Hillary: Bill Will Have No Formal Foreign Policy Role In My White House
It'll be interesting to see if pundits like David Broder and Charles Krauthammer -- who have warned endlessly that electing Hillary will inevitably produce an unprecedented Clinton co-presidency -- will have anything to say about this:
If she makes it to the White House, Sen. Hillary Clinton said today her husband will take on the same responsibilities as traditional presidential spouses, with no access to National Security Council meetings."I think he would play the role that spouses have always played for presidents," said Clinton, in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "He will not have a formal, official role, but just as presidents rely on wives, husbands, fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidante and adviser as I was with him."
The candidate said having President Clinton participate in National Security Council meetings "wouldn't be appropriate," and in a crisis situation -- like the one faced by President Bush this week after the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto -- President Clinton would not sit in on discussions with his wife’s national security team.
Comments (62)
Tom wrote on December 29, 2007 6:37 PM:I thought she was going to send him, Colin Powell, and Bush out on her behalf to spread the greatness of America. Is that out the window now?
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 6:55 PM:I'm just glad she's finally said it. For so long, I've heard people say that they want Clinton because her husband would be right there in her administration to lend a hand. Now she's finally making the attempt to stand on her own record, and not on some kind of 'Clinton II' nostalgia tour.
It's also interesting that she's finally formally defined what her role was in the first Clinton Presidency. Without belittling her marriage, according to her own words, she had absolutely no formal, official role, and no access to any confidential briefings that supposedly would have given some semblance of truth to her "experience" claims. She essentially has the same qualifications for President stemming from her time in the White House as, say, Roger Clinton.
Now, that Clinton is unequivocally standing on her own two feet, she'll just need to prove what that her real qualifications are.
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 7:02 PM:hello_world,
Are you suggesting that Roger Clinton was a “close confidante and adviser” during the Clinton Presidency? And are you also suggesting that being a “close confidante and adviser” have no meaning whatsoever in terms of relevant experience etc…?
Get real will you. The Hillary hating is just annoying.
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:14 PM:She just lost 10 points in my book. Bill is the only thing she has going for her. She would be nothing if not married to him.
Col wrote on December 29, 2007 7:15 PM:DemAC,
Quite frankly, yes. Mark Penn is a "close confidante and advisor" to HRC, and I don't think even she would vote for him for President. Paul Begala was a "close confidante and advisor" to WJC, and I don't think either of them would vote for him for President. It is, to put it bluntly, entirely irrelevant and does not exhibit one iota of the experience she claims to have in her back pocket "for over 35 years" (or whatever her ads claim).
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:16 PM:What happens when Bill gets caught diddling the WH maid? She needs to play it safe (unless of course she gets caught diddling the WH maid).
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 7:16 PM:@DemAC
I don't hate Hillary. I hate intellectual dishonesty. This is exactly what I'm seeing in her "experience" claims (and a couple other notable claims of hers as well).
It's a problem when I look back to 2000, and feel that Bush II ran a more intellectually honest campaign in regards to his ability to be President than Clinton II. And this is coming from someone who has nothing positive to say about the Bush II administration.
Jean Harbrein wrote on December 29, 2007 7:20 PM:No question about it. When Hillary said "here comes the fun part" before sending out her nasty attack dogs and "I can't wait to hear that" in the debate, I cringed and I am a Hillary supporter. They need to overcome the intellectual dishonesty and inauthenticity rap if they are going to get elected. I am definitely having second thoughts.
DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 7:32 PM:Y’all,
So the only thing Hillary Clinton has going for her candidacy is giving her husband, the ex-President, a formal role in her administration???
Without the husband the little woman has no credibility???
What a bunch of idiot sexist crap.
This is not a smart tactic. Why say anything? She gains nothing from this---and it does not even reassure those who do remember his questionable judgements and tactics.
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 7:54 PM:Judging from polls and anecdotal evidence (such as comments here), this is not in fact what many Hillary Clinton supporters want to hear.
mroben wrote on December 29, 2007 7:57 PM:Perhaps this has already been discussed months ago here at tpmec, but has anyone really thought about the term that Hillary supporters are using: "Hillary-Hater". This is the same term and tactic the right uses for anyone who criticizes Bush. They call us "Bush-Haters". The implicit criticism in the term is that anyone who faults Bush or HRC for anything just unthinkingly hates them and thus their argument can be dismissed out of hand because of their implicit lack of reasoning.
I'm not really sure why anyone on the left would want to be associated with this kind of juvenile name-calling. Many of us have real substantive problems with HRC that have nothing to do with any kind of "hate" and if you are relying on a term and tactic that you have borrowed from the likes of Karl Rove I think that speaks volumes about your willingness to have a real debate on the merits of various candidates.
Cheers,
mroben
Clinton supporters are awful quick to pull out the 'sexism card'.
Like I said, I have no problems with Hillary Clinton, the person. I am not a sexist, and it's silly for you to attempt to paint someone as one just because they reject fallacious arguments.
Hillary has fewer years of elected political service than ANY of the other Democratic candidates. She has two, count them, two more years in the Senate than Obama. What's worse, this experience she likes to talk about has lead her to vote for both the Iraqi invasion (which would be forgivable in my eyes if she would have owned up to that mistake like many others have), and for the ridiculous Kyle/Lieberman bill which basically gave Bush carte blanche with regards to Iran.
It seems Clinton can't take her years of "experience" and put it to good use when she needs to. The Democrats need better, and even more importantly, the US needs better. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with her using the politics of fear in getting votes, and in making baffling judgment after judgment, both with her votes in Congress, and in her campaign.
I need to stop writting books here. There's only so much text you can write in the comments segment of a blog before you become pedantic. I'm going out for the night! :p
bablan wrote on December 29, 2007 8:13 PM:Hello_world (Dave) - did you just criticize your own judgment of "intellectual dishonesty" - obviously, Bush II's compassionate conservative was a bunch of bull, so your judgment was off then.
I take it you have absolute proof against the testament of Ambassadors, former Secretary of State, dozens of high-ranking military, people like Larry Johnson, former CIA & terrorism expert, and legions of legislators that H. Clinton's experience is unfounded. Your "intellectual dishonesty" argument boils down to your "gut instinct" - that you can't admit that you don't support Clinton because you don't feel like it, shows your own intellectual dishonesty.
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 8:17 PM:Judging Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials by actually looking at her resume and also considering her votes on some of the key foreign policy bills during her time in the Senate is operating on "gut instinct"?
Interesting.
bablan wrote on December 29, 2007 8:32 PM:hello_world - Clinton supporters have a myriad of reasons to support their candidate. I'm impressed with Clinton for similar reasons that I'm impressed with Dodd & Biden. Clinton supporters point out sexism where it exists (though too many people, and especially men who rarely if ever experience it, believe that sexism is an urban legend and therefore use this as a point of ridicule toward Clinton supporters when it is undeserved.)
Here's an example of sexism from Yesterday's ABCNews blog:
Barack Obama insists his experiences traveling and having family living overseas brings more to the table than, let's say, the job of a former first lady.
"It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd of would-be voters in Coralville, Iowa, on Friday.http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obamas-cup-of-t.html
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 8:34 PM:@bablan
I don't support Clinton because I don't feel like it. I don't feel like it because when I take an honest, non-partisan look at her record and her rhetoric, I feel that not only is she nowhere near as qualified as she wants to suggest she is, she lacks the judgment and temperament to be an effective President. Add this to the fact that her very presence on the Presidential ticket energizes the Republican base to almost rabid levels, why I don't support Clinton.
I choose to support Obama because he has impressed the hell out of me. I also don't buy into the "you never know what kind of bad things will happen if you don't vote for Clinton" arguments. I think he's smart, has shown solid judgment on important issues, and he has the type of clean slate Clinton could never have, nor politically does she want to have, and he can take real steps towards reuniting this country.
By the way, I don't know who Dave is.
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:36 PM:no, DTM - citing 2 votes over and over (did Hello_world lose respect for Dick Durbin too?) while not looking at Clinton's resume, is called selectivity to prove one's gut.
john mccutchen wrote on December 29, 2007 8:38 PM:It'll be interesting to see if pundits like David Broder and Charles Krauthammer -- who have warned endlessly that electing Hillary will inevitably produce an unprecedented Clinton co-presidency -- will have anything to say about this...
How about "the lady doth protest too much"
or
"Sargent, do you think we all just fell of your turnip truck?"
TURNIP TRUCK ACCIDENT -> http://www.cooperativegrocer.coop/images/turnip.jpg
hello_world - why is it that Obama supporters regurgitate rhetoric - this "reuniting" the country based on what? solid judgment based on what - today he says to allow Pakistan to conduct their own Bhutto investigation, months ago, he said, unilaterally invade Pakistan if they don't act on terrorists - treat them as a sovereign nation, but not really - which is it? This is not judgment, this makes no sense. Reuniting the country based on what? co-sponsoring and passing bills on bi-partisan support - when?
Reuniting the country? Based on Andrew Sullivan's argument that Obama's multi-ethnic face (his "brand) will reunite the country? In tomorrow's Washington Post - this is a good refutation of just that kind of idealistic thinking - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801899.html
john mccutchen wrote on December 29, 2007 8:45 PM:I don't know where "anon" gets "two votes" from.
Clinton was THE ONLY democratic senator to embrace every one of Bush's lies for war in the October 2002 floor debate then as a Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee Clinton opposed every effort to end the Iraq war until 2006 when according to Madeline Albright, her chief foreign policy adviser, she supposedly realized that Bush had deceived her.
There are no do-overs. Hillary Clinton bears grave and substantial responsibility for Iraq as well as for what is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan not to mention to US influence throughout the world is directly attributable to her support.
She wants to run on her experience, then let her run on HER experience.
Oh, brother. There goes her experience card. Now what's she going to play? Is she going for an inside straight or what?
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:51 PM:Did Mrs. Bill just throw Bubba under the bus?
hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 8:51 PM:"It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa"
So, how is this an example of sexism. Until Clinton releases her White House records from the years she was First Lady, this is exactly what she was doing. You can argue whether or not living overseas is legitimate foreign policy experience, but it's as legitimate as the experience that Hillary is claiming.
How prepared do you think Laura Bush is after her years as First Lady?
If there's more, then it's on her to come out and show what it was she did, but her only accomplishments of note during Bill's time as President where the failed healthcare bill, and the firing of a bunch of guys from in the Travel Office. If that's her level of experience she's alluding to, then bring in some new blood.
john mccutchen wrote on December 29, 2007 9:00 PM:Bill didn't trust Hill with a security clearance. Payback time?
"Do we really want Bill Clinton wandering the halls of the White House with time on his hands?" George Will Trinity College 12/3/07vena wrote on December 29, 2007 9:50 PM:
Hold on a minute, doesn't that kind of shoot her "experience" as First Lady theory in the foot? BTW, most people support HRC, b/c of who her husband is.
MEG wrote on December 29, 2007 10:16 PM:Hillary has proven she's staunch in her word that I believe every word of this..NOT..
I can't believe we Americans belabor this issue of dynasty with the Clintons/Bush..it's patently obvious that it's wrong for democracy..vote Obama, vote Edwards, vote Kucinich, Dodd, Biden..just don't vote for Clinton II
Duane wrote on December 29, 2007 10:52 PM:Of all of the living first ladies, Barbara Bush is clearly the most qualified candidate for President:
10 years as the daughter-in-law of a Senator.
4 years as the wife of a congressman.
4 years as the wife of a U.S. ambassador/liaison.
8 years as the wife of a vice-president.
4 years as the wife of a President.
13 years as the mother of two state governors.
8 years as the mother of a president.
That's 51 years on the sidelines compared to Hillary's 20. And that isn't even counting Barb's military experience being engaged and married to a bonafide aviator wartime hero who named three of his airplanes after her. (I mean, that's practically like Barb flying around and dropping bombs!)Meanwhile, Hill was married to an admitted draft dodger.
Maybe someone could ask Barb if all this "experience" qualifies her to be President.
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 10:55 PM:Anonymous at 8:36,
It is certainly true that many people tend to evaluate evidence through the lens of their preconceptions. You might consider, however, that such a point cuts both ways.
anonynon wrote on December 29, 2007 11:28 PM:Gee, an exclusive interview with Stephanopolous that will help to dominate the news for another 2-3 days just before the caucuses. No conflict there is there? Of course not.
waka waka wrote on December 29, 2007 11:59 PM:Hillary is just an empty suit who will say whatever sounds good at the moment. She has no core beliefs that I can discern. She wants to "appoint a committee" to solve Social Security. Wow. Talk about leadership. What a fount of ideas!
(Cue "you're a sexist" snipe on 1, 2, 3...)
roo_P wrote on December 30, 2007 12:16 AM:An interesting, carefully crafted statement from Clinton.
It does not invalidate the "co-president" angle for anyone who wants to pursue it. I am not sure it is a bad thing myself. I will certainly rather take Hillary + Bill rather than just Hillary. Constitutionally I am somewhat concerned; I just really would prefer not to see this type of a dynasty setting.
My main reason to prefer "not Clinton" at this point is a fairly deep rift in policy and approach but although CalD and others are hard at it, I do not as yet find myself unable to vote for her. I must admit I would probably not bother defending her much against Republican trolls.
I bet Bill gets more "experience" out First Gentleman than Hillary did as First Lady.
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 6:45 AM:Why would Greg Sargent or anyone else believe what Hillary says about Bill or anything else? Will Bill really be planning State Dinners and cutting ribbons all day?
random wrote on December 30, 2007 6:53 AM:Mrs. Bill Clinton is running to give her husband a unConstiutional third term. She is his surrogate. No one in their right mind would vote for Hillary to be President of the United States and leader of the world if Bill was not there. When she says differently, it just confirms that she is a liar. That too is well known.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 30, 2007 6:57 AM:The recent NYT poll reported that fully half of Hillary's support is because of Bill, not because of her own qualifications, experience or appeal.
I hope those folks are getting this message from Hillary:
"If it's Bill you want, don't vote for me. I'm not your girl."
Kefa wrote on December 30, 2007 7:58 AM:Boy the haters are out this morning.
She said formal....formal. Bill will still be an advisor a very big advisor. Chill.
David Broder and Charles Krauthammer always have something to say. But how could that be interesting?
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 9:05 AM:I think I figured out a solution for the clinton II lovers. They want a former first lady of a two term president to be the president, because of all the experience that she got being first lady, which is apparently overwhelming. Well, clinton II has such high negatives and people just don't like her for a variety of reasons, so she won't make it. Also, mr. bill will be causing all kinds of trouble and the administration would be like peyton place. Maybe secretly that's why they long for a clinton II presidency.
Well, how about laura in 2016. She would have the same experience as clinton II and could win a southern senate seat in 2010. She could move anywhere in the south and get that seat handed to her on a silver platter. Then in 2016, she could run for president. She would win hands down. People like her and her negatives are probably in single digits.
Another plus would be that the king wouldn't cause any problems. He was never that interested in being president anyway. He could have keggers in the white house and hang out with his frat boy buds and watch ball games, while laura ran the country.
What a concept, laura in 2016 to satisfy the clinton II lovers.
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 10:08 AM:Isn't the appointment of Bhutto's son and husband (one a kid, the other a corrupt hustler) an argument for ending this foolish rush toward a Clinton dynasty? Bhutto and Clinton have something scary in common. They are women who rose to power only because of
the charasmatic men whose names they inherited or married. Bhutto, while courageous, was corrupt and inept as prime minister when she ran Pakistan. Her
"experience" like Clinton's shows that political acumen is not transferable along familial lines.
Kefa,
An adviser who is excluded from National Security Council meetings is not much of an adviser, at least with respect to national security and foreign policy matters and crisis situations.
Unless your suggestion is that the NSC will be just a formality, and the real decisionmaking will go on in private with just Hillary and Bill involved. After 8 years of a similar dynamic involving Bush and Cheney, I'm not sure many people would find such a process very comforting.
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 12:29 PM:Someone said Hillary only has two more years of experience than Obama and Edwards (the other front runners and excellent candidates as well, as all of us reasoned Hillary-supporting progressive Democrate never tire of pointing out to those who choose to ignore this fact time and again).
Okay, Hillary sits on two major Senate committees, on eight subcommittees - one of which she chairs and that actually meets regularly to draft and pass pertinent legislation (unlike Obama's subcommittee that has yet to meet once), and here is a partial list of bills that she CO-AUTHORED (her name is in the title).
I'd ask any Edwards or Obama supporter to come up with a comparable list (and remember, most of these were passed in the teeth of a hostile Congress and President):
Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
Clinton-Hagel Act – Recognition for wounded veterans.
Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act
In the first part of 2007:
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
And, I believe, she's done a lot of this while directing her campaign and making appearances as well.
Again, this does not include the hundreds of bills she has supported and spoke on, etc., only those she co-authored.
Obama, Edwards supporters - let's see your man's record of bills he co-authored. It's not only years in the Senate that matters - it's what work you do there. Nobody outworks Senator Clinton. I want an intelligent, hard-working, liberal progressive President who has a track record of getting things done in the Senate (along with the rest of her 35 years of experience that ignorant people denigrate here, THAT's why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.
I meant to say in my first sentence "a few more years of experience," not "two more years."
anonymous wrote:
"Bhutto and Clinton have something scary in common. They are women who rose to power only because of
the charasmatic men whose names they inherited or married."
And Al Gore rose to the nomination because . . . why, again.
It's a good thing that no one named Roosevelt or Adams is running this time, I guess.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 1:03 PM:colonpowwow,
I won't try to generate a comprehensive list for Obama. But if you are really interested, I suggest you check out his senate.gov website. If you click "On the Issues", you will get a list of topics. If you click on the various topics, you will get an overview of his activities with respect to those topics.
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 1:38 PM:DTM:
Thanks. And the list of bills that he has co-authored and the number of subcommittee meetings he has chaired is listed there as well.
Great. I'll go look them up and report back to you.
Meanwhile, I actually started the list for Obama Senate legislation co-authorship up above. Here:
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 1:55 PM:DTM:
Okay, I didn't look at everything, but I did find something to add for Senator Obama.
Obama-Hagel provision to a Nuclear Threat Reduction plan (pending legislation).
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Okay, that added to the list. I didn't see any other co-authored legislation listed, but I did see and review his impressive Senate voting record. Well done, Senator Obama.
He's a liberal progressive on a par with Senator Hillary Clinton (they both have identical 95% + voting records as rated by ADA), and I'll be proud to vote for him if he takes the nomination.
Didn't see any mention of what his Subcommittee on European Affairs is up to. (charged with Senate positions on NATO issues, European terrorist issues, Muslime issues, declining Dollar vs. Euro economic issues, etc.). Apparently, they've never met. That bothers me a bit. You?
Obama in 2016!
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 2:34 PM:The Hillary mean machine's new talking points: anyone who diagrees with, opposes or rejects Hillary's message is not only a hater, a moran, an idiot, they now are officially SEXIST.
Obviously, the only reason anyone would opppose a dishonest, unqualified, seriously-flawed-of-judgment, do-Nothing Senator and warmonger, is that she is a woman.
colonpowwow,
The subcommittee is not, in fact, charged with most of those issues as a matter of course (Finance in particular is completely separate as are most military issues.)
Generally, the subcommittee is only involved if there is a prolonged FR issue for that region, otherwise things are handled in the Committee for Foreign Relations itself (see Madrid bombing, for example.)
The subcommittee has not convened since 1999 when the Balkan situation was winding down.
As a sidenote, "co-authored" is not a technical term for the Congress. You are looking for Sponsorship (primary author) and Co-Sponsorship (possibly co-author, always supporter.) I will see if I can find my Master Lists for Edwards and Obama.
No kidding wrote on December 30, 2007 3:03 PM:You naysayers missed the part where she said 'as I did for him". As for nostalgia tour - yeah, I am old enough to remember smart people in the WH and administration. I want that again.
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 5:34 PM:roo_P:
A nice try at ignoring the fact that the subcommittee that Hillary Clinton chairs meets regularly (Oct. 2007 last meeting) and drafts legislation, while Obama's subcommittee has yet to come to order under his chairmanship.
Also, you're wrong on the last time the subcommittee met. A cursory search on the internet turned up that it met in 2004 (Gordon Smith chaired), to discuss anti-Semitism in Germany.
Senator Obama has been running for President since day one in the Senate and has a particularly luminous record of not doing his job very much.
Again, please list some of the legislation he has co-authored. I listed about twenty things for Hillary, and that's just a partial list.
I don't hear anyone saying about Obama what Trent Lott said about Hillary in her first year, "I don't agree with her on nearly everything, but you have to admire her work ethic."
roo_P:
And one more thing while you're splitting hairs to excuse Obama's lack of legislative distinction in the few months he's been saddled with having to balance his Presidential run with his duties to his Illinois constituants who he promised he would serve in the Senate -
Take the McCain-Feingold Act. McCain and Feingold worked on the language together (authored it), hence their names on the Bill. Many others signed onto it (co-sponsored it) as it worked its way through the legislative process.
Give me some legislative work that bears the stamp of Obama's authorship. I listed twenty above that Hillary co-authored and that's just a partial list.
I also listed two of Obama's. Anything else you can come up with?
Ron Paul videos wrote on December 30, 2007 7:00 PM:Learn about someone who can really fix this country. Learn about this future President by watching Ron Paul videosRon Paul videos and then educate others.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 8:00 PM:colonpowwow,
You obviously didn't look very hard.
For example, if you clicked on "Iraq" on the Issues page, it should have been easy for you to spot the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. Or if you clicked on "Good Government, Responsible Spending", you should have found the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (also known as Coburn-Obama, signed into law in 2006). Or if you clicked on "Defense", you should have found the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 (also known as Lugar-Obama, signed into law in 2007).
But as you said, you didn't look at "everything". I'm not entirely sure what you did look at, however, given these few of many glaring oversights on your part.
Oh, and I know that many Subcommittees in Congress do not regularly meet for hearings. That doesn't mean they are inactive, of course (a Subcommittee doesn't need to hold hearings to do various tasks).
roo_P wrote on December 30, 2007 9:49 PM:colonpowwow,
Perhaps you ought to step away from the "defence" mentality, too.
Regarding "co-authorship": officially there is no such term. This is important when you are reviewing records from Thomas, for example. So you want "sponsorship" or "co-sponsorship." It is not hair-splitting.
I actually found some more hearings that the committee held too (Allen held one on the Islamic Threat at least) although for some reason they are all recorded as standing committee hearings.
Looks like DTM pointed out some legislative achievements there, already. I found my Edwards list too.
jeanne wrote on December 30, 2007 9:55 PM:not casting my vote for her. this is why.
4 years bush sir... 8 years clinton... 8 years bush jr. no way does this country need to be ruled by a bush/clinton for 28 years. cause that would make hilly in for 8. we need someone new someone fresh
actualy big bill was the one to say he would go with bush sr. and he didnt consult either hillary or bush so ya your comment makes no sense
taters wrote on December 30, 2007 10:23 PM:Sen. Obama doesn't have to show up to vote in the Senate or convene any committees he chairs. You folks don't get it, do you??
He has "Obama - ness" - that transcends anything you mere mortals could ever understand.
Some are no things to no people.
Some are some things to some people.
Some are many things to many people.
Only one is ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, and that is Barack Obama.
Obama, '08
"For No Apparent Reason"
John Edwards has stated that he would welcome in his administration the assistance of the irrepressible Bill, thereby undercutting some of ground that Hill thought she had to herself as the stand-by-her-man spouse.
Very good move, Mr. Edwards.
jds wrote on December 30, 2007 11:27 PM:colinpowow,
Obama has held elected office for 11 years (four more than Hillary). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama’s name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. This is a long list, and it might lead you to conclude that people who say he has been doing nothing in the Senate are a little less than truthful.
Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs. He has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years. On Obama’s website you can read detailed information regarding his positions on all the current major issues.
colinpowow,
Obama has held elected office for 11 years (four more than Hillary). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama’s name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. This is a long list, and it might lead you to conclude that people who say he has been doing nothing in the Senate are a little less than truthful.
Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs. He has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years.
Bill is largely an asset in the DEM Nomination and an anchor in the REP race.
I go back to my on-going observation what Clinton is running for the Repbublican nomination. What is up with that?
Did she finally piss off Bill to the point he has washed his hands of her again?
