Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterClinton is clear winner
Hillary Clinton, during Tuesday’s debate, shows again why she is ready for the presidency
Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008 | 2 a.m.
During Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas, just four days before Nevada’s presidential nominating caucus, voters in Nevada and the nation got a better sense of the mettle of the top three candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
MSNBC’s nationally televised debate among Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards was a civil exchange of ideas. Nonetheless, clear distinctions emerged.
The issues that dominated the debate were the Iraq war, those involving minorities and the nation’s sluggish economy, which recent polls have shown Democratic voters care most about.
Clinton, coming off a convincing win in the New Hampshire primary last week, had a commanding grasp of the issues that top the lists of everyday Americans and demonstrated she is more than ready to be president.
A defining moment of the debate was when moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about a comment he’d made to the Reno Gazette-Journal. The newspaper reported that Obama acknowledged he doesn’t have the experience to run a bureaucracy, but he said voters weren’t looking for a chief operating officer.
Clinton responded that there was a difference between the two candidates on this issue, and that you have to be able to manage and run a bureaucracy and hold it accountable every day.
Indeed, President Bush’s hands-off style of governing, which can be seen notably in the fiascoes in the handling of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, is something the United States can ill afford again. We need proven leadership at the helm, not someone who will need on-the-job training.
On the federal issue that most directly affects Nevada the government’s efforts to bury the nation’s high-level nuclear waste just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas all three candidates said if elected president they would stop the nuclear waste dump.
But it’s time for a reality check. It is critical to note that Edwards, when he was a senator, voted in favor of Bush’s nuclear dump plan and Obama was not yet in the Senate when the vote was taken. Of the three candidates, Clinton, who represents a state with nuclear power plants that want to get rid of their waste, showed real courage, real leadership and real solidarity with Nevada in voting against Bush’s Yucca Mountain plan.
All in all, this was an engaging and substantive debate, one in which Clinton demonstrated why she is the best-prepared, best-qualified Democratic candidate.
Discussion: 88 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Franchione potential early candidate for UNLV football post
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Big fight headed for a New Frontier?
- Mayor: Morale not good among LV city employees
- Hotels rein in risque advertising campaigns
- $60 million to stabilize neighborhoods buys five homes
- MGM Mirage (finally) makes George Strait show official
- Las Vegas condo hotels remain a tough sell — just ask Trump
- Reserve Rebels didn’t have time to panic
- Funny Face: Carrot Top’s stage act a mask of contradictions
Blogs
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (1 Comment)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (1 Comment)
Elsewhere
Harvard Poker Pro: Texas Hold 'Em skills can help traders
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 21 Sat
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
GO HILLARY!
I find it funny that Senator Clinton is criticized for not making the case for her opponents to be President. She has been asked on several occasions if Senators Obama and Edwards are qualified to be President. It’s not her job to make the argument to the voters for her opponents. That responsibility falls on Senators Obama and Edwards – not on the Clinton campaign. When Senator Clinton talks about her qualifications to be President and the need to be ready day one, she is not diminishing her opponents nor is she using the scare tactics of President Bush. She is simply making the case for her candidacy; her opponents need to do the same for themselves.
I am a 51 year old woman, and I find HRC very deceitful and manipulating. She is by far the most untrustworthy of all the candidates. I voted for her husband twice and would like to have my votes back.
Our country has had enough of the divisiveness, and that is all the Clintons would bring back to the White House. No thanks. Anyone but Clinton.......
You are the one in need of the "reality check." Only until very recently Clinton described herself "agnostic" about Yucca Mountain.
Obama, on the other hand, has been very outspoken on the issue - calling on Reid and Boxer to abandon the project.
"The selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science."
-Barack Obama, October 30, 2007
Clinton is manipulative and untruthful. She is most certainly not the "best-prepared, best-qualified Democratic candidate."
You are doing a huge disservice to your readers by publishing this nonsense.
Comment removed by staff.
Hillary has always opposed Yucca Mountain. Obama's campaign is funded by it's backers. You decide.
Clinton said she was agnostic about nuclear power. She has ALWAYS opposed Yucca Mountain.
This art is "asked and answered":the Clintons learned from Bush Admin: put stuff out there/newspapers print it/cite that as "proof"-then act as an observer/ it reads like TPM from a Clinton PR man. Calling NH by 2 pts(and it was her "firewall")a "convincing win"/you know the deck is loaded before reading on(the news from NH results is don't listen to media)
No ques how bright & well studied Sen Clinton is/how badly she wants the WH/that she will do or say anything to get there(at great diservice to all)
If one took a dispassionate view to the debate they may have noted:
(a) Sen Clinton was not truthful about the Bob Johnson comments
(b) Sen Clinton said she voted against the bankruptcy bill in 2005 - fact: she did not vote(it's on the record)
(c) Sen Clinton said that even though she did vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2001/she was "glad it did not pass"-
Do you not find that odd? IF SHE DID NOT WANT THE BILL TO PASS-WHY DID SHE VOTE FOR IT?
(d) Sen Clinton cannot bring herself to say that both Obama and Edwards would be fine Presidents
(e) Sen Clinton cannot admit she can make a mistake
e) she got off easy on key pts:
-LV: not one ques about why her supporters (see her web site-July 12, 2007 endorsement from Nev Teachers Union leaders)are now trying to change the LV Caucus rules when they in fact set these rules a few months ago)
On Iraq: all the clever words cannot change the fact that Sen Clinton is a hawk - voted for the Irag war resolution (enthusiastically) & just voted to give Bush the auth for action in Iran (by voting to call the Iran rev guard a "terrorist" group).She is Lieberman in a dress (pantsuit)
YOU INCORRECTLY reported CEO/COO convo:
Sen Obama said Chief Operating Officer-not Chief Executive Officer-the fact that most major players of Bill Clinton's foreign policy team support Obama should tell the public something-Obama said he wants to spend time leading, talking to experts in their field, setting policy-not shuffling paper
You give no credit/mention to any of Sen Obama's or Edwards comments/responses:John Edwards is passionate about the poor and middle class. Sen Obama showed insight and courage many times talking about:
1: absent black fathers
2: the disparity in education
3: that even though Ill has more nuclear plants than any other state - he still opposes and always opposed Yucca Mountain:you act as if Sen Clinton "owns" this issue -her position is no diff than Sen Obama's has always been - and that Sen Edwards/who at least has the decency to say when he made a mistake/now has
What will happen from Day 1 of a Clinton presidency:
(1)more diviseness
(2)as she knows all the answers - there will not be the team building so desperately needed in Wash DC
Similarity to Bush? Hillary Clinton's inability to admit she makes mistakes and her inability to listen to others(she found her voice? at 60? after "35" yrs of exp?).
This isn't taking the SAT -- this is being the leader of the free world
Comment removed by staff.
Boy, I am going to have to order a hard copy of this paper to see how many inches of ad space is bring purchased by the Hillary campaign.
Hillary is like a Bill Clinton sock puppet.
Time for our White House to stop being a revolving door for family political dynasties.
"Convincing win in New Hampshire"? Maybe if you're a goo-goo-ga-ga Clinton supporter. She only won by two percentages - and tied in the NH delegate count. (Barack Obama won by nine percent in Iowa.)
And if you really buy into the Clintons' desperate attempt at linking Senator Obama and President Bush's governing style, you're too gullible to be writing for a newspaper. We've had two decades of no healthcare thanks to the the Clintons and the Bushs. We invaded a country of no threat to us thanks to them. Thanks to that lovely pair, we have unfair bankruptcy laws, decades of unchecked and uncontrolled lobbyist power, and a war with Iran on the near agenda.
Why don't you try looking at the facts rather than blindly accepting spurious campaign innuendo? Clinton is MORE OF THE SAME. She is Bush-lite. Barack Obama is change, and you'll see that come November.
Clinton did great. I especially liked how she asked Obama to co-sponser legislation to prevent the current administration from making our presence in Iraq perminant. She showed clear leadership. It is a pitty that others can't get past their prejudice against her.
Sen. Obama said that he didn't know how to run a bureaucracy and didn't see it as his job. I cannot imagine a job applicant for a mid-management position at even the most inefficient firm making the following statement and closing the deal.
"But I'm not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that's not my job. My job is to set a vision of 'here's where the bureaucracy needs to go.'"
In the first place, "going and running" the federal bureaucracy IS the principal responsibility of any president. At least of the United States. Incomprehension on this point demonstrates the kind of stunning political immaturity it is impossible to overstate. And this callowness will have real consequences for people's lives. If the president runs the bureaucracy incompetently, or worse, fails to run it at all, then just for starters: balanced budgets go out the window, mine workers die, pollutants stay in the air and water, worker safety rules of all description are ignored or broken, our hard-earned tax dollars are wasted, corruption runs wild and federal money (OUR money) flows into the hands of corrupt individuals and corporations. Worse comes to worse, disaster victims drown, burn, or suffer as the nation looks on in horror.
Sound familiar? It should. When asked a process question during his 2000 presidential run, George W. Bush derided the idea that a president should master the workings of government. That's what an administration is for, he scolded, or words to that effect. (Wonky old Al Gore, was the subtext, preoccupied with all those unimportant details. I'm a big picture guy.) The rest as they say, has been our country's most recent national nightmare.
Sen. Obama's ignorant and arrogant statement only confirms what I have long suspected: he's all set to become the Democrats' George Bush. More intelligent and well-meaning but essentially the same "present" inside a prettier package.
Presidents don't (just) inspire our bureaucracy: they manage it. Merely putting the right people in the job and teasing out the problems and solutions as Sen. Obama promises to do would be insufficient in any case. But the last 7 years have conclusively proven that a president who doesn't understand how the government works won't be able to do even that much. He won't know who the "right" people are, what questions to ask and what solutions will work any more than a bright, competent lawyer will know how best to treat a patient's abscessed tooth. The day after Sen. Obama is elected is a couple of decades too late to start thinking about what it means to be America's chief executive. If the voters go along with Sen. Obama's cavalier attitude toward our government, America is in for a very nasty surprise.
If being ready for the Presidency means shading the truth, applying different standards to your biggest backers, and cow towing to the politics of fear, then yes Hillary Clinton is ready to be President.
Early in the Democratic debate she said she thought that some of her campaign's supporters go too far. On Sunday, she said that if anybody does anything that she considers "over the line," that they're gone from her campaign. On Tuesday night, she admits that what Bob Johnson did was over the line, but chooses not to fire him from her campaign because he is a billionaire that is one of her campaign's biggest backers.
On nuclear power, she states she is against that God awful idea Yucca Mountain, which isn't just bad for Nevada, but is also bad for the nation. Let's transport Nuclear Waste on Railroads, and see what happens when there's a derailment. No thanks. Yet as late as last year she was saying she didn't have a position on Yucca Mountain.
And then at the end of the debate, she raises the specter of a terrorist attack by pointing to Great Britain after Gordon Brown was inaugurate. She says that this was people trained in Al Qaeda camps. Just like the Bush administration, she is lying and exaggerating to scare up votes. The truth: it was two local hooligans with a few containers of gasoline and a set of matches. Basically, they were arsonists. They were not trained by Al Qaeda, and they did not know what they were doing. Further, I will note that she's giving Al Qaeda an idea by saying, "There will be a terrorist attack after the next election." If that's the case Hillary, why don't we just let Bush stay in office? (That is the logical extension of her argument).
Obama called her on that. It was a brilliant moment. It was when the old politics of fear and division was confronted by the new politics of hope and unity. I chose the latter. Nevada should choose the latter. Don't give into your fears; don't vote for Hillary Clinton!
Best comment on the debate last night. A President shouldn't need on the job training.
It seems strange to me that nobody has realized what a bad idea it would be to freeze interest rates on mortgages, as Clinton suggested. Those mortgages have been bundled and sold, and the financial organizations that bought them would really take a hit from frozen interest rates, at no fault of their own. That would create instability and be very bad for the economy. Edwards didn't really answer that question, and just repeated the same things he always says, but Obama was the only one that hit the nail on the head, and said there needs to be greater oversight of the mortgage industry. As someone who works with the mortgage industry, I can't believe no one else has realized this and called her on it.
It's kind of scary the lengths HRC supporters will go to disown their candidates own callous political views, namely by shifting blame in dishonest ways. It's been obvious all along that if you want Bush Redux, then you vote for Bill and Hillary.
Being the President of the United States has been reduced to running a bureaucracy? Give me a break. President Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Truman - surrounded themselves with people who understood systems while they were at the helm, inspiring Americans to greatness and fighting for radical change. Obama knows the political system, and he intends to change it, simply. If you want a status-quo policy wonk - then yes, vote HRC. She's right in step with the Bush administration and surely knows how to sign bills - she's signed off on many horrible ones after all.
But give me a break. Barack Obama will not let miners die, allow pollutants, and excuse regulations because he can't keep his office straight. That's the biggest load of garbage I've ever read. Perhaps you'll be enlightened to know that the League of Conservation Voters ranks Senator Obama higher than any candidate running for president - BASED ON HIS RECORD. If you actually cared about the environment, he's your candidate.
But for anyone reading, if you're honestly basing your vote on the ability to manage an office, then you're drastically misinterpreting the position of the US President. There's more to the office than paperwork and paperclips.
This "inexperience" schtick is fading like a short film. I know I should be happy the HRC folks don't get it, but at the same time - you worry about people's mental status really. Let's talk about judgment, why don't we?
Viva Hillary!!!!!!!!
NO to Obama YES to Hillary!
Barack Hussein Obama is LAZY! He wants to sit back, lose his papers and not run this country.
He has NO EXPERIENCE and admits it. He is ALL TALK with fluffy words and zero answers to the important issues.
OBAMA IS GEORGE W BUSH!
Georgie also lost his papers and didn't run this country. They are cut from the same cloth, lousy lazy liars.
VIVA HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
^ This is an ad hominem attack with no substance.
That's the general playbook of Hillary Clinton. Good job, fangirl!
Barack Obama does nothing to inspire me. He talks a lot about hope, but does not seem to have a plan. Hillary Clinton seems to bring about more of the same blue state/red state divisiveness. John Edwards is the only candidate that has comprehensive plan to bring our country back together.
Go John Edwards!
For those people who say Senator Clinton doesn't care about Yucca, don't care about Yucca. Senator Clinton has been a strong, outspoken critic of Yucca. She is seen here questioning the EPA and demanding answers. It's George Bush's finger in the EPA that has caused the problems for Yucca.
If you don't know, you are some outsider trying to tilt votes who doesn't give a d about the subject. Give credit where credit is due.
Go here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y8_LE8_Q8D4
Or keep being a media echo chamber and don't elect someone who cares.
I just wish everyone would stop focusing on the two candidates that the media pander to for higher ratings and realize that there is a better candidate in John Edwards.
Comment removed by staff.
The comments made by some people really do floor me. Hillary Clinton is clearly the only candidate ready to lead on day one. She proved to us last night that she has the experience. the notion of change and the mind-set to run this country that is so enveloped is trouble. This country needs someone who is ready for the problems that will be on the desk of the President when they enter into the Oval Office on January 30, 2009. Obama clearly displayed his unreadiness to lead. "Obama acknowledged he doesn’t have the experience to run a bureaucracy, but he said voters weren’t looking for a chief operating officer." Are you joking me? The President of the United States is the highest chief operating officer in the land! If this is untrue, then I really am afraid to know otherwise. Let me make this clear. Hillary Clinton was NOT agnostic about Yucca Mountain. She was agnostic to the idea of nuclear power. Hillary Clinton is the only one who has been fighting for every problem facing America today. Obama has the audacity to flame the race issue. After all, he is the one who brought race into the argument in the past few days. (Don't believe me, do your research.) I would be damned if I were to vote for a person who is running just on change. Obama does not have a clue what he is facing as President as the United States. He is looking to put a band-aid on our problems and sweep them under the rugs. He has not had the chance to make mistakes and learn from them. If you're ready to roll the dice and vote for Obama, go ahead. But I am ready to vote for a candidate who I know is ready to make changes and solve the problems we face as Americans. Hillary is the clear candidate for President and she will restore our image. Hillary Clinton raises the issues and provides us with her solutions. I hope that you people will realize that Hillary is the only one who is ready to be President out of this group of candidates. I'm not ready to gamble with the lives of our children and their children and so on. We need a real leader who will stand up for us.
Hillary Clinton for President!
cat: I'm just baffled by the idea that people actually think Hillary Clinton is the best our nation has to offer. The main thing she has going for her is name recognition, which admittedly is disproportionately important in American politics. (Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't win based on his political record) The only real power she had under the Clinton administration was organizing health care in 1993, which failed miserably. As a senator, she was ok. Not spectacular, but not terrible. She voted for many good things, and a few bad ones, like the Iraq War and the bankruptcy bill. I live in New York and I didn't vote for her because of the war, among other things. She hasn't been honest, and has disseminated a lot of half-truths and ad hominem attacks during her campaign. She's also accepted money from a lot of questionable sources. True, nobody is perfect, but seriously, can't we do better than her?
One more thing. I really do ask some of you to do your research and get the real facts before you post garbage. Don't believe things hear-say and things you want yourself to hear. You'll be pleasantly surprised to find there's only one clear candidate ready: Hillary.
January 16, 2008
Read More: Hillary Clinton
Six degrees of Burson-Marsteller
Remember those sovereign wealth funds that Hillary talked about cracking down on last night?
Yes, the firm of which her Mark Penn is worldwide CEO represents the Abu Dhabi fund that bought a 5% stake in CitiGroup this fall.
(via JedReport)
By Ben Smith 11:52 AM | comments (6) | post comment | permalink
Anthony: You're confusing Executive Officers and Operating Officers. Operating Officers are in charge of the details, while Executive Officers are in charge of the big picture. Clearly the President is more concerned with the big picture, and Obama's admission that the details are not his strong suit is refreshingly honest.
Obama does understand what would be facing him as president. Saying he doesn't have a clue is dishonest. I take it you've never read his books.
The sense of entitlement that Hillary feels is so evident in the debates. The truth is that if her husband were not a former president, she wouldn't be a frontrunner for president.
I am so pleased to see the Las Vegas Sun has the foresight to see that Hillary Clinton is the most prepared to be president on Day 1. With 35 years of experience in making change in favor of women, children and families, Hillary has the strength and wisdom to lead this country forward. I hope all of Las Vegas caucus goers will caucus for Hillary on Saturday! It is to their advantage to pick the best and most qualified candidate!
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.
Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?
OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel -- that we had ever seen...And I think it is -- we talked about this earlier -- if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: I think it's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries.
It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that's not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy.
[We need to] Take the tax subsidies that were given in the 2005 [bill] that Dick Cheney wrote; take them away from the gas and oil industry. They don't need our tax dollars to make these enormous profits.
---
This is just ONE example of why she is ready and Obama is not. Obama is a great guy and has a ton going for him, but this type of policy by Barack is no good. We need someone with conviction. Edwards sounds like he has conviction but how many votes has he had to apologize for so far? Too many.
It MAY be harder for hillary to win the GE but that is because republicans know she has a backbone. No republican has a chance at the white house anyway, we've had enough, your time is up.
The Hillary vs. Rudy fix is in. Chris Matthews is at it again. How about his award winning
performance at the conclusion of the Democratic debate last night? Hillary wins....Hillary wins!
Reminiscent of Charlie Bucket discovering Willy Wonka's final golden ticket in the movie.
There is one major flaw with the Matthews biased narrative of the so called decisive Clinton
victory. The dramatic effect is diminished if you are staging the outcome. It becomes apparent if you closely examine the Matthews commentary that his talking points were carefully crafted in
advance, only requiring a simple and selective fill in the blanks exercise as the mainstream media continues to force feed us their vision for our destiny.
Oh, by the way, how convenient for Mitt Romney to finally win his gold medal in Michigan. Now the stage is finally set, the cast of characters are all assembled now. And who would dare impugn the credibility of our stalwart punditry? They did after all stub their collective toes in New
Hampshire. Just like ordinary folks right? Susceptible to a mistake. Don't bet on it.
The final element to this labyrinth web of the mainstream media power grab will be when Rudy
Giuliani defies all the laws of the natural world with his big state, duck and cover strategy, thereby securing the Republican nomination. Wow, that mainstream media is sharp, and how much better off is this nation, that at the end of the day they are so incisive as the sole arbiters of truth.
More like fortune telling if you ask me. And that really is the parallel to be drawn from this
sham of a system that we suffer with. How appropriate that we collectively refer to these
charlatans as the Media Circus. We might as well swap the polls and the pundits for horoscopes and
tarot cards. More fitting given the carnival atmosphere of this election season.
So there you have it. They told us then and they are telling us now. They never miss an
opportunity to remind us were we are headed. Just another predictable, scripted moment, carefullyinfused with more twists and turns than a legion of writers guild members could ever muster.
scott2008, the striking writers need somehthing to do. why you gotta' be so mean?
This is a bias piece; Obama was the clear winner in the debate!! Funny how Hilary's husband is all chummy with Bush Sr. but that was never mentioned...
As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall.
That's why it's a good thing for Democrats that freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has managed to challenge the perception of Sen. Clinton's "inevitability."
The Clinton campaign cites Sen. Clinton's "experience." In fact, she's a one-term-plus-a-year senator whose lackluster legislative record rivals Sen. Obama's. Other than that, the "experience" in question must surely refer to her presence as a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms.
Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits.
For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and "co-president" Bill Clinton invited onto a "This is Your Life" talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky……
As Nevada Democrats head to their caucuses Saturday, they might ask themselves whether they really want to spend two months later this year watching a re-run of the horror movie "It Came From Little Rock," with the sound turned up much too loud -- or if they'd rather make it a real contest this fall.
If they prefer the latter, they're better off backing Barack Obama on Saturday.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.htm...
You say Hillary has 7 years in the senate, and Obama has only 2. Did it occur to you that Hillary was elected in 2000, and Obama in 2004? That's 4 years difference, not 5. Somehow you are using different criteria to determine how long each of them has been in the senate. And in the nature of your candidate, you say this immediately after admonishing someone else for "distorting the facts."
Anyway, I think Obama's time in the Illinois state senate has to count for something.
toldani:
I appreciate that you are polite in your difference of opinion. At this time, I do not think Edwards or Obama would be a better president than Hillary. I considered Biden when he was in. I do not believe name recognition is all she has going for her. I have listened to and observed very thoughtful analyses of very important issues that clearly demonstrate her understanding and command of facts. Unfortunately, if Hillary is accused of disseminating half-truths, then it should be noted that Obama is guilty of embellishing his record as well ie. congressmen not accepting wining and dining from lobbyists - but only if you sit down, it's ok to accept if you stand up and drink. It is clear that no matter what the candidates say, someone from the opposing side is going to distort what is said. I think the best anyone can do is to listen and read and try to understand what makes you comfortable about someone in charge of the country in which we live. For me, I want someone who is strong, articulate, detailed oriented, connected in the world, and respected in the world. I don't doubt Obama would work hard as well, but I believe the learning curve would be steep. I believe Hillary would be effective in working to implement important policy from the very beginning of a presidential term, from the first day as is frequently mentioned.
Oh yes Obama's illustrious time in the Illinois Legislature.. where he took a stand on so many controversial issues by voting "present". When the legislature was proposing to put new restrictions on abortion rights, Obama didn't take a stand against it.. he simply voted "present." Is that the type of "leadership" we can expect from a President Obama? Please point to any significant legislation Obama is responible for in the Illinois legislature or The US Senate. His short tenure in both bodies has been unremarkable at best.When Obama's Church gave an award to the divisive Louis Farrakhan, a man who denies the holocaust, spews racist hatred of jews, whites, latinos, asians, and women... Obama had no comment once again... that's a great way to bring people together, Obama.
I just don't understand the personal bashing of candidates, especially Hillary. I didn't care for Ronald Regan, but I can understand why others do. Mitt Romney is not my candidate but I can see how some would fully support him.
Can you please tell me why there is such a profound derogatory distrustful and hateful judgement of Hillary Clinton, based on....... feelings, old controversy, her husband, not leaving him, what?
Whether she is your candidate or not, do you know she was considered one of the HARDEST WORKING freshman senators? Doesn't going from First Lady to the senate and keeping your head down, learning, and working your heart out give cause for at least one positive comment?
Do people in America hate Hillary in part because she is a woman in politics like we have never seen before? Do those of us that love or hate her really think we understand who she is? She's just a person, please find some respect in your hearts.
Obama as Vice president or Secretary of state 2008 then President next round.
Hillary 2008
Comment removed by staff.
Congratulations to Hillary Clinton on winning the debate last night. She clearly has the greatest breadth and depth of experience and understands the demands of the presidency. Her comments regarding how to stimulate the economy deserve greater attention and applause. Vote for Hillary Clinton - you will be most pleased with the results.
I'm a man raised by a single parent (my mom) and as a consequence have better relationships with women than men. I'm getting the sense that many women are voting for Hillary in large part because of gender. That is a superficial reason to vote for someone. I'm also getting the sense that they believe that this is their one chance to vote a women in. That is also untrue. The truth coming out of Iowa and NH, is that the country is more mature than people give it credit for. Give Barack Obama a chance to unite this country. We cannot tolerate this revolving door between the Bush and Clinton families.
Was this article written by a journalist? I feel sorry for the people of Las Vegas if this is what fills their newspaper box. You can’t even use it in the birdcage……it’s already soiled.
“35 years of experience” and this is what we get? I guess that’s about right. Millions of years of evolution and we have a “Bush” that should’ve become extinct.
As an Independent, Obama will be the only Democrat that I will vote for in November.
Let's get it right for the actual record then shall we?
US Senate
Hillary - 7 years
Obama - 2 years
---------------------
Actually, for those of us proficient in arithmetic, Barack Obama has been a US Senator for 3 years, NOT 2. In addition to that, he served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years.
Therefore, let's look at the total years of legislative experience between the two candidates:
Obama - 11
Clinton - 8
So being First Lady counts as important White House experience? She can do the job better than anybody else because she watched her husband do it for 8 years?
By that logic, my girlfriend (with whom I've lived for 3 years) should be able to do an excellent job as a keyboardist/vocalist in a rock band, or manage a live music venue for that matter. I mean, she lived with me, and I shared my experiences with her, therefore she should simply be able to apply that second-hand experience equally as well to the aforementioned positions.
Even better, let's elect Laura Bush to the presidency! I mean she's lived in the White House, watched George do the job, and I'm sure he's asked for her advice on occasion. That means she must be qualified, right?
Oh yes Obama's illustrious time in the Illinois Legislature.. where he took a stand on so many controversial issues by voting "present". When the legislature was proposing to put new restrictions on abortion rights, Obama didn't take a stand against it.. he simply voted "present."
---------------------------------------
Obama was actually ASKED to vote "present" by both the Chicago AND the Illinois Presidents of Planned Parenthood:
On Monday, Planned Parenthood Chicago President Steve Trombley defended Obama, saying the "present" votes were part of a strategy devised by his group to protect vulnerable Democrats, and that Obama was always prepared to vote against the anti-abortion rights bills.
"We feel an obligation to defend Barack's record related to abortion issues in Illinois," Trumbley said. "Barack Obama has a 100 percent voting record from Planned Parenthood."
Pam Sutherland, the President of Illinois Planned Parenthood, explained that her organization had approached Obama to participate in the "present" votes strategy.
Voting "present" is a legislative maneuver in Illinois employed by lawmakers to register opposition to a proposal, without being on the record with a "yes" or "no" vote. Lawmakers like the maneuver because it is difficult to use against a candidate in a future campaign ad.
"Sen. Obama was key to that "present" vote strategy," Sutherland said. "We specifically asked him to vote "present" because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats."
Sutherland said the goal was to get a few prominent members of the Democratic caucus to adopt their strategy so more cautious Democrats would follow suit.
"What's good about this strategy is it actually worked," Sutherland said.
(source: Huffington Post)
--------------------------
Please point to any significant legislation Obama is responible for in the Illinois legislature or The US Senate.
-----------------
Gladly.
Illinois Senate:
- Legislation mandating videotaping of homicide confessions
- Legislation monitoring racial profiling during traffic stops
- Legislation reforming campaign finance laws
US Senate:
- Lugar-Obama (track and dismantle WMD's from former USSR)
- Coburn-Obama (provides transparency in federal funding)
- "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" (eliminate gifts from lobbyists)
Would you like more?
Hillary is most competent - her debate performance last evening impressed even those who otherwise have criticized her.
My family and I have incredible confidence in Hillary as our next President. We will caucus for her in Nevada.
So Obama was asked to vote "present" and he obliged... that sounds like real leadership to me. If he is truly a different kind of candidate and about change, why didn't he take a stand on the issues instead of bowing to party bosses and taking the easy "no comment" way out? All the spin from the Obamists is as empty as his rhetoric.
First, there is no "training" for the position of President unless you're running for a second term. There is no other experience, not even First Lady, that will compare. You vote for President based on personality, perceived judgment, and the ability to comprehend very complex and sensitive economic and social issues.
But any of these candidates have such abilities.
What you may have missed last night, however, was the question on bankruptcy and predatory lending. Both Edwards and Clinton--who had been staunch opponents of the changes to the law--reversed their opinions when finding they needed the contributions from the banking lobby to further their previous candidacies. When asked if they thought it was a mistake to then vote IN FAVOR of the new laws (generally agreed to unfairly target single moms who are the victims of deadbeat dads and indefinitely attach the income of those who are the victims of predatory lending), they quickly sidestepped the issue by merely admitting that their votes were a "mistake."
More than a "mistake," the new law is almost criminal in of itself. They both did all they cold to avoid the issue. Please read the transcript. This is an enormous issue, especially in light of the subprime lending debacle. Clinton's added response was "well, it's not fully signed into law yet" further agreeing it was a mistake.
So why vote for such a horrible, one-sided law in the first place? Is she ignorant? Of course not. It's simple --she took a considerable amount of money from the banks for her campaign in New York. These banks can now extend a credit card offer to literally anyone because they take zero risk on the debt. Bankruptcy now no longer relieves you of credit card debt. (Ever wonder why you get so many card offers in the mail? There's no longer any risk to the banks.)
Obama was the only one to vote against the new, harsh law that favors only the banks.
Please research this and many other points regarding the Clinton Senate campaign before blindly choosing a side. You will find that both Edwards and Clinton often speak from both sides of their mouths.
Perhaps Obama simply hasn't had the experience to yet become a criminal. On that point of "experience" I will soundly agree.
Still, I will be happy with any of these candidates. They are all very capable. Not entirely honest, but you can't have everything -- especially in politics.
Hillary Clinton is the WINNER!!!!
cat: Glad to hear back from you. The bill Obama sponsored prohibiting dinners from lobbyists was certainly a step in the right direction. I'm not sure why there would be a distinction between standing up and sitting down, but suffice to say I'm sure he's not the only one who had input in the writing of the bill. I would argue that what this country needs now is a president like John F. Kennedy who can inspire the nation to be proud of itself again, and direct us to great things. I see this in Obama. I hate it that Hillary is comparing him to Bush. As far as personality and character, they couldn't be more different.
Not many people seem to be reading this article anymore, but I have one more thought. The last seven years have all but destroyed the US's reputation around the world. As someone with many friends in other countries, I know how popular Obama is in other countries, especially in Africa and southeast Asia. That's not to say that we should let foreigners dictate the leaders of our government, but the fact that Obama has personal ties to Indonesia and Kenya will go a long way toward helping foreigners understand that the US is not an ignorant bully, and repairing the damage that has been done by Bush.
Hillary did a great job!!! She is the most knowledgeable and experienced person in the race! She has what it takes to deal with foreign affairs and a plan to improve the economy. Obama doesn't have a plan and he doesn't seem very concerned about running the government. Isn't that why we elect a president- to run the government?
Hillary 2008!!!!
People just don't understand who Barack Obama is. If they did, Hillary wouldn't even be an option. He's an angel sent from above during a very trying time for the country. There is only one person who has the right character and experience. Congratulations to Time for having the courage to tell the truth.
Time Magazine - Barack Obama's Political Experience - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
Oh, I almost forgot. Let's be fair. Barack's plans for the country are smart, they are innovative, and he is the only candidate who has a true blueprint, no, a vision for our future
Barack's Details for the country: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Time Magazine's new article on Obama's Experience
*http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1704117,00.html
Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008
Obama's Varied Record
By AP/CHRISTOPHER WILLS
(SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) — By some measures, Barack Obama has a thin record. He's a Senate newcomer who has never worked in the White House, governed a state or run a business.
Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton points to his resume as evidence that Obama is not ready for the White House. "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she says dismissively.
Obama's accomplishments are more substantial and varied than Clinton suggests. And he has a longer record in elected office than she does, as a second-term New York senator.
Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service.
The Illinois Democrat likes to quote something Bill Clinton once said: "The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."
After college, Obama moved to Chicago for a low-paying job as a community organizer. He worked with poor families on the South Side to get improvements in public housing, particularly the removal of asbestos.
"Nobody else running for president has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help people," said Jerry Kellman, who first hired Obama as a community organizer.
Obama also fought for student summer jobs and a program to keep at-risk children from dropping out of school. More importantly, say those who worked with Obama, he showed people how to organize and confront powerful interests.
"He had to train residents to stand up for their own rights," said former organizer Loretta Augustine-Herron, who was part of Obama's Developing Communities Project.
Obama left that job to get a law degree. Afterward, he returned to Chicago and ran Project VOTE. The organization recruited hundreds of registrars to sign up new voters, particularly within the city's black population. Registration jumped nearly 15 points between the 1992 primary and the general election.
The registration wave was credited with making Carol Moseley Braun the first black female senator and helping Bill Clinton carry Illinois in his first presidential race. It also got insiders talking about Obama as a political candidate.
Obama then spent several years focusing on the law, both as an attorney at a small firm specializing in civil rights and as a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
As an attorney, he was on the team that successfully sued the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal voter-registration law. Obama also worked on case of a whistle-blower who lost her job after exposing waste and corruption in a medical research project. The whistle-blower ended up with a $5 million settlement.
Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority. He proposed hundreds of new laws, including universal health care, tougher gun control and expanded welfare, but saw most of them spiked by Republican leadership.
He did have some successes, though — particularly in passing legislation sharply restricting the gifts that Illinois politicians could accept from lobbyists. Illinois has notoriously weak government ethics laws, and the Gift Ban Act was the first major new restriction since the Watergate era.
Obama also helped set up Illinois' "KidCare" program that provided health care to children in families that did not qualify for Medicaid.
John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said Obama's work helped make the program more consumer-friendly. He also said Obama was often willing to give up credit for the legislation if that helped win Republican support.
"It tells you something that as a relatively junior member in the minority party, he was an important negotiator," Bouman said.
When Democrats gained a majority in the Senate, Obama's political mentor, Senate President Emil Jones, gave him high-profile assignments, including two contentious issues involving police — videotaped interrogations and racial profiling.
Police weren't happy about recording their interrogations of murder suspects or having to study racial bias in traffic stops. Initially, they opposed both pieces of legislation.
But Obama made clear that something was going to pass with or without their support. Ultimately, police groups endorsed both bills and they won unanimous approval in the Senate.
Obama was generally regarded as an effective and practical, although decidedly liberal, state lawmaker. One of his Republican colleagues was so wowed that he has appeared in an Obama campaign ad, but others aren't impressed by his legislative record.
"I would say it was run of the mill, honestly," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, who entered the legislature at the same time Obama did.
Obama was a part-time state senator in that he served in the Illinois legislature at the same time he practiced law. He became a state lawmaker in 1997, four years ahead of Hillary Clinton's entrance into elected office, as U.S. senator.
When Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he said he wished to get things done rather than grab headlines, and cited Hillary Clinton as the sort of workhorse he wanted to be.
He teamed with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to study the dangers of nuclear proliferation and pass legislation meant to keep nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Obama also joined with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., after Hurricane Katrina to improve oversight of federal spending.
And he shared billing with a Republican presidential hopeful when he joined Arizona Sen. John McCain in sponsoring legislation that called for sharp, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The effort failed.
Barack is a great man, and one whose heart really cares about people. That is what Hillary is afraid of. And that is why seeks to distort his character, and portray him as having no experience. Because entire life, even as a young man, has been spent in service to other people. At a grass roots, community level.
Hillary, while deep-down is probably a good woman, and she certainly deserves respect for her success, does not have the heart Obama has(And I don't think her intellect is nearly the same; as he's proved to be one of the most brilliant politicians America has seen in a while).
Barack will change the game in Washington, because he has kept his good heart and morals through his entire career.
I'm a life-long Democrat and never considered voting Republican. I was also a long time Clinton supporter until the Clintons both came out so strongly for invading Iraq.
Now I'm personally embarrassed at how low the Clintons have sunk and I join the majority of Americans who would vote for a dead dog before I'd vote for a Clinton again.
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.
When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the wh! ite house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef".
Looks like most the readers of this newspaper disagee, and passionately, with the editorial board.
Republicans can't wait to retry Ken Starr's case. And this time the hide they hang on the wall will be Hillary's. You really think she did tell a few fibs under oath?
No-nothings can then blame these editors for not recognizing that only Obama has a chance in November.
That takes the Democrats down to 2016.
Hillary's Votes Higher On Diebold Machines
In contrast to exit pre-election polls, the final vote tally from the NH democratic primary shows a surprise victory for Hillary Clinton. People quickly noticed an anomaly in the voting tallies which seemed to show an advantage to Hillary conferred by the use of Diebold machines.
However, there was an easy explanation: towns with Diebold machines are more urban on average, and Hillary was always thought to have more support in urban areas. So, like many others, I was supremely irritated by the lack of analyses which statistically controlled for this obvious factor.
So I got a copy of the vote counts, and thanks to Brian London at BlackBoxVoting, the demographic information from each town (most notably, the % holding bachelor's degrees, the median household income, and the total town population). Now, Mike LaBonte at BlackBoxVoting has provided estimates of the mileage for each district, allowing for the calculation of population density.
To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary's votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.
While this "diebold effect" varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates.
NONETHELESS ... the general conclusion is buttressed by the following analyses, all of which have come to similar conclusions:
- Elecion Archive's analysis
- This one by an econ professor at Dartmouth.
- The european tribune reviews the case, with a variety of analyses
- An analysis using R
- BrFox's analysis
As you can see, something appears to be highly amiss. There may be an unmeasured third variable (it's probably not urban vs rural) or there may be something more nefarious.
Draw your own conclusions. Here are all the data files:
- The correct list of NH precincts using Diebold machines
- Mark Shauer's List of Votes in NH precincts, Brian Fox's data of the same, and Semmelweiss's data of the same
- NH town square mileage, for calculating population density
- My "mega file" with all demographic information, squaremileage, and voting information (UPDATED: now also with county membership)
Track the ongoing developments at BlackBoxVoting.
Also look out for updates from the Election Defense Alliance
along with age, income, education, etc leaves the Diebold effects on both Hillary & Obama's votes significant with p's<.001.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/61454
Congratulation Hillary for a great debete performance. I do not see a winner or loser in the debate anyway but i think you made your pionts.
concerning the law suit to be decided today in Las Vegas, Neveda, i will appreciate to know your position about it considering that this decision was taken long ago by the democratic party without contentions until the recent union endorsement of barack Obama. I want to be clear with the fact that we are not playing politics here and shifting positions when politically convinient.
Tony.
re democratsrus comment about energy bill Obama voted for:
2005 Energy Bill
Hillary Clinton slammed the 2005 energy bill as the "Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill," saying that it had "enormous giveaways to oil and gas industry." In fact, according to a paper by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the 2005 bill provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases for the gas and oil industry--against $2.6 billion of tax cuts. That resulted in a net tax increase to the industry of "nearly $300 million over 11 years," according to the CRS report.
1. "Bureaucracy" is just another word for government; managing it is the president's job.
2. No effective CEO I've heard of puts herself at the mercy of people who know how to manage systems without expertise of her own. Furthermore, COOs are often not even responsible for daily management of an entire organization, but rather specific aspects of it: e.g., overseeing production in a manufacturing firm. On the other hand, CEOs must have deep knowledge of all aspects of their companies to be effective at THEIR jobs because they are the CHIEF systems managers.
3. Abraham Lincoln knew more about winning battles than his first four generals combined. He certainly saw his job as managing the country, at that time, the war. He spent much more of his time reading battle dispatches and overseeing requisitions than composing say, the Gettysburg Address. All of Lincoln's great letters and addresses would have failed in their inspirational purpose absent the solid managerial work he put into actually winning it.
David McCullough, one of Truman's best-known biographers, describes a President who was, at best, an adequate speaker. On the other hand, he reports with approval Truman's paper-flow management and organizational skills, and refers often to the President’s grueling schedule, and his hands-on approach to domestic and foreign policy.
FDR, by Eleanor Roosevelt's account, was deeply involved with the realities of governing. When, as governor (obviously in his post-polio days), he sent her on regular inspection tours of state hospitals, prisons, and public projects, he insisted that she: look into pots to ensure the food served corresponded to menus; notice whether beds were too close together in sleeping areas, or folded up and put in closets or behind doors during the day, indicating that overcrowding was forcing patients/inmates to sleep in corridors at night, and watch the patients' attitudes toward staff for signs of tension, confusion, or fear. Eleanor reported that if she failed to make detailed enough inspections her husband would be very upset. That's the kind of knowledge and experience that FDR took with him to the White House. He knew the important questions to ask and wasn't satisfied with just any answers from his subordinates no matter how knowledgeable or dedicated.
Had Lincoln, Truman, or FDR contented themselves with making inspirational speeches, while trusting others to understand the systems comprising the government with which they were entrusted, they would not have accomplished what they did and we would not have been the beneficiaries.
4) Sen. Obama's record as a legislator does not predict his performance as an executive. His own words, disdaining the responsibilities of the position, are far more telling evidence of what kind of president he would be.
As I watch Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, I find them increasingly a study in contrasts, their differences evident not only in the things they say but in the fundamental nature of their respective campaigns. Hillary Clinton wants to be America's manager-in-chief, and her campaign shows it. Clinton '08 is a strictly managed affair from the top down, and that is how decisions are made: from the top down. Among Clinton's high profile backers is Martha Stewart, and Clinton '08 has all the earmarks of a Martha Stewart campaign, a campaign with not so much as a throw pillow out of place. In fact I should imagine that if one were to compare one of Clinton's speeches to a Martha Stewart address before a gathering of potential investors, one would find very little difference. Barack Obama, in contrast, wishes to lead by inspiring; and he has already demonstrated the ability to inspire many thousands across the United States and indeed around the world. If Hillary Clinton represents the market-model, managerial mentality of the 1990s, Obama seems to recall the political and social leaders of the 1960s, as many have observed - leaders who believed likewise that leadership was about more than just managing bureaucracy. None of America's greatest presidents are considered great because of their bureaucratic management skills. Abraham Lincoln's authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation was not an act of effective bureaucratic management, nor was JFK's dream to put a human on the moon by the end of his decade. If Barack Obama were not in possession of the basic skills required for the job he seeks, he would not have come as far as he has. Obama possesses far more, however, than the ability merely to be our chief pencil pusher.
Great comment Eades. I completely agree. Thank you for articulating so succinctly what many of us believe.
Today, more endorsements for the Obama campaign. (Senator Leahy)
Today, more apologies from the Clinton campaign. (Robert Johnson)
Go Obama! Go Nevada! Realize our country's potential, and CAUCUS SATURDAY!!
Let's see now the US Navy has run on Nuclear Power for over 40 years. France is 70% Nuclear Power. Canada not far behind. Name one death directly linked to Nuclear Power in the US Navy. If radiation is a problem best we stay out of the sunlight and off the beaches. More deaths there than due to Nuclear Power. When all else fails common sense prevails. Plus In an insane world the sane are insane Hillary one of the leaders of the insane.
Please go caucus for Obama and tell everyone about Clintons and their record.
Anyone who wants to see the true Hillary, ask her or her supporters why she waffled after initially supporting NY GOV. Spitzer's plan to grant Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens in NY State; remember that terrible debate answer and then the aftermath in which she received a lot of negative airplay. The former President Bill Clinton asked the Governor to pull his plan so Hillary would not have to answer any more questions about it to get her off the hook. Look it up. That is the big supporter of Latinos.
Please call out Obama on his comments in the debate and check with any relatives or anyone else you know in Chicago to see if he has that kind of record there of saying anything to win the moment and move on with your vote to the next audience.
The Clintons record in the White House is they never stayed around to fight for us. They caved in on Affirmative Action and Welfare Reform, and most importantly, their Crime Bill that they brag put so many more officers on the street is also singularly responsible for a generation of historically high incarceration rates for black and brown people in this country. We also have the Clinton years to thank for the mandatory sentencing guidelines, eliminating the discretion of judges, and the disparity in sentencing between crack/cocaine sentences.
We Democrats mobilized to rally around them in 1998 and defend them from attacks, and that was entirely appropriate then. But they are the attackers now, attacking our Union and Obama just to make some kind of triumphant return to the White House; and we have to let them know that we love them but we need bolder, bigger cajones this time around. We need a homerun to sweep in majorities in both Houses of Congress with a message of hope and unity; and then we can claim a mandate to enact sweeping changes in legislation.
The truth that everyone reading this knows in his/her heart is that:
1. Any of our three Democratic candidates CAN win in November.
2. Only one could just as easily lose. (HRC is the only candidate with higher negative ratings than favorable one among all DEM and REP candidates)
3. And only one could win HUGE. (Obama has the biggest margin between favorable and negative ratings among all DEM and REP candidates)
We gotta go for it! This is why the female Senator McCaskill from MO and Gov. Napolitano from AZ along with Native American Sen. Nelson of Nebraska all endorsed Obama last week. No one wants the name Clinton on top of the ballot in their state, except the Republicans.
So please don't stay home. Everyone must go out Saturday and share your views with your neighbors. Go For It. And Ba-Rock the Vote!!!
For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear
As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."
I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.
The race has swang now toward the candidates race. Because of that I don't see how Obama is going to win. He will win South Carolina where blacks are now going 2 to 1 for him (certainly because the color of his skin); beyond South Carolina I don't see how he is going to win.
The Clinton’s never indexed the minimum wage to inflation like Barack Obama wants to, so the poor immediately saw inflation eat away at their small gains.
Federal Minimum Wage Bush one-April 1991 $4.25
Clinton-October 1996 $4.75 Clinton-September 1997 $5.15 You don't close the gap between the rich and poor with a .90 /hr raise over 8 years!
“The income gap actually grew more during the Democratic Clinton administration than it has during the Bush administration. According to U.S. Census data, the share of income for the wealthiest 5 percent rose from 18.6 percent in 1992 to 22.1 percent in 2000. That’s a jump of almost 19 percent.”
BARRY OBAMA SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF; how dare he play scare-tactics with the Nevada voters.
I hope Nevada voters will see past Barack Hussein Obama's smear campaign...
Viva Clinton!
Clintons = scandels! No MORE!
Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, Kenn Starr...enough already.
And about this 35 years experience claim...
Hillary Clinton keeps talking about her 35 years of experience. "I am offering 35 years of experience making change," she said in New Hampshire. "I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change." And she repeatedly mentioned the 35 years again in this week's debate in Las Vegas.
Well, Senator Clinton, I'm confused. I've done the math. You're 60, which means that 35 years ago you were 25. And I Googled your name, looking for all the change you were making as a 25 year old and, frankly, I'm not finding much. You were going to Yale Law School at the time -- which I'm sure was a personally transformative experience, but it's hardly the kind of change that should count on one's Presidential Training Experience resume, is it? Is that when you started your personal Working-for-Change-O-Meter?
That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern's unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy -- if ultimately futile -- endeavor to be sure, but a notch on your Years of Change belt? Kind of a stretch, don't you think?
But as liberal as you are with your Experience Arithmetic, you are awfully stingy when it comes to the experience and background of Barack Obama.
"He was a part-time state senator for a few years," you recently said of Obama, "and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."
For starters, the state senate in Illinois is not a full-time job, but you make it sound like he was some kind of political temp worker, just filling in when someone called in sick. But leaving that aside, why is it that you get to count your time canvassing for McGovern as working for change, but Obama's time as a community organizer and public housing advocate aren't worthy of mention? And what about his time at Harvard Law (where he was the first black president in the history of the Harvard Law Review)? Doesn't count? But your time at Yale Law does? In the now immortal words of your husband: Give me a break.
I know you are good person who is devoted to public service. But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to not distort your record. And to not distort the record of your opponent.
Your 35 years talking point just doesn't add up.
Hey GAMBLNDAN:
Senator Clinton does indeed possess the experience she heralds. You clearly are expecting accurate results from 'googling' something...instead, you should go to both her campaign site (hillaryclinton .com) and her New York senate site to get a grip on the reality.
As for "Ken Starr" "Linda Tripp" et al... Uh, this is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, not Bill, plus these were republican-led scandals...
...sounds like you have an arguement with extreme right-wing republicans....NOT Senator Clinton. Face it, these extremists will put up a fight with ANY democrat that takes office (which will happen), so let's get over the "Monica" stories...that ole' dog won't bark anymore.
*HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON, former Goldwater girl, "former" war-supporter, future Iran war designer.