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.
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.
Good question. She doesn't even know herself. Its just a catchy phrase Marc Penn came up with.
Change? What change? And how?
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.
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.
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.
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???
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!
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."
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
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.