The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge

She has no idea.

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

It's clear that Hillary's back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there's no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she's accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she'll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:

Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol' fashioned "knife fight?"

And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?

However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama's experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she'll have become Mr. McCain's second running mate.

She's proven that she cares more about "Hillary" than "unity." More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her.

On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.

Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?

I don't know.

All I know is...I'm through apologizing.

Comments

[Rianna]

Good article. I was one of those supporters too. I bought their books, and thought they were unfairly treated by the right wingers. Now suddenly, I see them in a different light. I see her as very strident and aggressive against one of our own. I see her denigrating a fellow Democrat, and endorsing someone from the other party, which is in my mind, unforgivable. I saw her mock Obama, and throw the toilet sink at him....all this, just to win the nomination, which she acts like is owed to her. This made me research the Clintons further, and I came up with all the names, like Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, WIlliam Hubbell, Marc Rich etc.
I am disgusted with the Clintons, not only for the gutter politics they practise, but also for putting their ambitions before party. They have spoilt it not only for Obama, who might be the nominee, but also for the Democratic voters.
So shame on you, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[kennedy]

Shame on you for believing republican lies.

Why don't you look up Rezko, his minister, Farrkhan, being friends with a terrorist, Sinclair, fishy Obama investments, fishy tax records, firshey stocks, suing opposition to leave races, race baiting, dirty cau., his wife being ashamed of America, and on and on and on.

Obama is not fit to be president or senator for that matter. Shame on you and Obama. And by the way the Clinton's have been looked into by republicans for decades now. And nothing, nothing was ever found. Over 60 million dollars of tax payers money was wasted on white water alone. $60 million!!

So you think we should spend that kind of tax payer money to look into Obama then??

[Meggie]

If you look up Rezko, maybe the first bit you'll find is the photo of him posing with your Hillary. Cozy.
Farrakhan is old news and adequately handled.
Please note financial business and tax records are out there for you to see. Perhaps since Hil has nothing to hide the reason hers aren't available yet is because she can't do two things at once. She did say that she's too busy campaigning, so maybe she's not competent enough to have two balls in the air at once.
Obama was an excellent Illinois State Senator for years, and he's been a great Senator from the State of Illinois.
I think that the Clintons have spent quite a bit of money looking into Obama, and they haven't been able to find much.
Too bad they didn't research the little girl in their 3 am ad - you know, the Obama supporter? If this is all she's focusing on, what an oversight!

[ApolloniaCreed]

Unfortunately Kennedy, this is not the 20th century. People have access to information like never before. Just throwing something out there and seeing if it will stick will work on only certain people; the willfully ignorant. I'm surprised you didn't call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama. You're funny...

[renoir]

kennedy... you are so over the top! have you heard of 6 degrees of separation? most of us are only a few people away from some freakish person. i have a friend that was assaulted by a pedophile... does that make me some one who associates with pedophiles? by your logic it does. you need to get a grip. if you don't like obama, that's your right. but to spout ignorant IRRELEVANT crap is just tedious. time for your nap, buddy.

your comment about michelle obama and your misquote has given us all major clues into your MO. i won't even trouble to counter it. but really. it's almost beneath even you.

i know you don't care, but i'm deeply offended by your assertion that obama supporters are delusional, ignorant, or worshipful of this candidate. eyes wide open, slick... and i'm doing everything i can to get obama elected. i'm sorry that you are so cynical that you don't even believe that someone can have a thoughtful and informed positive opinion about this candidate. good lord man. do you not read? there's ample evidence of obama's integrity and good works. i picture you... crouched over your keyboard... inventing sordid things in your mind that you immediately turn into truth. i hope that you and i have as many degrees of separation as humanly possible.

[retarius]

My sentiments exactly.....when she first ran for the senate, I sent money to her campaign...partly to rile up my Republican coworkers....never again....monster, shrew, termagant, harridan....I'm tired of the cynicism; the shady dealing where you sacrifice your principles on the altar of expediency, and sell out to special interests...fucking revolting....if you want 4 or 8 years of Bush in drag, vote for Hillary....if you want a shot at change, vote for Obama!

[SenorBob]

You forgot harpy. Aside from that, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Quadspect]

According to the ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.htmll",
extraordinary rendition was begun under former president Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton comes with Hillary Clinton.

[naugiedoggie]

No, he doesn't. But, this is typical misogynistic crap of the Obama-bot crowd. Is Michelle Obama going to be "co-president"? Is she going to be running the white house from behind the throne?

I don't know which is worse ... the blatant woman-hating of the Obama supporters, or the fact that 89% of you are worthless crap as citizens. You are lazy do-nothings before the election; you'll still be lazy do-nothings after the election. You don't give a damn about the party; you don't give a damn about your country.

Well, of course, when Obama turns out to be "all hat, no cattle" after becoming president, you'll blame everybody right up to God himself, rather than the candidate. So, you'll continue to be useful to him politically, by removing any and all accountability.

Thanks.

mp

[mcfried]

I'm a woman and I resent the implication that my dislike for Hillary is based on her gender. She has earned my opinion of her. As for Obama supporters, what a load of BS a lot have been actively working for years and will continue to do so because they have been empowered to make a difference. As for "all hat, no cattle" I doubt it but many of us will be the first to kick his butt. The only one "removing any and all accountability" is you, because you continue to excuse and support someone who has shown themselves to be the opposite of what the democratic party stands for. Please don't get me wrong, she is a strong woman but so is Ann Coulter. I would suggest voting your principles, when you identify with her remember she is not you but merely another person running for office. To look her as anything else but a politician is true sexism.

[progressivepam]

Of course Bill comes with Hillary. That's their campaign promise. Do you think that someone who voted for the Iraq War, gave Bush authorization for Iran, voted for the Patriot Act, etc. would have such traction she didn't play off the "good times" when she was in the WH? She has been totally running on "let's get back to the good old Clinton days".

[Whofreakincares]

I was wondering how people could continue to support Hillary. And this is what it comes down to. Hillary supporters think we hate women? Besides cross over repubs very old people and poor white folks who believe we're not "ready" for a black president these are the only voters she has left. I guess you won't believe me when I say it has nothing to do with her being a women. But your argument that she is entitled because you work hard and we don't is a stretch. By the way I waited two hours in line to caucas in Texas. And Barack won the caucus in Texas. So I guess we can work when we need to, huh?

[LollieDotCom]

You dipshit. I AM a woman. I am a 55 year old woman. I don't want Hillary in office partly because I despise her republican tactics but mostly because her mood swings are as big and bad as Alec Baldwin's. I love Alec. I read his blog and agree with a lot of what he says every time he writes. But I don't want Alec Baldwin or Hillary Clinton for president because they're both too emotional for the job. Their emotional range makes them perfect for the stage, the big screen, dvd movies, tv.... but not the President of the United States of America. Hillary may have found her true calling as an extra on SNL.

[Shannon2008]

Both Hilary and Bill have said as much. It's a package deal.

[longislandlol]

No need to apologize-- the hypocracy of the establishment dems is beginning to show-- you are an agent of hope and change
- bravo!

[newunderground]

All I know is...I'm through apologizing.
Me too! I'm starting to see what all the Clinton hatred was about. How utterly loathsome.

[VivaZapata]

I'm disappointed in Howard Dean. He, who was the victim of the most unfair smear we've come to witness in recent history, has been slow to set parameters as to what's ok and what's not, and he has not been decisive enough regarding the Michigan/Florida violations. This mail in vote is retarded and panders to the Clinton campaign.

[skepticalindenver]

I'm not a big fan of him, but I have to say that Dean has been right in how he has handled this Michigan and Florida mess. He talks about "bottom-up" solutions because he is not a potentate of the party that can act unilaterally, and any push one way or the other will be seen as intra-party partisanship. The system has to function within the Democratic party structure. The rules provide the opportunity for the state officials to submit a proposal OR appeal to the credentials committee. Only then can they effectively work to resolve any percieved problem. And I use the word percieved, because had the roles been reversed we wouldn't even be talking about Michigan and Florida. There is no obstacle to great for the Clintons in saying or doing anything to get the back to Pennsylvania Ave....not pledged delegates, not popular vote, not even the truth.

[Shannon2008]

If "right" turns out to be a mail-in vote in either MI or FL, I would have to say that it is all wrong. A mail-in vote would heavily favor Clinton because younger voters don't have static mail addresses. Also, minorities are less like to have static mail addresses because they are more likely to rent than own their home.

[AlphaDoc]

(Applause) Well thought-out, well stated.

[SusanMaine]

Great Post!!! You have voiced the angry feelings that keep me up at night.
Spitzer is another one in the cult of the cosmically selfish. Out with the Clintons.
This country has honored them with 8 years in the White House and a lifetime
of security and economic support from the nation. Isn't that ENOUGH???????
ALL OF US NEED TO GET ON WITH OUR LIVES. This is a time of major crises.
Hillary's petty, nasty personal ambition is in the way of our collective future.

[kfdan]

Yep, Mr. Smith ~ you've seen the light. Now, let's hope that the rest of the democratic voters get on with showing the Hill/Bill ticket that ... that dog don't hunt!

[DavidET]

Status Quo united against change

While all other states promptly have reported the results of their primaries and caucuses, the final results of the Texas caucus are still being withheld from the voters and the nation. After 5 days only 41% of the votes have been reported with Obama in the lead.

Texas had a two tier system of both primary and caucus and announcing Clinton as the winner of the state of Texas based on the result of the primary was as biased as anyone announcing Obama as the winner, only based on the Texas caucus. In fact it is projected that Barack Obama is the winner of combined delegates in the state of Texas and not Hillary, but the media and Clinton Campaign continue to claim that Hillary was the winner.

Those in the democratic party who are intentionally withholding the results of the Texas caucus under the pretense that they are not yet legally obligated to do so, seem to have no respect for the voters in Texas who waited long hours in lines to cast their votes nor have respect for million of Americans who are anxiously waiting for the results. It is obvious that in the age of the computers and internet some are intentionally delaying the results . After all, the longer their favorite candidate is the presumed winner of the Texas elections the better publicity for Hillary. A deliberate act that seriously questions the ethics of those in charge of the Texas democratic party who have been trusted with tallying people's vote.

Such games are in line with the statements by those who claim that they want the voices of the voters in Florida be heard by suggesting that the Florida delegates be seated in the democratic convention for Hillary Clinton, while ignoring the will of so many of Florida democrats who stayed home and did not vote since they were told that their vote did not count. The Florida voter records has shown that unlike many other states the majority of those who voted were republicans and not democrats.

The same ones want Michigan delegates seated for Hillary while Obama's name was not even on the ballot. On the other Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have been encouraging republicans to vote for Clinton versus Obama, because they know they will have a much easier chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama in November. But the same republicans who are now voting for Hillary will happily cast their vote for McCain once Obama is out of the picture .

No wonder Hillary Clinton, a democrat keeps repeating that McCain, a republican is more qualified than Obama. This is how she is winking back at republicans that: yes, I agree, TOGETHER we should get rid of this young "skinny black" candidate "with a funny name". ....and no wonder why Hillary is so much against caucuses because Republicans would not or can not vote for her in a the caucuses held by democrats.

It is a fact that when the Washington establishment see their special interests in danger, they easily cross party lines to gang up against the candidate of change who is threatening their interests. This is not based on a presumption but based on the fact that Clinton has so openly and so many times been choosing McCain over Barack Obama , just as Rush Limbaugh and many republicans have openly done so. That is also why we see Senator McCain keeps attacking Obama and not Clinton. Indeed, the two forces of establishment have united against Obama.

Another farce created, has been the notion that the media have favored Obama which in fact there are so much about Hillary Clinton that have been withheld from the public while every little thing about Obama has been magnified. The media analysts still refer to Obama calling Canadian officials while the government of Canada has officially denied such contact by Obama and is looking in to who among the Canadian conservatives has actually leaked such false information. Most probably someone who received a call from Washington at 3 AM !

The elections of 2008 are in fact a test for all Americans to chose between the united candidates of fear and status quo: McCain and /Clinton or the forces of hope and change lead by Barack Obama.

This is also a test for Barack Obama to chose between his historic calling to stand up for the people and lead the change or abandon its supporters and join a ticket with Clinton or another assigned position. Whatever the outcome, after the choices are made, America forever will be different: for better or worse. Time will tell and soon!

[klandish]

It's over Hillary. And if it's not you're are going to find you're self in some big trouble with you're own Country and party. If pride is that important: than grandstand for the democratic party and the country by endorsing and removing yourself. PRONTO!

[BOBZILLA]

And then there are a few of us who have been distrustful of these Clintons from the beginning. The alarm bells started going off for me when Bill threw cabinet nominees under the bus and when he prevaricated on gay civil liberties within the first weeks of his tenure by coming up with the Pentagon equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming a tune: “Don’t ask, don’t tell – Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

The various scandals the Clintons presented to the nation were Gestalt in nature: The whole of them were greater than the sum of the individual scandals. While it was probably the least important scandal of them all, Bill was too cowardly to tell the nation that his BJ schedule was none of our business, but then he MADE it important (and insulting) as he pointed his finger at us as he lied.

More important to me were the betrayals on policy:

- Promoting China’s MFN trade status despite a dismal record of human rights abuses
- Caving-in to big timber interests
- Showing no compassion for sick medical marijuana users
- Destroying the social safety net constructed by FDR
- Approving no-warrant searches of private homes in federal housing projects
- Twisting arms to get NAFTA passed, resulting in over a million lost jobs
- Bombing aspirin factories in sovereign countries without approval of Congress
- Refusing to sign the land mine treaty that over 180 countries have signed
- And most disgusting of all – turning his back as 850,000 Rwandan innocents were
slaughtered

By her own assertion, Hillary Clinton was an important part of the administration that was responsible for these disturbing activities. There is no reason to believe she wouldn’t prove to again be a lap dog to multinational corporations as they were then - whores to those who could provide them with the greatest financial and political support and the resultant power.

I always thought it would provide some satisfaction to say to Democrats: “I told you so”, but it doesn’t. It’s sad to see the party my parents believed in and trusted transformed to be simply the reverse side of the same corporate coin the Republicans reside on. Just sad.

[RayEvansHarrell]

You sound like a jilted lover. I'm not looking for a lover but someone capable of governinjg this wild and wooley nation that is full of itself and a danger to the world. You either believe she can do it or you don't. You also believe he can do or you don't. I believe she can and he can't. Simple. You didn't need all of those words. REH

[Waitaminute]

Well, if it sounded like a jilted lover. You sound like the one who got the one that did the jilting. But of course, thats the way foolish and blind lover are.

[markusmarkus]

Al Capone could do it - run the Chicago mobs. That doesn't mean I would have wanted him as the mayor. Competence and experience are only 2 of the several elements needed to successfully run a government. And, unfortunately many in the Democratic party believe that these two elements add up to leadership. They don't.
Joseph Nye, Jr., in his book "The Powers to Lead" (Oxford Univeristy Press), explores the entire spectrum of leadership. Succinctly, leadership requires both hard power and soft power. Hard power can be defned as power eminating from a position of authority. George Bush has hard power. Al Capone had hard power. I think we can agree Hillary has, and would have if elected, hard power.
Soft power, according to Nye, is the true key to leadership. A leader with soft power does more than bring an idea to fruition . A leader with soft power shares the passion of visions, ideas and beliefs. A leader with soft power infuses in others the zeal for action and immediacy. A leader with soft power allows to forget our differences as we move forward together, leaving our decisive past behind us, as an impetus, as a warning.

I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. But, I feel, her success would find its foundation in hard power alone. Her success would do nothing to solve the underlying decisiveness that racks our country and its citizens.

Obama08

[Emmaboverry]

Bravo. Great article. I feel your pain. Funny what you learn about people if they hang around long enough.

[shm259]

This is a great article- I'm one of the new comers, 20 year old college student drawn into the political process by a mere speech, by a call to action. I have long supported Senator Obama, and yet I insisted on defending Senator Clinton, I respected her and saw her ambition as an asset, her tenacity as a strength. I have vague memories of the 90s but I do recall that in the midst of the Iraq war I would have gladly taken a White House Scandal to a war based on fabrications.

And then a Clinton surrogate referred to Obama supporters as "latte drinking, birkenstock wearing, Prius driving" individuals who attended rallies in a state of delusion. Then the press started referring to the campaign that I was pouring my heart and soul into as little more then a cult of personality. Then I saw the legislative experience of Senator Obama diminished despite the fact that my research said different. And then I was told that my aspirations, my desire for real change, was little more then a hopeless call for the sky to open up and celestial choirs to start singing. It goes unsaid, I'm pissed alright. I've heard Obama supporters criticized for being especially aggressive on blogs. I try and stay away from that- but you can surely see where it stems from. Not only is our candidate attacked, but us supporters are attacked as well. Our intelligence is questioned, and often times our tolerance is questioned. I'm a woman and yet I'm somehow sexist against women....

I think the perpetuation of American ignorance does this election a grave disservice- voting for one candidate over another is in no way uniquely tied to measurement of American tolerance- sexism VS racism...I don't see it broken down like that. I do not believe that our country is that ignorant. Even further, the perpetuation of Obama supporters as a much of delusional idiots does democracy a grave disservice. Isn't this what a democracy is supposed to look like? For a minute- forget about the rallies and the speeches and consider the volunteer work that is going into the Obama campaign. Consider the diversity of those on the ground, young and old, black and white, male and female- people are working together over countless hours of dedication- not to a candidate but to the very idea that that candidate's campaign is based off of. It may sound idealistic, and who knows it could very well be nothing more then the most brilliant propaganda campaign in presidential history- the fact of the matter is that those who buy into it, those who put faith in it- aren't expecting it/ him to provide all the answers. One candidate claims to be ready on day one... the other candidate has a generation backing him who is ready right now. Ready to step forward and speak out on behalf of democracy, on behalf of liberal values that are consistent across partisan lines. Ready to propagate the idea that government doesn't solve all problems, but yes, it should help make all of our problems a little easier to handle. That's what we're fighting for.

Sorry for the lengthy post- thank you for this article...and to those who are still skeptical of Obama I urge you to take another look- not at who is, but at what he's compelled people to do.

[uscitizen]

Sorry for the lengthy post- thank you for this article...
------
No need to apologize. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint. I think it reflects what a lot of people are feeling.

[DrPaulProteus]

Welcome to the Democratic Party... please leave your vote in the ballot box and we'll count on your support in another four years without doing anything for you in return.

[Guitarsandmore]

"the perpetuation of Obama supporters as a much of delusional idiots does democracy a grave disservice. Isn't this what a democracy is supposed to look like? "

No and be careful not to follow along blindly with too much faith and not enough demand for accountability. People followed Hitler blindly because he sounded good. People followed George W. Bush because he was the leader and you're supposed to follow the leader.

What Democracy is supposed to look like is citizens questioning leaders and demanding that leaders use the tax money wisely to advance the lives of the citizens and not for private gain of a select few private corporations.

It's not a pep rally sweetheart, it's a trial, and we need a good lawyer.

[naugiedoggie]

No, actually, you should not assume that people who support Hillary Clinton are a bunch of idiots or corrupt. Go learn about HER, rather than assuming that we know nothing about HIM.

It's simply a fact that you can see by reading the blogging comments of Obama-bots here and everywhere else that they're ignorant kook-aid drinkers. They can't tell you a position of their own candidate on a given issue, let alone compare and contrast that position to Clinton's.

That guy they had on TV in Texas a couple weeks ago, that got wiped up by Chris Matthews, was not unusual in an Obama supporter, but rather unwittingly demonstrated the normal behavior of the Obama supporter. They don't care about issues enough to ask, "Who has the better position? Who's telling the truth? Who will actually get this done?"

Hillary Clinton wants to be President because she believes that she can make life better for all Americans. She has followed that path since she was a teenager. She may be going about it in the wrong way, and it may cost her the nomination. But I don't doubt for one minute that the core beliefs of the teenager who shook hands with Martin Luther King, Jr. after listening to his sermon "Sleeping Through the Revolution," and organized civil rights activities on her college campus, are still the driving mechanism of her campaign.

Barack Obama wants to be President because he can. He's ambitious and wants to be at the top of the pile. He offers platitudes and excuses. If he thought he could gain the Presidency by kicking you in the nuts, he'd do it. He chose the campaign theme that he thought most likely to get him there, so your nuts are safe ... for now.

One or the other will be the next President. I can only hope it's the one who will actually get the job done.

Thanks.

mp

[candlewax]

"Obama-bots here and everywhere else that they're ignorant kook-aid drinkers. They can't tell you a position of their own candidate on a given issue, let alone compare and contrast that position to Clinton's. "


Not only is your rant all about name calling but your basic premise is absolutely false. The reality is that Obama has MORE experience as an elected official than Clinton. Come November he will have 12 years to her 8. In addition, he was very active during his 8 years as state senator and as a U.S. senator, has actually accomplished a great deal in Washington as well. The quote below is taken from a diary by Helenann, the link is below the quote:



"Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.

Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

His record is in fact quite impressive...


His record suggests several priorities and the bills he supports address many of our most pressing problems.

Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills). "

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

This other diary compares the two and Obama actually comes out on top as a more substantive and effective senator.

quote from diary:


"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."


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

[candlewax]

Thank you for a very heartfelt post. Obama is more than a candidate, he's democracy in action and yes, calling people to action, to get involved and care about our government again is absolutely what democracy is all about.