- BIG NEWS:
- GOP
- |
- War Wire
- |
- Michele Bachmann
- |
- Senate Races
- |
Why Hillary Clinton Still Matters
In the remaining Democratic presidential primaries, voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless the residents of states like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania still have to decide between the two of them who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.
I have had the good fortune to observe Hillary Clinton's career while living in New York. Up-close, she is an unusually tough, savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining Federal assistance for Ground Zero workers exposed to toxic air. As importantly, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of the FDR-JFK wing of the Democratic Party. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on the Hill.
Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to preemptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. She has said on many occasions she would have voted differently had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job. Today she vows to end the war and is currently trying to prevent the establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq by requiring prior Congressional approval for any such outposts.
Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the first Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Senator Clinton advocated a $70 billion emergency spending and a back-up of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America - namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, the unemployed who require extended jobless benefits and funding for alternative energy and environmental programs. Her opponent, Senator Obama belatedly came out with his own plan a few days ago which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Senator Clinton's proposal.
On a more specific level, Senator Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the sub-prime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry. Senator Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. This is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.
In many ways, Senator Clinton is to the left of Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, Senator Obama's plan is more restrictive and would leave 15 million people uncovered. Lastly, Hillary Clinton is a fighter for change. Senator Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a motivational speaker. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the Fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be swiftboated into oblivion.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
oorPJfV0Gi4OhYkQmZQvuR7B54yBWrNvHJT5JVurmpERt40sMUkVHad51HbI6aNoLGYnkBBuJRoCTvOjlIaSTQ%3D%3D
Ww1OT32PfuCjtR98Ayw2brgUDdEum2b%2ByAX8XCYQ%2BawXC1asI1zYXZfGGPj35mhCUmgWFKQ0JmOMKgkdNbTkQA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
QxsOnLRcyJVWl05VKD0Sb%2FPi0m2nQL7z
ndawRVSpKDMtJCQ5zsUokZ05IC1cy05T
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
Think Obama is so pure while Clinton will "do anything to win"? Think again.
Obama outbid Clinton in superdelegates buys by more than 3 to 1.
http://www
Corporate media spreads innuendo about Clinton and gives Obama a free pass. Why is that?
*****A
The republicans want Obama so McCain in the General Election..
Because, as you may have guessed--Obama is Karl Rove's candidate for the Democratic nomination. Obama is the huge insurance policy for the NeoCONS because of the baggage he carries of close ties with crooked machine politicians in Chicago--one of which, Tony Rezko, (scheduled to go on trial March 3 on charges of corruption and bribery) GOT Obama and Michelle, their home.
This is why the Republicans aren't attacking Obama--YET. He's their only chance to beat the Democrats in November--only if HE wins the Dem nomination instead of Hillary.
Once Obama wins the nomination--then and ONLY THEN, will Rove unload what he undoubtedly knows about the Obama/Rezko scandal connection--thus, effectively torpedoing all Democrat hopes to win the White House in '08.
You GO, Karl. You still rock...!
Media is doing a lot worse than merely spreading innuendo against Hillary. It is deseperately doing everything in its power to totally derail her campaign. All I can tell you Adrienne, is that I'd like to see a growing number of people take on media. If enough of us confront media with these questions, the mere number of people may reach a point which can no longer be ignored be media. But there's virtually no hope of getting such a movement started, though the outlook for such a move is as unpredictible as it is potentially powerful. It would have to be some sort of a "response team," such as Clinton had during his presidency, but formed, in this case, from the grass roots.
I'll be proudly voting for the best candidate we could POSSIBLY have in this race,Hillary of course. This is no time to take chances with a green-behi
OTOH..I have watched Hillary closely through the years and she is an extroidinary woman and superbly qualified politician. I have waited YEARS for her to run for president and it's her time FINALLY. I am VERY politically involved and aware. And FYI she is NOT Bill Clinton (although I admire him too)..she is going to run the WH HER WAY. I can see O.B. as maybe VP(although I think Edwards would be better) but president?? NO WAY! Maybe in 8 years. To me,it seems obvious it should be Hillary.
GO HILLARY!!!
I was just 20 when Bill first ran for office, and I remember thinking, not to long after, of the possibilities of his enormously talented wife eventually running for president herself. My hopes have come true, and Hillary has proven to me time and time again that she is the one with the vision, and the spirit to lead our great nation. She is going to be an exceptionaly successfull president.
From your mouth to God's ears, as they say. Except that I don't want Obama as VP either--not since I uncovered his ties with a crooked machine pol in Chicago named Tony Rezko, which Karl Rove will use to sink his candidacy in '08--if the Dems are so foolish as to make Obama their candidate--and realized just why the NeoCONS are being so uncharacte
Obama is Rove's candidate. Cause once Obama is safely the nominee then and only then will Rove unveil the scandal surrounding Obama and torpedo all Dems hopes for 2008. He can't do that to Hillary--she's survived Whitewater and all the crap that Rove can throw at her.
Obama is Rove's best weapon to win McCain the Presidency in '08.
we know two things about the performance of hillary clinton,one,she devised a health plan that was roundly defeated,and two,she entered this campaign as a favorite and through bad strategy and ineptness now finds herself more likely to lose than win this campaign.t
this election can be historical,by either having a woman or an african american as the nominee for the democratic party.the point however is for the democrats to take back the white house.look
the republicans will initially use lack of experience as a weapon,but that can be countered by pointing out cheney's experience
Clinton vs. Obama: At the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://sla
None of the candidates has agreed to attend the long-sought-after presidential debate on science and technology, scheduled for April 18. But in what may have been a gesture of consolation, envoys from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns made surprise visits to Boston Saturday, to conduct a 90-minute "forum" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
About 400 science researchers, policy wonks, and journalists packed into a meeting room to see the surrogates duke it out. In the Clinton corner was Tom Kalil, a ruddy, thick-necked bureaucrat armed with a PowerPoint presentation and a full clip of obscure facts about academe. (Did you know that the average age for receiving your first NIH R01 grant is 41?) Representing Obama was Alec Ross, a smarmy and pandering thirtysomething in shirtsleeves. “I'm one of those guys who’s deeply moved by data,” he said, and then failed to adduce a single obscure fact about academe through the course of the session.
In this battle of the campaign stereotypes, Hillary came out the clear winner. Kalil began with a series of charts depicting the decline of American research funding. Then he laid out Clinton's plan to double funding for the NIH, the NSF, the NIST, and the research arms of the DOD and DOE. She'd reverse the ban on embryonic stem cell research, triple the size of graduate research fellowships, push for the creation of an ARPA-E, and restore the authority of the presidential science adviser. And this was just "Version 1.0" of her agenda. The audience seemed appreciative—if not deeply moved—by the details.
Ross responded by saying that Obama's plan is even more "detailed" than Clinton's, “both in terms of breadth and in terms of detail.” He then invited us—repeatedly—to visit www.Barack
I did not start out thinking about Obama in a negative way. A number of months ago I was awed with the possibility that Obama "might be the one". I asked myself where that feeling came from. I desired hope and optimism. I desired a leader that would make me feel those emotions. Obama said he would and he did. It was when he announced his candidancy for president that I attached those emotions to Obama. I called it "the voice of authority" and I believed he had superior judgement like he said he did.
Then when he got Imus ( a radio personality) fired (I believe), I realized how much power he already had. I began to ask myself questions about his judgement. Did he really want partnerships or like he said, he "would not go on Imus' program again". Imus was fired because of Obama's words. It worried me. The power of it worried me. Everyone's acceptance of it worried me. Imus was powerful but not equal to Obama's power. Many were giddy with how powerful Obama was (because he got Imus fired). The giddiness worried me and subsequent racial divide blogs worried me.
When I was in NYCity going to school in the 80's, I was thinking that future radical change would happen by a "voice of authority" and that the voice would be a black american male voice. And that it would be so powerful as to influence masses because of a new technology. I wanted to research why this "voice" could influence masses by comparing it to the way Hitler had used the new technologies of his time - the microphone, the radio, and film. People had little experience before Hitler, of a leader using these technologies. The new technology increased by 10/100/1000? Hitler's influence or power. In my thinkiing, I imagined this voice to influence radical change. The 60's were a time of radical change. I felt good about the changes in civil rights, womens rights, human rights.
I no longer trust radical change Obama style.
vsign;
Obama is not "radical". Neither Hillary nor Obama
would result in "radical" change.
"Radical change" will come on the political fronts
by you, me and your friends whoever is President.
It will come when we demand the withdrawal of troops (not wait for someone else to do it!)
It will come when we demand publicly-sponsored universal health care (Medicare for All) not
as a payment for exhorbitant profits of
private insurers.
It will come by contacting your Congressional
Representative, your Senators.
It will come by your doing the dirty research
and get on the telephone (again and again)
to the approriate committees. (eg: ALL health-
care legislation must originate in the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell, Chairperson).
The election is important. Work and struggle await us all on many issues....
If Hillary Clinton is supposed to be such a formidable candidate, and Obama is beating the pantsuits off of her and her husband, Bill, then why do you predict someone like McCain is going to mop the floor with him? I believe underestimating Obama's ability to win the election, particularly in light of his bringing the supposedly invincible Clinton machine to its knees, makes about as much sense as a day in the life of G.W. Bush.
If Hillary Clinton can't defeat Barack Obama, then how is she going to defeat this John McCain you seem to fear so much.
I think Obama can beat McCann; so does McCann. The reason Clinton can not beat him is too many life long democrats will than cross over for a republican vote. The democrats are going to screw themselves again. I definitely have had my fill of Clinton crap in the White House.
P.S. Many republicans are ready to cross over and vote for Obama.
Food for thought; saw on politico that in a poll of republican voters 29% of republican women would rather vote for Hillary than Mr 100-years war. Interestin
Popopie
You make the fatal error that nearly everyone is making about Obama's candidacy. You belive the Obama is beating Hillary. I can assure you, there is only one force in our society that can be giving Hillary the trouble she's in: media. Since she announced her candidacy, Hillary has been the benficiary of a growing campaign of insult and hatred directed at her, so that these days, this assault on her canidacy has reached ridiculous proportions, even including Chelsea.
Agreed.
I too support Hillary, and as a Texan, that still matters.
The media is being far too aggressive in labeling her race for the nomination already dead in the water.
I will support Obama if he succeeds in winning our nomination, but I won't be *as* thrilled when he wins the general election.
This Democratic race is so white hot because we can pretty much predict that either of our candidates can beat McCain.
Hillary has been vetted in repelling the GOP slime machine, but Obama's dainty political style concerns me. He'd better thicken up his thin skin if he moves on the the general election season.
Hmmmmm - isn't Texas the State that produced Bush? Not a good reference.
Also the state that produced Ann Richards and Molly Ivins, not to mention (wanna talk about inspirational?), Barbara Jordan. Oh, yeah, and Lyndon Johnson, Willie Nelson, Gene Roddenberry, and Janis Joplin. Not to mention that Walter Cronkite grew up in Texas (didn't hurt him much).
It's Texas' great misfortune that George W. Bush went there to play cowboy.
How does all this fit in with the report from Cincinnatti Enquirer stating Ohio GOP are rooting for Clinton? Another double reverse psychology play deep from within the vast Republican conspiracy you say?
Hillary Clinton is the Republican answer to whatever rifts there may or may not be in the Republican party. She will be much more effective promoting Democrat party planks by keeping her Senate seat. It's time for Clinton to strategize her exit from the Democrat primary.
Go Obama!!!
I lean toward Obama because of Hillary's vote on the war although I believe her explanation.
The decision to support the war resolution was a terrible political move.
I agree that Hillary and probably everyone else never thought Bush would be so stupid and or evil as to actually invade Iraq.
But this does not excuse the politics.
In 2002 Bush had proved to be a terrible economic president. Bush needed a win in 2002 so he could go the Reagan route of really big increased deficit spending to hide his economic failure.
Without a Repug Congress Bush would not have been able to spend America out of the recession Bushed caused.
It was the big Bush spending binge and not the tax cuts to corporation to build factories offshore (that moved American jobs to China and helped cause the recession) that resulted in the 2004 short term economic recovery.
But in 2002 the recession was not the issue. That was because of incredibly weak and stupid acts of Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle. The idea for the war resolution did not originate with Bush or his team. Rather the idea of that vote came from Dem leaders in response to Bush attempts to change the subject from the economy to Iraq.
The idea was to take Iraq off the table. The result was the war resolution that made Iraq THE ISSUE and allowed for a Repug victory in 2002.
Once the decision was made to allow the vote, the problem for everyone looking forward was political. If Bush did not go to war but instead claimed Iraq disarmed without shedding a drop of blood thanks to his resolve, opposing the war resolution would have been bad politicts.
Carl Rove is no genius it is just that his counter parts were weak and stupid. Rove never asked for or expected the war vote. Nor could he believe the Dems were handing him the 2002 elections.
However, this does not excuse Hillary's support for the actual war long after it was an obvious mistake.
This is why I lean toward Obama.
You belabor an irrational point. You need to look at the total context of war related votes, to evaluate a candidate. Obama voted twice to fund the very war, you claim gives him an anti-war advantage over Clinton. Obama presumed anti-war record is a distinct disappointment.
Once you see how easily Obama supports or funds wars, other questions become more plausible. Did his apparent failure to vote for this or that war, occur becuause of principle or political calculation and expediency. I can only advise the you look more and more carefull at the totality of Obama's war related votes, before you make a judgment. Especially since he has placed so much importance on this factor when calling upon his supporters to move his way.
BHO has to beat Hillary over the head with the war vote, it's all he's got. He is clueless as to how his continued support for war FUNDING makes him look like a hypocrite. His argument in doing so is that he cannot endanger the troops by cutting off their funding. But at the same time he is alowing for the continuation of the conflict that is KILLING them. And he (and many others in Washington) dont see the distinction.
BHO has to beat Hillary over the head with the war vote, it's all he's got. He is clueless as to how his continued support for war FUNDING makes him look like a hypocrite. His argument in doing so is that he cannot endanger the troops by cutting off their funding. But at the same time he is allowing for the continuation of the conflict that is KILLING them.
I'd just like to ask you to go to this website and do some reading: http://www
Your statement, "The idea for the war resolution did not originate with Bush or his team" is wholly incorrect. The plans for the Iraq war were already in motion by the "Bush team," DURING the Clinton Administration - in the event they were able to come into power. Long before Shrub was elected, the likes of Cheney, Kristol, Rumsfeld, et. al, had gone to work and when he was elected, the plans were put into place. Check out the entire site, not just the letter laying out exactly what happened once they'd taken control. And if you check out who signed the letter, you will see, as is often the way politics works, that Shrub repaid the signers of the letter with positions of power and prestige that all but crippled this nation.
As for her voting for the war, given the bullshit intelligence tailored by and for a war-mongering crew, I find it absolutely ridiculous that people keep harping on it. Even Colin Powell, the first "Great Black Hope" was bamboozled and when he finally got it - he was done. Sen. Obama never VOTED against the war. He spoke out against it. I wish people would stop getting it twisted, He was NOT a senator then.
Politics is a dirty, unfair, dishonest and "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" kind of game that has delivered us where we are today. Though I am an Edwards kind of girl, at least Sen. Clinton gets that and knows how it all works. Two years as a senator and preaching "Change" from politics as usual will not affect the machine - I know it and so does Sen. Obama - wait and see.
Oops, I forgot one:
(10) Where do candidates stand on illegal eavesdropping and telecom immunity?
Issues that matter for many voters are:
(1) Why did Hillary refuse to sign a pledge to restore our constitution?
(2) Do the candidates support rolling back of all the "executive order" power grabs by the President?
(3) Do the candidates have good plans for the economy?
(4) What are the candidates views (in detail)on illegal immigrants?
(5) What are the candidates plans on extricating us from Iraq?
(6) Where do the candidates stand on government reform and lobbyists?
(7) Where do the candidates stand on torture, the Geneva Conventions and war crimes?
(8) Where do the candidates stand on energy problems?
(9) Where do candidates stand on the controversial proposed "North American Union" (which would essentially gut our constitution)??
I can't understand why anyone and everyone who support Obama seem to get labeled as "Hillary Haters". That simply is not true. Many judge on the basis of issues and honesty, which is the way it should be. Those who label are divisive and not good for the party.
Hate to disagree with you. I realize that we cannot generalize all BHO'S supporters as Hillary haters, but some of you really are..(the reverse is also true with HRC'S supporters) You must not read many of the posts here, or you would see my point. We are letting this process divide us even more than GW has; and shame on us.
So True.
Well, you blew it this time. I am actually an Independent, formerly Republican, and believe in the truth. Some people don't. I read and post regularly and also do research on the candidates, much deeper than anything you might find here.
It is true that there is an attempt to brand anyone or everyone that supports Obama as a "Hillary Hater" or a "Cult Follower". The trick is to figure out where these terms came from.
History repeats, and repeats, and repeats.
To see what is really going on in this Country, Google the name "Sun Myung Moon" to see what happened in the past and the similarity to what is happening now.
I just don't get this post system....
Could be a blessing.
Most everything said about Hillary may be true.
HOWEVER, she wants the office so much, that she is more then willing to engage whatever questionable political shenanigans it take.
Speaking as a voting citizen og the state of
Michigan, I resent her trying to co-opt the very delegates members of her organization denied representation to because it will pad her count.
She is tying to turn Florida and Michigan into a ex post facto firewall.
No, this is NOT an acceptable strategy. It is perhaps only a shade less wrong then the Republican manipulations in 2000 and 2004.
HORSE PUCKY SHELLY....
So you would disenfranchise how many MILLIONS of MI & FL voters? If the ruling stands it may well be the end of the Dem party. Look at the facts; FL voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. If BHO had won there, he would be agressively pursuing those delegates. MI is a slightly different matter in that she was the only front runner on the ballot after John edwards, Barack Obama, and Gov Richardson decided to tuck tail and abandon MI. Hillary knew the ruling was unjust and harmed the common voter who had NO SAY in the states desicions to move their primaries forward. Hillary is the only one who has taken a public stand to get the voters voices in MI and FL heard.That is exactly the kind of "warrior for the people" that she is.
The problem with Hillary is that she wants it both ways. I think your timing of events are a bit off. When Hillary was asked why she didn't take her name off the ballots like her opponents did, she said that it didn't matter because they votes won't count. When she is discovering she needs those votes, now she wants them counted even though those elections were tainted.
Edwards and Obama acted in good faith to the rules of the democratic party. The democratic party was boneheaded and the states didn't take the party seriously. Do not fault Edwards or Obama for the democratic party's lunatic mishandling of this entire affair.
Clinton didn't fight for anything until it suited her campaign. There needs to be a do-over in those states where the participating campaigns pitch in for the cost along with the bulk of the cost covered by the Democratic Party. Michigan and Florida was not a level playing field.
Don't kid yourself. I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary Clinton wouldn't lift a finger to "get the voters voices in MI and FL heard" if those voices had voted in Obama's favor. Bear in mind that the Clintons raised no objection to excluding those delegates until it looked like they were going to need them. She's only in it for herself.
FL and MI should redo their elections, putting both Clinton and Obama on the ballot, and give the voters in those states a real choice. Any other solution is simply not fair to voters in other states.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
