finger, the vice president may also benefit from people hedging their bets in case Clinton resigns. Gore allies say some donors and activists are signing up in case he becomes president sooner rather than later. On the downside for Gore: -He has lost support, at least temporarily, among swing voters who have turned against Clinton. -If Clinton's job approval rating begins to fall, Gore may be hard-pressed to keep his polls numbers afloat, because he is so closely tied to the president's agenda. -The controversy may hurt Gore's ability to define why he should be president. ''At some point you have to step out on your own and make a difference. If you do too little, you look like you're hiding. If you do too much, you look like your distancing yourself,'' said Mary Anne Marsh,'' a Kerry ally. ''I don't envy him.'' For all those reasons, a Gephardt ally speaking on condition of anonymity says the Lewinsky scandal is bad for Gore, good for any of his rivals. Gore backers point to polls showing that his approval rating is high, and Democratic voters nationwide favor him over potential rivals by large margins. They say he probably would benefit if there is a large Democratic field dividing up the votes of people who want a change from the Clinton-Gore administration. ''He's got enough of record for people to decide what kind of a job he's done,'' said Gore adviser Bob Squier. After November's elections, the vice president will start articulating his policy plans for the future. ''He has to answer the question, 'Where do we go from here?''' Squier said. ''He will.'' For his rivals, the question is: Do I run? Enough may answer yes to create a crowded field. Gephardt supporters believe the Missouri Democrat would be tempted to stay out of the presidential sweepstakes if he could become House speaker. But he is said to believe Clinton's troubles have lessened the prospect of Democrats winning the House in November or in 2000. Supporters of former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey think he could catch fire if integrity becomes a campaign issue. Bradley recently said Clinton ''squandered the people's trust.'' Kerry proposed that Clinton appear before the House Judiciary Committee as part of a deal to end the crisis. A Kerry ally said many people would be grateful to him if that occurred.

To: dougjn who wrote (5523)	9/26/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

A modest proposal. Time to put up or shut up. With a midterm election 5 weeks away, and not much likely to get done before that, time for the voters to weigh in, wouldn't everybody agree? At this point, given the massive exposure of the Starr report, most congressional candidates should have had enough time to digest it and form an opinion. I think they should all be pressed to state their opinions, wrt. whether it merits moving forward with impeachment, and let the voters decide how important it is. Seems like a simple step toward a hint of honesty on the matter. They want to say "no opinion", that's fine, though I think party affiliation would be a reasonable proxy for stated opinion at that point. I put this forward in that other forum but there was nobody left there except mrknowitall to explain how unknowable it all was. He can repeat that argument here if he wants, I got nothing more to say on that. Anybody else? I can live with any outcome. If it leads to 2 years of government by Newt, fine, either he learned something from 1995-96 or he didn't. We'll all survive. Cheers, Dan.