Day 1 Sauce

So Hillary claims she is the candidate ready for the presidency on "Day One."

Well, it got me thinking, what if I were to go back through the calendar and see what she did after day one of her senatancy.

On Day 1 of her senatancy she took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So far, so good.

On Day 195 of her senatancy, Clinton had the Capital One idea to vote for the bankruptcy bill, but announced at a debate on day 2533 of her senatancy that she was happy it didn't pass.

Hmm, awkward

On Day 644 of her senatancy, Clinton gave war authorization to an administration she claims, quote, "Will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

If I thought someone was gonna go down as one of the "worst that has ever governed our country," I am not sure I would even authorize them to walk my dog.

But that's just me.

On Day 1525 of her senatancy, Clinton missed the big vote on the bankruptcy bill.

It passed.

Banks rejoiced.

On Day 1764 Clinton co-sponsors legislation to criminalize flag burning.

The poor, the soldiers and the uninsured appreciated her focusing on the issue that effects them most.

On Day 1989 Clinton attended a fundraiser thrown on her behalf by enemy of the facts, Rupert Murdoch.

I guess money grows on sleeze.

So sure, Hillary will be ready on day one, but ready to do what, is the bigger question.

Comments

[Peabodies]

I can't forgive Clinton's passage of NAFTA.

[RogerHWerner]

I haven't checked your facts but I'll assume they're correct. And yes, it's a grand question: "Ready to do what?" If we could only climb inside the head of a politician and really see how they think and why they vote the way they do. Sometimes, the reasons for a vote can seem totally transparent but they rarely are. And I'll guarantee that everyone breathing has done something they regret; maybe even something big. I sure wish I knew what a person will do once they land behind the desk in the Oval Office. Some are awed by it and turn out to act in ways that are totally contrary to what they seem to believe. I think this is called the power of the office to influence. Others are like George Bush. Whose to say how Clinton or Obama would ultimately behave on their first day in office. I rather suspect it will depend on how the election in the House and Senate turn out. At least this makes sense to me.

[Herrington]

I have no love for Bill Clinton. He didn't do much for us and caved to a lot that went against us. I hold him responsible for letting the wind be sucked out of American technology and manufacturing. To my way of thinking, his presidency came in just to the right of Nixon's. And if Hillary's claim to experience is meant to imply that she was in a co-presidency with Bill, then gets a share of the responsibility.

But I will let that all ride. If Hillary means to deliver, then with the help of a Democratic congress, she may be able to. And judging from the mood of the party and the country, she had better. The same is true of Obama.

Maybe the tit for tat that goes on about who is incrementally better, more trustworthy, more tough, more inspiring, more likely to win, needs to go on for the sake of our mutual cathartic relief at the end of the Bush administration. But screwing ourselves into the ground over who is the better of two candidates that have nearly perfectly split the vote more resembles PTSD than it does reasoning.

Maybe we should focus more on what the issues are as opposed to who has the better shopping list of campaign promises. Campaign promises get broken. Remember 2006. The benefit of thinking about what the problems are and how to solve them remains with you when promises have been broken. And it will color and contrast the next cycle. This one is done to death.

The people have spoken. The outrage at Bush has pushed the entire country to the left. We have a choice between three centrist candidates instead of a centrist and a rightwing buffoon. That is small progress, but still progress. Think about what you would do, not who can do it for you, because even in the pure cynicism that is politics, the public does shape the candidates.

[SeanGardner]

"Hillary will be ready on day one, but ready to do what, is the bigger question"

Good question. She doesn't even know herself. Its just a catchy phrase Marc Penn came up with.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Ohhh what fun! Now to Obama!


Change? What change? And how?

[Steamboater]

On day 1 Hillary will be ready to get our economy back on track. I trust her more than Obama to do that. I don't know what date it was, but Obama declared himself against the war in Iraq but then voted to fund it. On day (?) he, like Hilllary, wouldn't commit to bringing all the troops home by even 2013. On day (?) Obama slinked away from voting on declaring the Iranian Guard a terrorist group. Winstead needs to be a little more objective. Obama has a backgroujnd with Rezko that he not only lied about in regard to the time he knew him and worked with him but also what exactly went on between the two financially.

[clevelandchick]

I do not trust Hillary to get the economy on track at all. And Obama voted along with Hillary and all of the other Senators to fund the occupation because they did not have enough votes in the Senate to cut the funding. What double-speak! This is part of the reason I do not trust Hillary at all - she has never owned up to her vote on Iraq and she cannot.

And Steamboater, you may want to drop that 'Rezko Rock' lest some be flung back at Hillary's glass house.

Rezko has given campaign cash to at least 30 Democrats campaign donations, including her LA campaign chair Mayor Villaraigosa and both of her husband's POTUS campaigns. Let she who is completely unconnected to Rezko cast the first stone but....oop­s! She cannot.

[jdm58]

I've given the "day one" idea a lot of thought, since my candidate of choice, Edwards, dropped out. For the entire 20th Century, and all but the first nine months of the 21st Century (pre 9/11) the Presidency has been shaped by International events.
The economy, which is now front and center of everyones mind, can only stabilize when we have global stability, especially in the oil rich middle east. Like it or not, global trade and the exchange rate of our dollar, dictate the number of jobs gained or lost at home.
So, on day one, my preference is the candidate who has the most recognition abroad, namely Hillary Clinton, and by association, Bill Clinton. Even George Bush recognized Clintons appeal Internationally, sending him with Bush Sr on aid missions in Africa and Indonesia.
Whether or not we like Hillary and Bill at home, they have HUGE appeal abroad. Right now, that's where our attention needs to be.

[vipersdad]

Here is my thinking:
1. when I voted for Bill Clinton, I did not vote for Bill n Hillary. I voted for Bill n Al. While I am certain that as First Lady, she took her share of "shots," I don't count that as "battle testing." Unless the attacks on Hillary (which there were many) detracted somehow from Bill's presidency or campaigns, those shots could easily have been ignored. So until Hillary Ran for Senate - her "battle-testing" is highly questionable. They may have been hurtful, but she's a grown woman and I'm sure pretty thick-skinned.

2. I am not voting for Bill Clinton this time around. If I decide to vote for Hillary, it's because I think Hillary is the best candidate. I don't like the idea of a co-presidency. I am a "one throat to choke" kinda guy. I don't buy in to the whole "return to the 90's" narrative either. Democrats are about evolution and progression and not about going back to the 'good old days.'
If you buy the narrative that Hillary has been in the battle for 16 years, you are arguably buying in to believing that Hillary was a bigger piece of the Clinton Administration than we think she was. .... and to be honest - that's not what I voted for.

[LarBear]

Obama brought up and believes in a Co-Preside­ncy... His idea, not Hillary's!
Hillary clearly believes the President ultimately makes the Decisions, regardless who she does, or does not consult with...
Return to the 90's??? Isn't that like saying the Constitution is an old 1700's Document?
OLD, and PAST hold no value, wisdom, etc???

[anotherbozo]

Compact and devastating. Thanks for itemizing my reservations, Lizz. (I'm forwarding it to friends)

[DCNana]

Yes, she'll be ready on Day 1. Ready to start running for a second term! So far Hillary's political career has been following the polls and the powerful instead of leading the fight for justice, compassion, integrity and truth. Because her experience has made her cynical, I think it's a liability instead of an asset.

[LarBear]

You joke.... LMAO... Obama is who is running from day one of his term...
For me, I'll take the Lady who will roll up her sleeves to clean up a Bush created disaster..­. That's certainty, not Hope!

[DCNana]

Yes, she'll be ready on Day 1. Ready to start running for a second term! So far Hillary's political career has been following the polls and the powerful instead of leading the fight for justice, compassion, integrity and truth. Because her experience has made her cynical, I think it's a liability instead of an asset.

[kararay]

Lets hope on day 1 of the Obama term she beings an examination of the word ' inconsistent'

[Independent voter]

Good job assembling the facts.

Unfortunately you missed the day that hillary voted to clusterbomb mothers and their children and the day she decided to skip the SCHIP vote.

"I saw her today at the reception,
In her glass was a bleeding man.
She was practiced at the art of deception,
Well I could tell by her bloodstained hands."

[gala1]

IV

Well, now that we are dealing with Hillary as Lady Macbeth --how about a few other things to consider.

Like who else voted for and more pertinently how many others voted against.

I'm biased since I was an Upstate NY HC constituent and saw with my very own eyes the benefits of her acting with immediacy -within 24 hours- to keep my county from becoming Katrina Redux.

And I saw her personally do a kindness to my neighbor who is an academic. She could have just noted something in passing but instead she so graciously acted on it for no other reason than it would benefit the community.

I wouldn't count on Obama as a candidate. Who is going to be his running mate?
Not Hillary, if she's at all smart.

The FORGOTTEN BOTTOM-LINE issue here is to beat McCain. Hillary knows she can do it.
But without her as a running mate, Obama will merely be Adlai II. Obama will be why McCain gets into office.
Not so if the ticket is Clinton-Obama.

Hillary is the Endgame.

gala

[Unsui]

Your kidding, right? This must be a joke...Oba­ma can't beat McCain and Hillary can? What makes you think this? And you seem to think a Hillary/Bill VP choice would be wise for Obama...I think your emotional bias is outweighing your logic here, Gala1

[daveny]

Umm, I lived most of my life in Syracuse, and I have yet to see what Hillary's done for people up there other than really good public relations that make everyone feel good, but have no results...

[Kungfublood]

"So sure, Hillary will be ready on day one, ready to continue the cover up of the crimes of the last two presidents­....Duh.

[joja]

Great post!! Thanks for pointing out what a Republican in Democratic clothing she really is.

[jhamm1]

Indeed.

So many posts have been decrying Obama's lack of specifics over his impending actions on "Day One".

Personally, I prefer a little uncertainty as opposed to Hillary Clinton, a candidate whom I know is only predisposed to do the wrong thing from "Day One".

She's been specific alright. We know where she stands. And that's precisely the problem.