Myers: What "Professionals" Came Up With Clinton's Plan?

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Myers: What "Professionals" Came Up With Clinton's Plan? stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 02-21-08 01:44 PM   |   Updated: 03-28-08 02:46 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Myers Clinton

Lost, occasionally, in the hoopla of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy and the news-grabbing stunts of President Bill Clinton, is discussion of Sen. Hillary Clinton's historic run to be the first female president.

Gender, however, has proved as much a hindrance as help to Hillary, said Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton administration press secretary. And following losses to Obama in the last ten primaries, she adds, the former first lady will have a "very difficult" time in turning her electoral fortunes around, in part because of her sex.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Myers, author of "Why Women Should Rule The World," offered sweeping explanations for why Clinton has stalled: Her candidacy was overwhelmed by concerns over dynastic politics; Clinton was forced to walk the difficult line between appearing powerful or domineering; the press has been unreasonably harsh. But the sharpest critiques were saved for the overall campaign strategy.

"They woke up after Super Tuesday and just didn't have a plan," said Meyers. "They didn't have a firewall between Feb 5 and March 4. There was no state where they said we were going to make sure we win: Maine, Wisconsin, wherever it may be... How is that possible? What group of professionals came up with that plan?"

Making matters worse, she added, there are few tactics or attacks that Clinton can initiate which will likely bring Obama down to earth.

"When I really realize this guy was impossible to run against," said Myers, "was when someone asked him how his [Iowa] victory felt. And he said: "Just like I told my kindergarten teacher it was going to feel. I was like 'Oh... Point. Set. Match.'"

With all these obstacles, Myers concluded, Clinton's campaign finds itself in a fragile place. In fact, at one point in the interview, Myers caught herself slipping into the past tense when discussing Hillary's run at the White House.

"[Billie Jean King], when she played Bobby Riggs in the battle of the sexes tennis match in the 1970s, said that there was so much pressure she felt if she lost that she would set back her gender for 50 years," recalled Myers. "I don't think people feel that way for Hillary Clinton and that's a good thing. I don't think that in spite of the obstacles that gender has presented and the opportunity that gender has presented, it would have been historic for her to have been... I'm talking in the past tense. Look, I think the path for her is difficult, not impossible. She has to thread such a small needle from here on out. That's just reality."

Story continues below

As with the anecdote above, through all the bumps in the campaign road has been the subtext of Clinton's gender. And as Myers posits, sex has reared its ugly head multiple times in the presidential nomination.

Take the media. "You can still say anything in the press about a woman and really there is no penalty. That is not necessarily true about race, nor should it be," said Myers. "The things people have said about Hillary Clinton are mindless. Take Rush Limbaugh. And not just him, Chris Matthews can go on the air and say the only reason people vote for her is because her husband cheated on her. You could never say similar things like that about other candidates and not pay a penalty."

MNSBC, in particular, drew Myer's ire. The culture of the station, she argued, had allowed for misogynistic rhetoric, like when now-suspended correspondent David Shuster said daughter Chelsea Clinton had been "pimped out" to recruit superdelegates.

"I think what he said on the air is just what everyone says in the green room and behind the cameras over there," said Myers. "He just got caught."

Myers should know about the politics of gender. In the Clinton White House, she was paid less and held a lower title than her male predecessors. Her book, to that end, is an ode of sorts to the positive role that woman could play in public and private life if stereotypes were simply lifted. And in that regard, Myers summarized, women of all ages and political stripes feel something of an affinity to Clinton's candidacy.

"I think gender in some ways has been Hilary Clinton's ally, but in more ways it has been an obstacle," she said. "[Women] have felt this strong pull to both this idea of a woman president but also a reaction against what people instinctively feel is the treatment [of Clinton]. I think a lot of women are experiencing it very personally."

Lost, occasionally, in the hoopla of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy and the news-grabbing stunts of President Bill Clinton, is discussion of Sen. Hillary Clinton's historic run to be the first female p...
Lost, occasionally, in the hoopla of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy and the news-grabbing stunts of President Bill Clinton, is discussion of Sen. Hillary Clinton's historic run to be the first female p...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
575
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
- mawrm I'm a Fan of mawrm 24 fans permalink

The Hillary Clinton campaign basically displayed what Americans have seen enough of in the W era - hubris. Their primary strategy during this campaign tragically echoes what we've seen in another campaign - the war in Iraq. "Hillary would be greeted as a liberator" they said. There was NO long-term planning and NO "what-if" strategies were developed. The Clinton campaign assumed it could "shock and awe" its challengers and end major combat operations by Super Tuesday. They actually did well up until Super Tuesday, much like US troops did have Iraq under control immediately after the initial invasion. But because they hadn't planned for an "occupation", a long-term slug through the remaining primary states, they were in no position to defend their gains after Super Tuesday. And thus the insurgence began chipping away their control of the situation. They believe the war would cost less than $200 billion (okay, @ $100 million in primary election terms) and did not deploy enough troops on the ground (grass-roots movement anyone?) to keep the lead. Now they're trying to deploy a "surge", only this time, unlike the Iraq war, the Clinton campaign has REAL benchmarks and a timetable to meet - x number of superdelegates by the end of the primary season in the summer. Ironically, unlike the war, the Clintons' can't run up a trillion dollar deficit.
And yes, the Clinton camp had "professionals" with long resumes working on their war plan, however, I would imagine they probably had their share of generals who told them they needed more troops, resources and planning to fight through the primary campaign. Like the Iraq war, they've changed the generals (campaign manager), but haven't fired the major strategists/architects of the situation. Some Clinton supporters blame the Iranians/Republicans for aiding the insurgents and fail to acknowledge their own missteps in strategy. The Clintons can still win, much as the US can still win in Iraq. But the question is whether in the long-term Iraq or Democratic party can survive the intra-party carnage that grows worse as long as the situation remains unresolved and there is no clear winner. Both Iraq and the Dems need to be viable to face the real challenges OUTSIDE their borders that still lie ahead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 AM on 02/22/2008

I believe intellectually and in my heart that Hillary Clinton would have been the absolute best choice for the President. That is why I voted for her. Throughout her campaign and before, the media has shown a deep bias against her that borders on misogynistic obsession. They just cannot seem to be fair in their coverage of her and what really gets me irate is that their personal biases rear their ugly heads, it's so clear whom they support. These people should not be able to vote if they are on the airwaves clearly trying to sway people's opinons. Where is the objective reporting here, where is the unbias commentary? They have gotten away with saying anything and everything. I agree with Ms Myers in that I'm not sure they can figure out just how to run a campaign against Obama and on top of that the media has a hands off policy toward him. It's a love fest all around, in a nation that feeds on what and who is the latest flavor of the month, how does one compete with that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 02/21/2008
- Anastasia I'm a Fan of Anastasia 81 fans permalink
photo

If it really is true that "they" (whoever that is) have a bias against Hillary, then it sounds like she's not the best candidate to win in the fall.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 02/22/2008
- BigBen I'm a Fan of BigBen 4 fans permalink

"They" will decide, not you, if you let "them."
What happens to you when they pick McCain?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 AM on 02/22/2008
- Didi47 I'm a Fan of Didi47 15 fans permalink

anastasia:

The "They" you are talking about is the same "They" that promoted George W. Bush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 02/24/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

Not to detract from the assertion that Hillary got a raw deal from some quarters, I want to point out that there are a LOT of voters for whom the fact of Hillary's female gender was considered neutral-to-positive, but for whom her negatives just plain outweighed her positives ON MERITS.

Her legislative track record is surprisingly light compared to Obama's -- whom she calls the 'empty suit'. Many of her bills have NO COSPONSORS, and NONE of them got through Congress.

ALL of Obama's have cosponsors -- showing an ability to work with others -- and at least one major one authored by Ted Kennedy passed. His bills also are more clearly written, are more productive, and are frankly more brave without being stupid, than Hillary's.

Check out this great post comparing the two in detail, on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 AM on 02/22/2008
- Fair I'm a Fan of Fair 2 fans permalink

Excellent point, I also feel he is more iron-clad against the Rethug Hit Squad for these very reasons. Her paper- trial is thin and Rupert Murdoch et al are gunning for her.

It will be another John Kerry happening all over again, we don't need it.

The Dems need to win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 AM on 02/22/2008
- BigBen I'm a Fan of BigBen 4 fans permalink

We never got an assessment of Obama's negatives vis.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf." Barack Obama, March 30, 2006,
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman//
>

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 AM on 02/22/2008
- Fair I'm a Fan of Fair 2 fans permalink

Hillary was never the best choice becuase she could never win the general election. She is a polarizing figure, even with Democrats who want change. Many feel her husband in the White House with time on his hands could be problematic. Not to mention her vunerability with the Right Wing. Rupert Murdoch is allegedly waiting in the wings to launch story after story in the WSJ and on Faux News about the list, he claims to have, of everyone Bill has been with over the past 8 years. We as Democrats do not need this, we need change and Barack frightens them becuase he can beat McCain hands down. She can not and will not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 AM on 02/22/2008
photo

"The real question is: if she manages to win the nomination, will Obama - and more importantly his supporters - work to put Hillary in the White House. Based on what I've read on HuffPo, I think not."

I agree, in the sense that it would be critical to winning the general election, and carrying on the work of the Party, rebuilding America. My take on Obama supporters is that they are largely indifferent to both, caring only or mostly about "electing the first Black President." If I am correct, then not only would they not show at the polls if he is not the candidate; but even once he is elected, their enthusiasm for political action will return to its former apathetic state. Without the "band of Obama-bots" in the wings, his political power will be limited.

Whoever is the Democratic candidate in November, based on current circumstances I will vote for. Every Obama supporter should unambiguously take that pledge. Our President is not our country; and our country is more important than our President.

Thanks.

mp

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 02/21/2008
- mansky I'm a Fan of mansky 2 fans permalink

Wouldn't Dee Dee Myers have made a much better candidate than Hillary? Be honest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 02/21/2008

Yes!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 PM on 02/21/2008
- Clarabell I'm a Fan of Clarabell 68 fans permalink
photo

No.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 02/21/2008
- S1m0n I'm a Fan of S1m0n 103 fans permalink
photo

Or even Dee Dee Ramone, for that matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 AM on 02/24/2008
- Donk I'm a Fan of Donk permalink

Hillary Clinton can probably defeat John McCain but it would be a close race. Barack Obama would beat him 60/40 or more... The photo op of McCain hugging Bush will be fatal!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 02/21/2008

you make no sense. Are you saying that the photo of McCain hugging Bush would be fatal if Obama is the nominee but not if Hillary is the nominee?? explain

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

i think Donk was making two unconnected statements.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 02/22/2008
- BigBen I'm a Fan of BigBen 4 fans permalink

How about the photos of Obama hugging Lieberman?
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf." Barack Obama, March 30, 2006,
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman//
>

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 02/22/2008
- westview I'm a Fan of westview 4 fans permalink

How will Obama beat McCain? Polls of TX voters show McCain beating any dem in TX hands down. Red state remember? Most of Obama's states are red, they and their electorates go red in November. California's voters are very iffy for Obama,as in if he gets any at all of Clinton's votes, which is a big maybe, in FL and MI they are furious with him over their unseated delagates and that means he loses them to McCain. Huge numbers of women nationwide are not going to vote for him because he uses and accepts sexism on his behalf. What dem has ever won without CA, FL, or TX. You can lose one but not two or more and win. One, TX, is lost before the election is even started. Also the republicans are pretty sure this stuff out now on McCain came from the Obama camp last fall. Once his negatives go up and they will, he is in a bad place, dems won't go for him unless they are very strongly there already and outside of his red states they are not. He has not won any of the major population blue states and he is not likely to pull Clintons voters the way they and their candidate have been treated. If he loses any of them he can't get elected. He will lose against McCain. End of story.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 02/22/2008

Vote for Hillary because she fares poorly in red and swing states. Great strategy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 PM on 02/24/2008

Truth is, Hillary's guys Penn and Wolfson should both be fired. They have embarrassed her too many times. But, she is in charge.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 02/21/2008

Absolutely. I'm a woman and a professional marketer, and her managers are awful. She changes her message from week to week. Currently, it's "get real." Last week it was "real solutions." Before that, it had something to do w/ change (since she was jumping on the Obama bandwagon). And before that, it was "experienced on day 1." So I just end up thinking of Hillary as Billary (since that comes to mind more than anything else).
Hillary actually won Super Tuesday. Does anyone remember that? So what happened? I think her managers didn't plan beyond Super Tuesday (does that remind you of Bush and the Iraq invation?). She appears to have run out of money and a ground game. In the middle of the campaign, she's scrambling for funds (had to lend herself $5million). For someone who purports to be "ready on day 1," that sounds pretty sloppy and disorganized to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 PM on 02/21/2008
- LAcarlito I'm a Fan of LAcarlito 7 fans permalink

Your points are correct. This campaign is illuminating on the question of experience and judgement. It just seems that the Clinton fans don't want to look at her failings at both metrics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 02/21/2008

As a marketer you should know better- you use the word Billary- that is a brand the media has put out there- wanna see- check out the study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 02/22/2008
- Lap48 I'm a Fan of Lap48 2 fans permalink

Mark Penn reminds me of the Ray Harding Liberal Party crowd here in NYC. A lousier, more arrogant lot you'll never see [Harding's political pedigree is right up there with the candidate he backed in two city-wide elections, Rudi Giuliani]. They're really neo-Cons with a smug and disdainful attitude toward the bulk of the NYC voting constituency and their political ear is comprised mostly of tin. Penn is as connected, if not more so, than one of John McCain's lobbyist friends and its no wonder they didn't see ["hear," I guess, if we want to keep the metaphor going] Obama's campaign coming and treated him and it condescendingly when he did].

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 02/22/2008
- Didi47 I'm a Fan of Didi47 15 fans permalink

Dazedand Confused:

As a professional marketer, I'm sure you agree that the media has taken over this election and is leading the public by the nose, to the voter booth of their choice. The media won't allow the public to see anything positive about Hillary and repay negative hype they created over and over again. And with you knowing the POWER of the media, you also know - it's got much less to do with her managers and everything to do with the CRIMINAL MEDIA BIAS - the public is being spoon fed on a non stop basis.

That she is still standing and so extra ordinarily eloquent (see last debate) clearly demonstrates she is what America and the world needs!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 02/24/2008
- mansky I'm a Fan of mansky 2 fans permalink

Perhaps it's time for Clinton's supporters among feminists to realize that this hasn't been a process lost by a biased media, but the high negatives that Hillary carries because of Bill, negatives she might not have had had she dumped him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 02/21/2008
- williamg I'm a Fan of williamg 251 fans permalink
photo

If she were to get rid of Bill, and acted more personable, she could do well in the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 PM on 02/21/2008
- DANOSC I'm a Fan of DANOSC 7 fans permalink

Oh, come on. The reason Hillary didn't dump Bill is because she knew that the Democratic establishment would NEVER have forgiven her for doing so. And, she's right. Hillary wouldn't have made it out of the gate if she'd dumped the dude.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

Hillary tried to skip steps. The coattail riding didn't work. She should grow a political spine, lose Bill as part of her strategy, lose Mark Penn et al, and dump ALL her Clinton loyalists. She should start anew, and very quickly she will find herself back on the ground and KICKING A** -- bringing the best of who she is to the people who need her most.

But if she isn't willing to be anything less than the arrogant, rules-are-for-peons Queen Bee she has been this election, she will never become what we need her to be. Which is more than she is today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 AM on 02/22/2008
- Clarabell I'm a Fan of Clarabell 68 fans permalink
photo

Sorry, but it's the "biased media" that wins in my book. I voted for Obama, but in my brain I really think that Hillary would make the better president -- if she didn't have the media ridding her ass for the next 4 to 8 years. I just don't think I can deal with that again. We are a nation of sheep, a nation of haters, and a nation of (sorry to have to say it again), uninformed and undereducated people who listen to people like Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh and vote according.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 02/21/2008
- Clarabell I'm a Fan of Clarabell 68 fans permalink
photo

I meant riding.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

Clarabell, even if you voted Obama on accident, take a look at his track record, his positions and policies, and his ability to work with people constructively -- you will be comforted, you voted for the right person.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 02/22/2008

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)
by Grassroots Mom
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST
The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.

Grassroots Mom's diary :: ::
I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.

Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators.

I started with Sen. Clinton.

I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.

Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.

For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."

Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.

In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.

The difference is in the scope and the approach.

Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.

Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?

How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.

Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).

Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.

In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.

Four bills on energy including
• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil;
•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.

On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).

Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:

S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon.
S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes.
S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.

and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.

Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.

As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.

Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.

In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year.

Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.

It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.

Yes, We Can!

Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 AM on 02/22/2008
- tchristin I'm a Fan of tchristin 14 fans permalink

If Hillary Clinton had not been married to Bill Clinton we would not even know her name. As a woman, I would prefer that the first female President be someone who has risen to national attention on her own merit.

I also think most people, even Democrats who loved Bill just don't want to see a former President as the first husband. It feels undignified and wrong.

Despite her accomplishments she has only been in the Senate for 3 more years than Obama. I wish Hillary could be satisfied with being the Senator from New York and lend her considerable skills, talents and influence to making sure that the first Black President succeeds in bringing an end to the war and raising our international reputation, creating universal health care, a green economy that puts Americans back to work and a decent education for our children from pre-k through college.

I still have hope. I hope that she will rise to the occasion and that she will demonstrate her willingness to allow us to pick our own leader even if it turns out not to be her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 02/21/2008
- asa I'm a Fan of asa permalink

OR if George Bush wasn't the son of George Bush senior, he wouldn't be President. Hey since she was married to Bill that's why she had a chance. Give me a break. Do you think if Obama was white he'll have the solid support of the African American community. NO.
Hillary is talented in her own right. DEE DEE is right. If you had watched the celebrations among the MSNBC/CNN panel when she lost the Iowa primary, you would see everything you needed to know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 02/21/2008
- wyorange I'm a Fan of wyorange 6 fans permalink

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. As a registered republican supporting Sen. Clinton, I quite frankly am amazed at the outright hatred of both Clintons by many of the supporters, supposedly democrats, of Sen. Obama. I thought Clinton haters were republicans but boy was I mistaken.

You are again correct about CNN's coverage of the Iowa primary. The attitude of their so-called experts at times seemed to border on elation.

I have not bought into the "movement", "cult" or whatever the Obama campaign is and think that other than "CHANGE" he does not offer much. I HOPE he is right about CHANGE, but I do not see republicans joining hands on very many of his proposals. And as I consider myself moderate republican with conservative tendancies on fiscal matters, I read where Larry Kudlow says so far the OBAMA proposals are going to cost $800 billion and that repealing the tax cuts for the rich will not pay for them. So who do you suppose will end up taking it in the shorts again? Yup, the good old middle class and future generations. So, with reluctance I will be voting for Sen. McCain in the general if it is a McCain/Obama contest.

I honestly believe that Sen. Clinton would (sorry about past tense but looks that way) have surpassed Bill as president. Without her I think the middle class will continue to feel the pain no matter whether McCain or Obama is president.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

LOL -- Bill Clinton is white. He had the solid support of the African American community. And until Obama came along and offered something better, truer, and more authentic, Hillary did too. Sounds like African Americans are more color-blind than you are. ;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 AM on 02/22/2008
- mikekev58 I'm a Fan of mikekev58 8 fans permalink

You obviously don't know anything about Hillary Clinton to make such an asinine statement. This is a brilliant woman who could've made more of a career for herself had she not subsumed her ambitions to the benefit of her husband's career. It is not Hillary who owes her career to Bill, it is Bill who owes his to Hillary. While she cut out a decent career as a lawyer, and as a First Lady in Arkansas who tried to reform education there, a look at her young adulthood shows that this woman was on a course to greatness. No, she never said she was "destined for greatness". But she chose to do a lot of hard work and it has, in my judgement, paid off. The Hillary haters and The Uniter's supporters (redundancy?) will never get past their irrationality that blinds them to this woman's contributions to American society. While I agree that she has made mistakes in her campaign, there is an inherent anti-Clinton, especially anti-Hillary bias, in the media, both right and left wings.
This is the campaign that has given America, on paper, an historic opportunity. I think in the end the only history that will be made is the sundering of the Democratic party and the election of a man who just a summer ago was deemed dead in the water.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

SHE SUBSUMED HER CAREER. We're not talking about the Hillary that could have been! We're talking about the Hillary that IS.

She IS GREAT in many ways -- but she doesn't OWN feminism. And you are wrong to defend candidate by characterizing all those choosing Obama over Hillary as being motivated by ignorance and irrationality. There are a lot of people who don't like Hillary because she has slashed and burned her way through the highest reaches of power in this country. That isn't just plain 'media' bias! This is part and parcel of her track record -- she has to own the bad with the good.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 AM on 02/22/2008
photo

"If Hillary Clinton had not been married to Bill Clinton we would not even know her name. As a woman, I would prefer that the first female President be someone who has risen to national attention on her own merit."

I'm sure you think this statement is based on your unique psychic powers, but actually it is just born of ignorance. As a cure, I suggest a trip to Wikipedia and a reading of the few pages of her bio there.

You'll be embarrassed to learn that she was already on national TV the year she graduated from Wellesley. I'll leave it to you to bone up on the facts of the matter, if you are so inclined.

She was already active in politics at the national level and in community activism before she ever met Bill Clinton.

You could accurately say that she gave up a promising career for that marriage. Darn those facts, they have such an annoying way of intruding unexpectedly and trampling all over convenient fantasies.

Thanks.

mp

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 02/21/2008
- ashen I'm a Fan of ashen 3 fans permalink

Uh hunh... and I guess you remember Hillary Clinton from when she was on National TV in 1965 or whatever year it was?

I think the point stands that Hillary Clinton rose to national attention as the wife of Bill Clinton, period.

And frankly, she could have distinguished herself by using her national visibility (whether earned 'on merits' or no) during our time of crisis and need, by STANDING UP as a ranking Democrat and decrying the Iraq War, and the Bush Administrations criminal behavior. Instead, she played it safe to protect her presidential run. Exactly not the kind of courage we need in the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 AM on 02/22/2008
- gtt I'm a Fan of gtt 19 fans permalink

What a silly comment to make in the context of American political campaigns. Consider the following: Al Gore, Elizabeth Dole, Geo W. Bush,
Geo WH Bush, JFK, John McCain, all politicians that ran for president and had strong political families that assured them a leg up.
Senator Clinton was no different, except that when she married into the Clinton family it was nothing but a poor middle class family with a gifted son.
Any fair and independent thinker must concede that Senator Clinton has a remarkable talent. She would have excelled and done well from any starting point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 AM on 02/22/2008

"As a woman, I would prefer that the first female President be someone who has risen to national attention on her own merit."

- This may be a little harsh, but I mostly agree. More importantly, it would be nice if the first female president were truer to the principles of feminism than those of warmongering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 02/22/2008

Anyone who questions whether Obama has substance (and wants to have an open mind and heart), needs to please watch this interview:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/articlf=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL&o=0

as in the 60 minutes interview, he is much better (if you can believe that), on a one-on-one private conversation. There is no fanaticism involved here (no Obamamania), at some point Americans will agree that he is a remarkably substantive candidate. Yes, he can stir crowds. But he is person with true authenticity

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 PM on 02/21/2008

I've seen it. It's very good. I highly recommend it to people who would like to know more about him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 02/21/2008
- julianna I'm a Fan of julianna 3 fans permalink
photo

"Object not found"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 02/21/2008

You can see the 60 Minutes interview at:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BHe8N5hL0Wo

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 02/21/2008
- nellie I'm a Fan of nellie 502 fans permalink
photo

Thanks. I hadn't seen that piece.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 02/21/2008

We all make this so very complicated, but it is not. To the point: Barack Obama is a much better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Plain and simple.

I'm not saying that he would necessarily make a better president, no one will ever know that for sure. However, his successes does not necessarily mean that there is something *wrong* with Hillary Clinton.

The public is not rejecting her. She's raised millions of dollars and draws huge crowds in her own right. Obama's just better at it. In fact, I think it's a tad bit disrespectful to suggest that Obama's successes are because of Hillary's perceived failures, personal or professional. I would say that if the Clinton camp has any true failing, it's that they just haven't realized this simple fact... yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 PM on 02/21/2008
- jbcowan I'm a Fan of jbcowan 3 fans permalink

IndeTogether: I agree with your premise 100%.
Obama is indeed the BETTER candidate and the more LIKABLE candidate.

Successful Presidential Campaigns have alot in common with winning a Sports Championship...You have to be Good (Ability ); You must be prepared for most anything ( No Surprises! ); and You must have some Luck.

Hillary is a "Good" politician, but she & her handlers made a grave mistake and badly underestimated Obama ( unprepared) AND she has been extremely unlucky.

I also agree with other posts...She's not losing because she's a woman...its because she has run a BAD campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 PM on 02/21/2008
- jukesgrrl I'm a Fan of jukesgrrl 85 fans permalink
photo

I'm beginning to agree with you. For the sake of the country's future, in the end the party needs to nominate the candidate who will win in November. And, for better or worse, that person is Sen. Obama. I have great respect for Sen. Clinton. I've watched the debates and I've gone to see her in person. She's well-qualified and to my mind an excellent senator. She will continue to play a powerful role in the Senate when she returns there. I only hope she -- and her husband -- will be able to put aside the difficulties created by this primary campaign and really support the Democratic candidate in the fight to get the Republicans out of the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 02/21/2008
- mikekev58 I'm a Fan of mikekev58 8 fans permalink

As I recall, Michelle Obama's response to the question of whether she would work to help Hillary win the White House, she said: "I'd have to think abou it." I hope Hillary Clinton can be better than that, and I suspect she will do all Obama asks of her, if he is the nominee.
The real question is: if she manages to win the nomination, will Obama - and more importantly his supporters - work to put Hillary in the White House. Based on what I've read on HuffPo, I think not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 PM on 02/21/2008
- asa I'm a Fan of asa permalink

Don't people understand that if Obama wins it means the Republicans would have won. Everything the Republicans did to this great nation would be ,how should I say it, turn the page. They'll only come back in the near future. We have to not turn the page or as Obama likes to put it, "Why we all can't get along". If Obama pledge to open up an investigation of all the crimes and secrecies from the Bush administration then I'll feel "safe" after all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 02/21/2008

Are you saying if Obama doesn't pledge to open up investigations into the Bush administration that he'll lose? Further, just by his promising to open up an investigation you'd somehow feel "safe"?

Maybe I'm missing something, but your post does not make any sense at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 02/21/2008

You make absolutely no sense. Seriously, I'm trying to figure out your logic. Can you clarify please? When did 'change' mean not holding investigations? He can still change the course of this disaster of a presidency and still go after them and not do what they did. That's the most important thing. Are you saying you want Hillary because she'll use the same tactics? You make no sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 02/21/2008
- wyorange I'm a Fan of wyorange 6 fans permalink

"The public is not rejecting her."

Well it sure does not seem to me that the public is doing a very good job of accepting her either. At first it seemed like the majority of registered democrats in primaries were voting for her but as the groundswell of Clinton hatred, mainly fueled by Obamamites with strong support from the corporate media, Hillary has probably replaced Leona Helmsley(?) as the most hated woman in America. (Maybe should say "most hated woman ever" since Leona died. A truly sad fate for one of the most admired women in the world.

As I said in a post above, I truly believe Sen. Clinton would have surpassed Bill as president. I think she cares far more about the lower and middle classes of this country than Obama does, but she is (was) unable to convince the people of that.

And you are unfortunately correct in stating "no one will ever know that for sure" if she would have been a better president than Obama because she more than likely will not run again. I would hope not, after being trashed by the American people.

As a registered male republican, I had really hoped to see a woman president of our country in my lifetime, but at 66 I do not foresee that happening. Do not see anyone of Hillary's stature on the national stage who could handle the job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 02/21/2008
- passport I'm a Fan of passport 2 fans permalink

The race started off really close and continued that way, The more people got to know Obama the better they liked him . It has nothing to do with hatred.There are plenty of women who could do what Obama has done. The right message and a good grassroots effort make the difference. There is a new paradigm in national politics. Hillary just couldn't tap into it. Obamas campaign will re write the books on democratic presidential campaigns. and is the evolution of Howard Deans 50 state strategy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 02/21/2008

Where, exactly, is this groundswell of Clinton hatred of which you speak? "Obamamites" (as you put it) aside, the polls of the past year and the great difficulty that most feel in choosing between Hillary and Barrack don't really lend you great support. Before Barrack came on the scene, she was the favorite. And there were other *good* choices, at the time.

The fact is, Hillary's fortunes changed when Obama had a chance to present himself to the People. His message of change and unity resonated with the People... *profoundly*. And presented with a choice between the two candidates, both of whom differ very little on policy, Hillary didn't really stand a chance. That doesn't sound like rejection based on some deep seeded and irrational hatred to me. She was a good choice, but for many, he was just better.

I must ask you this: how do you know that Hillary cares far more about the lower and middle class that Barrack? Looking at the facts of their young/adult lives and they way they connect with average people would suggest the opposite, but I'm certainly not going to state the reverse with any finality. As much as we all might identify with a particular candidate, none of us really know what's in their heart.

Last, I can't argue the time-frame on having a woman president in your lifetime. However, I will say... who ever heard of Barack Obama before 2004? In fact, most have never heard of him before 2007. There are other women out there who can make a credible run... possibly even in your lifetime. Barack is already writing the blueprint.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 AM on 02/22/2008
photo

Actually, Barack Obama is a much better orator. That's it. And he will present well in November, and will be the next President.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 02/21/2008

If you truly believe that he's only a much better orator, then you haven't really been paying attention. Being a good orator does not mean that your intended audience will automatically get the message. The content of what you're saying must resonate with your audience if you are to have a true and lasting impact. I have firsthand experience with this, and I can tell you that it goes beyond having a powerful voice.

And if you say that it's all just words, well... how does a politician (or anyone, for that matter) get anything done? Everything starts with words.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 02/22/2008

I disagree with those who feel a political figure’s personal life is not as important as his policies. The higher the position (and President is paramount), the more they need to hold themselves up to a higher standard. Not us. We should expect more from them, but they should expect more from themselves. It’s become clearer in the years following Clinton that the responsibility to higher office, affects not just the politician as a person, but the population as a whole. No one would dispute that, had Bill “not had sex…” that the world would not be in a whole different place today. For far too long we have given a pass to politicians who ask for our collective trust, but they don’t seem able to live up to the covenants they’ve made with their own spouses. It’s unfortunate and probably not fair, but the truth is if my neighbor cheats on his wife it’s of no concern to me, but an elected official without a doubt has a bigger responsibility (as we’ve seen) and needs to be held accountable. It’s not the same, one person holds the fate of millions, the other does not. It speaks to character, honesty and integrity in a person elected to office. Without sounding like a prude, a politician who cheats on his wife or has a hidden sexual proclivity, is someone with a weak character flaw which, in my opinion makes him untrustworthy and vulnerable to his own self interest. His actions can harm us far greater than we know. He cannot be trusted, period. It might not be fair, but it’s reality. The world has become a different place (especially since 9/11). It’s time we raise the bar for choosing our leaders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 02/21/2008

Aside from not getting the theory that a sexual picadillo 10 years ago affects world politics today, when we talk about weak character does snorting illegal substances say anything about a candidate. Certainly speaks volumes about the current occupant in the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 02/21/2008
- DANOSC I'm a Fan of DANOSC 7 fans permalink

Jefferson had an affair with his father-in-law's slave, Sally Hemmings. A flaw? Hell, yes, but he was still one of the best, and most brilliant, presidents. Thankfully, his flaw didn't disqualify him from being president like LARiverWater would have wanted. We're a better country because Jefferson was president. Oh that I could say that with regard to the current resident of the White House. We're a much sadder, less noble country for the current one, despite his claims of moral superiority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 02/21/2008
- mikekev58 I'm a Fan of mikekev58 8 fans permalink

I voted for him twice, was repulsed by his adultery and offended by his stupidity in that regard, and I do think that the year of Lewinsky cost the US something; there were things to be done that probably didn't get done, and things which did get done which could've been done better.
Yet, as I look at the big picture - 9/11, the sub-prime failure, the weak dollar, the price of oil, the national debt, and the loss of respect for our country - I don't think any of these major issues would not have been here had Bill Clinton kept it in his pants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 02/21/2008
- wyorange I'm a Fan of wyorange 6 fans permalink

Unlike you, as a registered republican, I did not vote for Bill Clinton. However, I do have to admit that I think he is one of the two or three best presidents in my lifetime (I am 66).

Do not think I can agree totally with your analysis about things not getting done because of his not keeping it in his pants. If you recall, it unfortunately sure seems like the republicans had a mind set to get "Bill Clinton" way before Monica arrived on the scene.

Think you should go back and read a little about the national debt and the price of oil over the past say maybe 20 to 30 years before leaping to the judgment that Bill Clinton is responsible for the way they stand now.

As for the loss of respect for our country - I do not know where you get your information to base such a statement on. My in-laws in Germany thought the whole process of impeaching Bill Clinton on a sex related matter was laughable. Questioned why we even had a Congress if it couldn't be working on more serious matters. And again, today my in-laws in Germany and my nephew in Norway (married a Norwegian girl and has lived there for about 8 years) tell me that both of the Clintons are highly respected throughout most of Europe.

Unfortunately I think you are among what I refer to as the Clinton haters. You have heard things about them and accepted those statements so that now they are "fact". Imagine you also think that if it had not been for Bill Clinton's bad behavior, George Washington would not have chopped down that cherry tree!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 02/21/2008
- ranger5 I'm a Fan of ranger5 14 fans permalink

Hillary lost the nomination the minute she said, during a debate, that her opponent was "raising false hopes". In so doing she became the anti-Obama. Sure, Obama has become something of an icon to whom many Americans have attached their dreams of a better, fairer nation. They have not requried many specifics because Obama has inspired them to believe in the possibility of real change. And Hillary comes along and tries to rain on everyone's parade. Obama says, "we can". Hillary says, "I'll try, but don't get your hopes up." It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. Her campaign has been poorly run, from no plan B after Super Tuesday to her idiot histrionic husband actually trying to create a racial divide. The game was hers to lose. She lost. She richly deserved to lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 02/21/2008

You're right. She became the "anti-hope" and "anti-inspiration" candidate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 02/21/2008
- ranger5 I'm a Fan of ranger5 14 fans permalink

Hillary lost the nomination the minute she said, during a debate, that her opponent was "raising false hopes". In so doing she became the anti-Obama. Sure, Obama has become something of an icon to whom many Americans have attached their dreams of a better, fairer nation. They have not requried many specifics because Obama has inspired them to believe in the possibility of real change. And Hillary comes along and tries to rain on everyone's parade. Obama says, "we can". Hillary says, "I'll try, but don't get your hopes up." It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. Her campaign has been poorly run, from no plan B after Super Tuesday to her idiot histrionic husband actually trying to create a racial divide. The game was hers to lose. She lost. She richly deserved to lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 02/21/2008
- isis I'm a Fan of isis 20 fans permalink
photo

Would this tactic have worked better for a republican? The party of no-hope?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 02/21/2008
- escapee I'm a Fan of escapee 3 fans permalink
photo

I have never met anybody who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I know a former racist who is voting for Obama, though. He thinks Obama has helped him drop his racist attitude. Hillary is disliked because she's Hillary, not because she's a woman.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 02/21/2008

>"Hillary is disliked because she's Hillary..."<

Not by me. I am a woman, and I'm not supporting Hillary because of her voting record and her dirty campaigning tactics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 02/21/2008
- mikekev58 I'm a Fan of mikekev58 8 fans permalink

Just what dirty campaigning tactics are you talking about? Did you know that politics ain't beanbag? Dirty politics..."oh, really?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 PM on 02/21/2008
- robotfog I'm a Fan of robotfog 23 fans permalink
photo

same with me. except, I'm not a woman. It's the voting record. It seriously does not jibe with my idea of how the country should be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 02/21/2008

The problem was that it takes a "village" to get elected, and the village voted for Obama...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 PM on 02/21/2008
- julianna I'm a Fan of julianna 3 fans permalink
photo

Yes. And when Obama is elected we can send the "village idiot" home to Crawford.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 PM on 02/21/2008
- wyorange I'm a Fan of wyorange 6 fans permalink

And even though I am not voting for him, I certainly hope he performs far better than our current "village idiot."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 02/21/2008
- preatorius I'm a Fan of preatorius 9 fans permalink
photo

I think there were more people supporting Clinton prior to SC. The dirty politics reminded us of the 2004 election. It was not then, and is still not necessary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 PM on 02/21/2008

I think that is very true. Once Bill Clinton was put on the campaign as a surrogate, everything went down hill. I believe this may have started as early as New Hampshire or Nevada.

I am a New Yorker and was a huge supporter of both Clintons, obviously more recently Hillary Clinton as a US senator. She is an excellent representative of the people of this state. However, as someone who has seen racism for most of my life, Bill Clinton's injection of race into the campaign when referring to Obama was very unfortunate for her.

After that incident, she lost a lot of support. Not only were many of us upset about the implications Bill Clinton tried to draw, but people, including myself were reminded of Bill Clinton in the White House and all of the scandals that plagued his administration. At that point the Clintons resorted to negative campaigning in an attempt to stave off the loss. It's a very unfortunate situation because I wonder at times "If it were not for Bill Clinton, would I have cast my vote for Obama?."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 02/21/2008
- mikekev58 I'm a Fan of mikekev58 8 fans permalink

Just what in the name of God were the dirty politics in SC? Hillary's retort to Obama's claim of the importance of words? That was a fair and historically accurate statement. Was it Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment? That was directed at the press and its refusal to take an honest look at Obama's Iraq record since coming to Congress. Was it Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson won SC twice"? Leading up to that primary, every commentator talked about the importance of the black vote in SC. Race was already in the arena, and since it was, Bill Clinton's comparison of Obama's victory to Jackson's was based on what the commentariat said before and in analysis of the SC primary. He was proven wrong in his suggestion that Obama would not do well outside of a heavily African American area, but the comment was fair.
I guess we have become so numbed by Limbaugh, Hannity, Swift Boating, and plain old stereotyping that we don't know dirty politics when we don't see them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 02/21/2008

So we're only talking about people you have met, and of those, the ones who would admit to being sexist. This doesn't prove anything.
People come up with "reasons" just as they do with race.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 02/21/2008
- escapee I'm a Fan of escapee 3 fans permalink
photo

Yes, I don't claim to know what all people are thinking... interesting you think everyone on this thread does. Sorry to hear the people that surround you are closet sexist/racists. Sad, so sad... :(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 PM on 02/21/2008

It would be appropriate if the media always be punished for racist comments. Unfortunately that is not true, at least not on Fox News. Case in point - Bill O'Reilly and the disgusting "lynching" comment in reference to Michelle Obama. Not to mention he said he would only send out the lynching mob if there was evidence this truly was the first time she was ever really proud of her country in her adult life. Doesn't that constitute a threat? That monster should be off the air forever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 PM on 02/21/2008

Guess that means you're for lynching Bill O'Reilly...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 02/21/2008
- jbcowan I'm a Fan of jbcowan 3 fans permalink

That would be a waste of a good rope !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 02/21/2008
- wyorange I'm a Fan of wyorange 6 fans permalink

Back in the good old days out here, people were lynched for far lesser deeds. I even tried to point out that some women were even lynched so those pioneers were neither racist or sexist, when it came time to lynch someone they just got it done and worried about evidence later, if then.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 PM on 02/21/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect