Hillary: Obama Was "Part Time" State Senator
Check out this little nugget from the campaign trail in Nevada, as per the Las Vegas Review Journal:
Clinton implied that Obama's career has mostly been spent running for office rather than governing."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 said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."
I haven't heard the "part time" line before. It suggests that Hillary is going to keep going with her "experience" frame, and that the sharp elbows are still out, even though Hillary isn't perceived to be behind right now.
Comments (228)
savvy wrote on January 11, 2008 11:00 AM:Even as a part-time Senator he had the judgment not to support taking this country to war.
Perhaps, if Hillary had not been a part-time First Lady Bill would not have disgraced this nation and Americans all over the nation would not have had to explain to their children what oral sex was.
Hilliary's judgment lead her to lie to the nation saying that it was a vastrightwing conspiracy
Their is the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.
Hilliary simply doesn't have the relevant experience. If she does, it is under Presidential seal.
The bottomline is that judgment not experience is what has caused this nations problems.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 11, 2008 11:01 AM:With all due respect to my Senator, who is casting stones here! Clinton has been running for president since December 1, 2000. This is the sort of incredibly dumb comment that almost always restores my doubts about Clinton after she has begun to win back my respect. Can we please spend the next month talking about social security, the energy crisis, etc.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 11:02 AM:Wouldn't his long list of accomplishments in the state senate be more impressive if he wasn't there full-time?
Of course, the notion that he was part-time is ludicrous. He was a part-time professor (an associate lecturer or some such thing, not tenured) to make room for his full-time position in the government.
More distortions.
Is she trying to imply he's inexperienced, or not hard-working? Both are contrasts she's tried to make before, but only one is completely contra to reality and plays into stereotypes about black males.
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 11, 2008 11:04 AM:1) If he started running in 2005, how did she not see him coming until late 2006? Did she get 'private assurances' from Condi Rice?
2) I thought he started running when he was in kindergarten.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 11:06 AM:Weeeellll, that "no negatives until Feb 5th" shit lasted long, lol.
Yes, do look at the records, because last time I checked Obama achieved quite a bit while in Illinois, and has been active in the US Senate as well. Oh, but I forgot, Hillary's idea of "experience" and "action" in the Senate is comparing how many bullshit bills a Senator can write to rename buildings after people. Okay then, you are right Hillary, you have WAAYYY more experience than Obama :P
Oh, and speaking of political ambition? It has been obvious to anyone not living under a rock for the past decade that Hillary carpetbagged into NY to being their Senator only as a stepping stone back to the White House. She has been running for president since the 90s.
Stones...throwing...glass...house...
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 11:10 AM:I don't get the "part-time" reference. Did Obama have a poor attendance record in the Illinois state legislature? Or is that actually a part-time position in Illinois?
Penpal wrote on January 11, 2008 11:11 AM:Hillary’s statement of him as career obsessed pretty much conforms to what most people in the know thinks of him. That of course doesn’t include the Obama cult on the Internet, they think he’s the second coming of Christ, pure like a newborn child.
The English seem to have an accurate picture of him.
bob wrote on January 11, 2008 11:13 AM:Right, and Hillary claims she has been working for change for 35 years, which includes when she was in law school, on the Walmart Board of Directors in Arkansas, first lady, etc.
And if she's going to run on her husband's record, what about the fact that it's Bill Clinton's fault that George Bush beat Al Gore? If not for his lying and cover up of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, our country would be in a massively different place right now, with regard to both domestic and foreign policy.
Just for starters, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and we would have a better energy policy.
So how about it Hillary? If you are going to share credit for the good parts of your husband's record, what about the very bad parts?
Kefa wrote on January 11, 2008 11:14 AM:Amen, HRC pull out his record, he ain't done shit. Just alot of mouth. He ain't done shit. Change, guess how much change you're gonna get $0.00. That's how much.
Compare...he doesn't want to compare.
What, are Hillary and Karl Rove getting together on the talking points these days?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:15 AM:Penpal,
That English article is totally bogus. Did you actually read it? It is ridiculously dumb. Talk about fairy tales.
"Here we come to one of the major contradictions between Obama's image and reality. The media, both here and in Britain, assume that Obama has the black vote sewn up - a Daily Telegraph columnist, with stupendous racism, casually asserted on Monday that Hillary Clinton has lost an opportunity because American blacks now "have one of their own to support" - but Obama is regarded with suspicion by most African Americans."
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 11:15 AM:Perhaps, if Hillary had not been a part-time First Lady Bill would not have disgraced this nation and Americans all over the nation would not have had to explain to their children what oral sex was.
That is really tasteless, Savvy. It is despicably low to blame the wife for her husband's philandering. I am no bigger fan of Sen Clinton's than you are, but please let us try to keep this above board. One of the many reasons why I like Sen Obama (why so many Americans like him) is because he has class. We should take our example from him and not drag this down into the gutter like Rove & al.
That said, I agree with Michael A that the "part time" line is 1) bogus and 2) self-defeating. Sen Obama had a very impressive and distinguished record in the IL state Senate. I first became aware of the man's existence long before the 2004 convention when a friend of mine in downstate IL who is active in environmental causes mentioned him to me in very favorable terms. If he was able to accomplish all that he did in IL on a merely part-time basis, just think of what he can do as a full-time president!
opulent wrote on January 11, 2008 11:17 AM:A 'part-time' Senator who is as productive as Obama is highly cost-effective to the taxpayers.
Sounds like to me that Obama knows how not to waste citizens tax dollars unlike First Lady's who travel the globe to 82 countries and sip tip while claiming foreign policy experience despite lacking the security clearance to engage in anything to do with American foreign policy.
Once a liar, always a liar and Bill and Hillary Clinton are known liars.
They will look the public right in the face and LIE.
Geffen said this at the start of Hillary's campaign when she was whinning and screeching that Barack should give back all the money Geffen raised for him since he told the press, 'all politicians lie but Bill and Hillary do it with such ease'
LIARS.
Both of them.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman'
"This is a vastrightwingconspiracy'
"I was always opposed to the war"
"I didn't vote for the war I voted for diplomacy"
LIARS.
Liars cheat, and cheaters go to jail.
Can't wait until they prove the voter fraud engaged in the NH primaries with those optically scanned ballots.
Where is Larry Flynt...he needs to expose who Bill's bedwench has been these pass 6 years.
john doe wrote on January 11, 2008 11:18 AM:Hillary spent most of her life helping her husband run for office before running for office herself! That's supposed to be better? Ludicrous.
Politics as usual. If she'd pulled this bit in NH, Obama would have kept his lead, and the race would already be over.
Hillary is just depressed that people are realizing that Obama has more experience in elected office than she has.
Nick wrote on January 11, 2008 11:19 AM:I'm beginning to despise this woman. I hoped against hope two years ago that someone would tell her she'll never be President, and she wouldn't run. Can you imagine my folly? Hillary would lick the floor for the right to get stomped by McCain. Can't we see this? Can't anyone stop it??
NHer wrote on January 11, 2008 11:20 AM:Ask anyone who knows anything about Illinois state politics. Obama was a highly effective legislator, passing important death penalty reform and children's healthcare bills, among others.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:21 AM:CalD:
Illinois is not in session all year like most legislature. What your candidate is doing is distorting his record, while impuning his character without evidence. Think Rove and his comment that Obama is lazy. Code.
Pretty pathetic to me. She's testing the Democratic Party in my estimation. I wish she would just run on her strengths and policy distinctions. It reflects a weakness in her character and a lack on integrity.
jbentley wrote on January 11, 2008 11:23 AM:"A part-time state senator for a few years"?! Barack Obama has been fighting for working men and women on the South Side of Chicago for virtually his entire adult life and he has held elected office longer than Hillary has. Hillary should stop trying write Barack Obama's resume for him and stand on her own record. The type of dishonest, negative campaigning—even trying to scare the electorate by raising the spectre of terrorist attacks—is extactly the sort of Karl Rove-style politics that we need to get rid of.
Grant wrote on January 11, 2008 11:25 AM:Part time senator, part time Rezko busboy. Yeah that seems about right.
Kefa wrote on January 11, 2008 11:25 AM:....I think one could argue, as Clinton has done, that Obama is selling a myth or a fairytale. The idea that change is possible if one hopes and if the American people want it enough. It's almost the Disney version of politics. If you believe in your dreams strongly enough and want something enough, they will come true in the end. Clinton knows better. She has the scars to prove it. She has seen how Power functions in the United States and she knows that wishing isn't enough or hope or change. The only thing that power respects and fears is power, not votes or elections. When Clinton talks about experience this is what she means. Obama apparently doesn't understand how the American political system works, or he acts and speaks as if he doesn't understand.
Is he really as naive as he seems? Isn't it dangerous and irresponsible to raise people's expectations way beyond what's possible given the rules of the game?
Doesn't one risk alienating a entire generation of idealistic young people when the hard, cold, bitter, realities of political life return the day after the election?
Structural change in a society simply doesn't come through the ballot box alone, this is unfortunate, but true. In democracies it's perfectly possible to change the politicians one has, it's another thing altogether to change the economic class relationships in a society. Obama isn't talking about class or power in society, he's talking about tweaking the system, making it more efficient, making the American Dream work. And the is his fundamental problem, and not only his, the Dream cannot work because it's a dream, not reality. He's asking the voters to believe in the Dream one more time, not face up to the realities of American life.
If he suddenly dropped the Dream rhetoric and asked people to wake up and open their eyes he'd be a another type of candidate and far more dangerous, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon. And so I get on my knees and pray, that we won't get fooled again!.....
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801100000
Greg DeLasus
I agree it is tasteless. Just as tasteless as Bill Clinton's words about Obama and as tasteless as his actions in the WH.
I am not blaming Hillary for Bill's philandering at all. I am blaming her for being the undesirable shrew that she is.
The Clintons are not keeping anything above board.
They are the ones with all the dirty laundry who have decided to get down in the mud with their nasty vile scurrilous character attacks.
So, if they want to sling it then the public needs to bury their asses in an avalanche of a mudslide.
I have lost all respect for them as human beings. I never had a lot for Hillary to begin with given her poor judgment to DEFEND Bill's indefensible actions and terrorize the women he slept with for their political ambition.
She might not have caused his philandering but she was an accomplish and just as much of a culprit when it came to the coverup and all those lies. Bill was on the matt with Gennifer Flowers when Hillary looked in the camera and declared "I'm no Tammy Wynette stand by your man'
Knowing full well she had harassed and investigated all the stray pieces af ass Bill had strewn the state of Arkansas with.
Just because Obama has class doesn't mean that his supporters have to 'play nice in the sandbox' when you have incorrigible brats like Bill throwing sand and Hillary crying while she hands another bucketful of it to him!
Obama NEEDS surrogates to sling mud.
Or didn't you get Bill's memo? You know the one that said:
Strong and wrong beats weak and right?
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:30 AM:The Clintons want Obama to go personal but he won't. I suggest the Obama supporters follow his lead. No need to distort Clinton's record or positions. This game will be won by those that don't play.
His senate record speaks for itself.
DSOMMER wrote on January 11, 2008 11:31 AM:AS MY SENATOR, PART-TIME IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. HE'S CHARACTERIZED BY HIS OTHER LAWMAKERS AS LAZY. HE IS A PHENOMINAL SPEAKER AND MOTIVATOR TOO BAD HE DOESN'T DO THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE AS HE HAS PROMISED. THISELECTION IS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOT AN AMERICAN IDOL CONTEST. THE PEOPLE OF HIS DISTRICT HE REPRESENTED AS STATE SENATOR ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE RESULTS THAT HE PROMISED TO COME TO FRUITION. SAME OLD LINE OF PROMISES WITH A VERY, VERY POOR TRACK RECORD. 2 YEARS IN THE SENATE AND HE'S MISSED 177 VOTES(FACT, NOT FICTION). I DEMAND THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY SHOWS UP TO WORK AND DOES THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE.
NO THANKS BARACK AS MY STATE SENATOR YOUR GRADE WOULD BE A D-
It is disappointing if this indicates that the Clinton campaign is going to attempt to win this by tearing down Obama.
She'd be far better off running on her own vision for the future, giving the voters a vision of where she would take the country (not a recounting of were she has been). Elections are about the future, not the past - the more Clinton realizes that this nomination battle is not a referendum on restoring Bill's glory days as President, the better she will be able to speak to voters. Compare her positions to Obama, do the "where's the beef" thing - that's fine - but arguing about the petty details of public records, that will only bog her down as a candidate of the past, not the future.
(And, as an Obama supporter, I've got to say that I find the anti-Clinton rants posted here equally - or more - inappropriate and misguided. Obama wins when people hear his optimistic message, not when his supporters trash Hillary. I'm sick of supporters of any candidate doing the Republican's job for them by parroting arguments that are posted daily on "redstate.")
Joe wrote on January 11, 2008 11:34 AM:Budsh-Clinton-Bush-Clinton....gee, why dont we keep this dynastic politcs going on forever...maybe Jeb will run next, than maybe Chelsea after Jeb...Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Kefa wrote on January 11, 2008 11:34 AM:as usual the British have more sense then we do....Those who know Obama say privately that he has a healthy sense of entitlement that often manifests itself in an imperious, thin-skinned manner. We caught just a glimpse of this peevishness in his concession speech in New Hampshire, I thought - of a man somehow denied his rightful Schadenfreude over the second humiliating defeat of Clinton that he and the American punditocracy had confidently anticipated. Obama's latest book may be called The Audacity of Hope, but it really should be called The Audacity of Hype.
femdem wrote on January 11, 2008 11:37 AM:So the R in HRC is for Rove?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 11:38 AM:The Clintons are not keeping anything above board.
Indeed not, but that is only serve to highlight Obama's appeal. Why blur the differences between the two?
Just because Obama has class doesn't mean that his supporters have to 'play nice in the sandbox'... Obama NEEDS surrogates to sling mud.
I guess I disagree, but even so there is "mud" and then there is mud. Even granting that our man benefits by folks like us doing a little dirty work for him, there are some things that really are simply beyond the pale, and your line above is in that category. If folks want to call Sen Clinton the carpet for her distortions of Sen Obama's record or her nonsensical claim that somehow she is "ready" to be president (hell's bells, even Harry Truman, one of the best presidents this nation ever had, admitted to being terrified when he got the news that he was to be president) where our man is not, by all means do so. But really, blaming her for the many disgraces which Bill Clinton visited upon this nation is just wrong.
johnk wrote on January 11, 2008 11:38 AM:Let's be realistic here for a moment. Take the words and discredit them if you want to make an argument. Haven't seen it since there is no argument. That's Karl Rove"ish". The point about Iraq, they are one in the same. Both political. Ask Obama why he pulled that speech from his web site a few years ago? Then ask why did he vote exactly like Hillary in every Iraq funding vote while he was in the Senate. For all the BS, bottom line, they both troops out with a time line, they both didn't fight to get troops out earlier when they had the opportunity. Let's not kid ourselves. Ok?
Penpal wrote on January 11, 2008 11:39 AM:Kefa,
Yup the British recognize a megalomaniac when they spot him, having taken down Napoleon and all. Obama is kind of the smaller format though.
I agree with keith that there is no need to distort Clinton's record or positions. That should apply to Obama supporters, Edwards supports, AND HILLARY SUPPORTERS. I haven't distorted her record or positions, the facts are there to see for anyone interested. I'm simply interested in un-distorting her (and her followers') version of her record and positions, which includes among other things her incredibly hyped up resume of "35 years of experience and action". As mentioned above, and mentioned quite often, her "experience" doesn't stand up to reality. Her whole "Day One" campaign is based on that purported "experience" and I think it needs to be examined if she is going to attack Obama as inexperienced or all talk vs action or whatever. Her and her supporters continuously distort Obama's record, positions, character, everything and I'm tired of it and I know a lot of other people are too.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 11:40 AM:We caught just a glimpse of this peevishness in his concession speech in New Hampshire, I thought...
And I dare say that you were the only one who thought as much. Sen Obama's concession speach in NH was the very model of graciousness and class. I defy you to point to a single phrase in that speach that was "peevish" or "entitled."
Jessica wrote on January 11, 2008 11:41 AM:Interesting,
I guess this guy really is effective. He has gotten more accompished (working part-time) than Hillary has working full-time. That should tell you something.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:43 AM:And Hillary is Bill's wife
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 11:44 AM:Does the New Statesman really speak for all Brits? Incidentally, is something true just because it is written in a magazine?
And while we are on the subject of questions who's answers are intuitively obvious, is this really the best that the Clinton folks here have to offer in support of their candidate?
vicissitude wrote on January 11, 2008 11:44 AM:Sooooooo
THIS is the voice that Hillary found in NH?
Got it.
Hillary's voice.
Listen people, can you hear it?
The age old sound of mischaractirization, distortion, personal attacks and lies, lies, lies.
Lie, cheat and steal to win, just like she did with the ballots in the NH primary.
You do not have to have beleived the polls to know she cheated. All you need to do is pay attention to the record turnout of voters and people on the campaign trail. They are not for Hillary. They are not for Bill. The crowds Barack has been getting all along of 20K, 15K, 18K, in Atlanta, Austin an NYC...tell us the polls that her as the frontrunner were wrong all along and she cheated to win in NH. Machine politics.
Hillary's voice ..listen to the corrupt voice of the washington insider as she lies her way along the campaign trail.
She is telling the world she cheated to win in NH where she found her voice and will lie to win across the nation and will send our children to die without a tear in her eye.
She never shed one tear for the valiant Americans dying in Iraq.
But she will lie and cry to win.
Hillary's voice.
She found it.
Joe wrote on January 11, 2008 11:45 AM:Hillary Clinton is DIVISIVE...if Democrats want to win with her we're in short luck, especially if the Republicans nominate McCain. Just look at the results so far, Obama pulls in many more independants than Hillary, the key to winning the general. If Hillary is nominated she will probably lose in another razor sharp election with no mandate. Why not go in a new, fresh direction with Obama? No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
Grant wrote on January 11, 2008 11:45 AM:No, I guess the Clinton folks have Rezko's busboy to offer as well.
Jessica L Caruso wrote on January 11, 2008 11:47 AM:The real fairytale is expecting any kind of positive change by putting the Clintons back in the whitehouse. Also, trying to tell the American people that this will not be a co-presidency is a fairytale. The majority of the people who voted for Hillary in NH would have voted for Bill instead if they had the chance. Now we know who they were electing. Most of Obama's voters however would have stayed with him.
Katherine wrote on January 11, 2008 11:47 AM:"Doesn't one risk alienating a entire generation of idealistic young people"
Please don't accuse OBAMA of this. Argue that he hasn't paid his dues, sure. What risks our alienation is the Democratic party establishment trying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over & telling people who want to try something different--whether it's Dean, Obama, or anyone else--that they're naive fools.
CT Voter wrote on January 11, 2008 11:50 AM:I'll take a part time Senator vs a full-time First Lady...
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:51 AM:I've posted it before, but I think it's relevant now. Here is a list of his accomplishments while in the Senate:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html
And he wasn't in the state senate for a few years, 8 years if I recall correctly.
Everyday she loses a little more credibility by engaging in this type of distortion. It really speaks volumes about who she is as a person and who she will be if she occupies the White House.
John McCutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 11:52 AM:It suggests that Hillary is going to keep going with her "experience" frame, and that the sharp elbows are still out, even though Hillary isn't perceived to be behind right now.Desider wrote on January 11, 2008 11:53 AM:It suggests that Hillary is running scared. It suggests that her internal polling numbers continue the tumble that began in October. It suggests that her staff has decided that she cannot play credibly in a race reframed from "experience" to "change"
It suggests that the end is near.
That's what it suggests Sargent Billary
Perhaps she was referring the legislature working less than 80 days a year:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/schedules/default.asp
Calling Obama a "part time state senator" is like calling school teachers who work another job during the summer "part time teachers."
Btw, WTF is up with all the shouting (all caps) around here lately? One of the best ways I know of to get yourself ignored.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:55 AM:Which makes his accomplishments there all the more impressive.
hadenough wrote on January 11, 2008 11:56 AM:Bad news for obama. His only 'hope' was nobody would notice the suit is empty.
Dave Carlson wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:Very well said, Katherine!
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:Everyday she loses a little more credibility by engaging in this type of distortion.
Indeed. And Sen Obama, being smart as he is, simply stands back to let her take enough rope to hang herself. While Sen Clinton is busy shooting herself in the foot, our man is touring the country offering folks a vision of something better and set of proposals of how to get there. Not an especially tough choice, that...
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:(sigh)
Okay, here's a partial listing of Hillary's Senate accomplishments and indications of her work ethic.
Please respond with a similar listing for Obama (okay to use his Illinois stuff, I know he hasn't done much in the job he was elected to do yet).
Right after being elected Senator, and in a completely Republican controlled environment filled with her political enemies, her first speech on the Senate floor listed 5 healthcare proposals in detail that she could support.
Even Trent Lott across the aisle said in Hillary’s first year in the Senate, “Though I disagree with her on nearly everything politically, you have to be impressed by what a hard worker she is.”
Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.
She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.
BTW - the Senate subcommittee that Hillary chairs meets regularly and passes legislation (last met in October 2007). The subcommittee that Senator Obama chairs hasn't met ONCE since he's become Senator.
Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Here is just some of the legislation she has co-sponsored that is now law. This list doesn't include the hundreds of bills that she has signed onto or that she has strongly advocated - again this is bipartisan legislation passed in spite of an overall hostile Republican environment:
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.
Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is only the first part of 2007. I understand that she's also done a bit of campaigning this year
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:Did someone just accuse Obama of having a sense of entitlement to be president? And Hillary just came in as the humble non-inevitable underdog??
HAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAA
HAAA!!
Dear god you anti-Obama people are insane. Between demonizing him and canonizing Hillary the utter hypocrisy and contempt for critical thought and rationality is appalling. I really don't even know what to say...it would be funny if it wasn't serious and so much wasn't at stake.
Desider wrote on January 11, 2008 12:04 PM:Similar to the Texas legislature which only meets every other year, the Illinois legislature meets fewer than 80 days a year. If people are going to talk about Obama's state senate experience in relation to Hillary's 3 years more in the US Senate, perhaps they should realize that the US Senate is meeting about twice as much.
Now Obama was also teaching college during that time, so if you want to give him credit for that, fine. I'm not sure what Hillary's other extracurriculars were during the last 7 years (what foundations, etc.)
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 12:05 PM:Keith:
I just saw the list of bills that Obama "sponsored" that is, signed on to, in the Illinois senate.
By that measure, Clinton has "sponsored" 1,000s of bills by merely doing what Obama did - that is, had her name added to the bill as a sponsor. It's nothing.
How many bills has he authored, that is, drafted and his name is on the title, you know like the "McCain-Feingold Act" (that Hillary "sponsored" as well).
Let me get you started:
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
savvy wrote on January 11, 2008 12:08 PM:johnk wrote on January 11, 2008 11:38 AM:
. The point about Iraq, they are one in the same. Both political. Ask Obama why he pulled that speech from his web site a few years ago? Then ask why did he vote exactly like Hillary in every Iraq funding vote while he was in the Senate. For all the BS, bottom line, they both troops out with a time line, they both didn't fight to get troops out earlier when they had the opportunity. Let's not kid ourselves. Ok?
Obama explained his remarks that Bill Clinton is misconstruing john k. Pay attention. Obama made the remarks and took down his speech in support of the DEMOCRATIC 2004 nominees, KerryandEdwards. Do you recall those guys? Well they both voted FOR the war. Obama took his speech down in support of the democratic ticket he was being a team player...got that? What he did not do was change his position. No matter how many times Bill Clinton says 'he said he did not know what he would have done' while leaving off the rest of the sentence which was 'what I do know is that the case was not made'. Read that last part repeatedly until you understand that his position on Iraq has NEVER changed.
Stop listening to Bill Clinton. Obama is not voting like Hillary. Obama is voting like all the other members of Congress who voted AGAINST the war. The person who switched was Hillary not Obama. People who were opposed to the war are acting responsibly when the vote to fund the war. They know that a lack of funds HURTS the TROOPS it does not CHANGE the MISSION. Do you see how that works? Obama is being responsible when he votes to fund the troops. He is not voting to support the war.
You are wrong about the troops. Obama was the one who came up with the timeline that the Senators all agreed on. Feingold praised Obama as the Senator who was moving the support in the right direction in the Senate, unlike Clinton. Look it up. Stop listening to Bill. Hillary is the one who is still opposed to timeline and who is willing to send even more troops to Iraq based on what happens in Iran. Pay attention. That is why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill, she has no intention of bringign the troops home. If you think she does pay attention to what she does not what she says.
Recall, when Hillary ran for the NY Senate seat, right after Gore loss on the electoral votes, do you know what she told NYers, then? She said that as soon as she was their Senator she would introduce an amendment to abolish the electoral college. She promises anything that she can to win and has no intention of ACTING on it. That is why she is trying to draw distinctions between words and actions. Hers don't match.
She claimed she voted for diplomacy when she voted for the use of military force and to take the country to war...see how that works...her words do not match her deeds.
Hillary is a liar. She does not mean one word she says. She never introduced an amendment as Senator to abolish the electoral college and she is not going to bring the troops home...listen carefully to what she says. She wants to keep them there to protect Americas interests and Americas intersts are the oil.
Obama did fight with Feingold in the Senate to bring the troops home and to set a time table. Hillary has not.
Go look at the record and stop listening to that scalawag Bill Clinton who disgraced this nation with his penile activity in the oval office.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:09 PM:Colonpowwow/Desider:
Senator Obama hasn't challenged Clinton's accomplishments in office, but thanks for listing them once again. The push back is on this ridiculous claim by Senator Clinton.
I mean does she really want to admit that she's in a tight race with a part-time state senator who's spinning fairy tales? I mean what does that say about HER message?
The reality is the facts dispute everyone her contentions. But if you feel comfortable trying to force Senator Obama into this imaginary box instead of dealing with who he is and his political skill, then be my guest.
The worst delusion, is self-delusion.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 12:09 PM:Barack Obama is just George Bush in Democratic drag. I don't, by that, mean that Bush and Obama always agree on policy. I mean that Obama today is exactly what George Bush was in 2000: a lazy, empty suit that wants to be president 'cause it's neat, claims that he can usher in a new age of post-partisanship...and expects to waltz into office on the strength of his personality.
The amazing thing to me about this primary election season is how many people's brains fall out of their heads over a pretty speech and handsome face. Obama talks about working together, but has he done so in the Senate? No. Hillary has. Even her Republican colleagues have been forced to admit that Clinton rolled up her sleeves, took the issues seriously and tried to find common ground with those across the aisle. Does Obama have a record like that? No.
I can't in good conscience vote for that man.
hisgirlfriday wrote on January 11, 2008 12:10 PM:CalD:
The Illinois General Assembly is part-time in the sense that like most state legislatures it does not meet in the capital year round.
In Illinois the legislature meets typically between the second week in January until the beginning of June (that's when there is a budget deadline) however last year because of squabbling between the governor and legislative leaders they met pretty much the whole year.
There are also fall veto sessions that in a typical year put a lawmaker in the capital between 6-7 months.
However, as a state legislator you also are tasked with a responsibility of constituent service so I would argue that even though most state legislators have side jobs at the same time they work in the capital, it is a full-time job.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:13 PM:Colonpowwow:
I'm not challenging his record of accomplishment, your candidate is the oen doing so. So the oneous is on you or your candidate to demonstrate that he didn't do anything while he was in Illinois State Senate.
But as a way of helping you out, the far right column highlights measures that were passed (doesn't specify how many measures, but tells you that, for example, he passed several healthcare measures, etc.).
So, again, if she's going to make the charge, the oneous is on her to substantiate it. Otherwise, she's just blowing smoke.
mkolb wrote on January 11, 2008 12:13 PM:savvy said: Perhaps, if Hillary had not been a part-time First Lady Bill would not have disgraced this nation and Americans all over the nation would not have had to explain to their children what oral sex was.
and then he said:I am not blaming Hillary for Bill's philandering at all. I am blaming her for being the undesirable shrew that she is.
This is so despicable that I'm almost but not quite, speechless. It is people like you, savvy, that are sending women like me from undecided straight to Sen. Clinton. You remind us of the bad old days and, but your hatred, put everything your and other Obama supporters say into question.
upper left wrote on January 11, 2008 12:14 PM:When will Democrats demand that our candidates stop acting like Republicans?
I am not surprised by the unrelenting negativity of camp Clinton. They have always viewed politics as blood sport. They have always viewed the path to victory as "out-Republicaning" the Republicans: raise more corporate money; better opposition research; more manipulation of the media; and more "Rovian" smears of your opponents.
What I find most disturbing is the willingness of most Clinton supporters to defend her use of these tactics. Not only are these tactics unethical, they are damaging to our party and the political process itself. Dems damage out party "brand" when we engage in these tactics. We make it easier for the Repubs to smear our candidates by creating an atmosphere of "everybody does it."
Clinton supporters, I urge you to demand better of your candidate. Write the campaign and ask them to stop the negativity, or realize that perhaps you need to rethink your candidate preference. If you want change, stop supporting a candidate that uses Republican tactics.
savvy wrote on January 11, 2008 12:14 PM:Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:51 AM:
Thanks for that post Keith. Eight hundred bills in 8 years is ~100 bills a year as a 'part-time' Senator. That is impressive.
Can anyone tell us how many bills HRC sponsored in total in her six years in the US Senate...and then can someone please tell us how many weren't to name buildings, ban burning the flag etc?
I like this site as well for the significance of the types of bills that Obama is known for. He does not engage in trivial legislation. Just this year the transparency in government bill became law that he sponsored with Coburn. For a list of other work he has done in the US Senate please go to this link.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:16 PM:The Pro-HRC commentors are demonstrating that this is just another form of Rove's attacks. If your goal is to alienate a substantial portion of the electorate going into the fall, you are doing an excellent job.
Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 11, 2008 12:20 PM:As if we are supposed to believe that Mrs. Clinton herself was not already positioning to run for President when she launched her Senate campaign in 2000? She should stick to the issues. If the Clinton camp manages to beat Obama by sliming him rather than on their own vision I might actually stomach a McCain vote in November against Hillary (so I can see Obama return in 2012).
As if we are supposed to believe that Mrs. Clinton herself was not already positioning to run for President when she launched her Senate campaign in 2000? She should stick to the issues. If the Clinton camp manages to beat Obama by sliming him rather than on their own vision I might actually stomach a McCain vote in November against Hillary (so I can see Obama return in 2012).
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:21 PM:Colonpowwow:
One more thing, I should correct your suggestion that Obama signed onto measures. That's incorrect as your own litany of Clinton measures demonstrate. She was a SPONSOR of those particular measures (amendments in most cases). When she joined other measures, she is generally referred to have CO-SPONSORED.
This list reflects that Obama INTRODUCED/SPONSORED.
I can stress enough how embarassing this beginning to get for the Clintons. If she loses her bid for the nomination, it's going to be almost impossible for her to work with Obama. Pretty short-sighted if you ask me, but of course, no one did. : )
Bill R. wrote on January 11, 2008 12:23 PM:12 years as first lady of Arkansas.
8 years as first lady of USA
8 years running for president.
Impressive experience!
The Dynasty reruns go on and on and on.....
savvy:
Obviously you read about as well as you draft conspiracy theories about stolen elections?
I addressed both of the points you raised in my posts from the last few minutes.
If you agree, say yes, and you've just sponsored my post and can be listed as such. I wonder how long it would take you to sponsor 800 bills at this rate?
savvy wrote on January 11, 2008 12:27 PM:colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:
Right after being elected Senator, and in a completely Republican controlled environment filled with her political enemies, her first speech on the Senate floor listed 5 healthcare proposals in detail that she could support.
So what? Where's the beef. What was enacted from those proposals. What legislation did she successfully pass?
"Even Trent Lott across the aisle said in Hillary’s first year in the Senate, “Though I disagree with her on nearly everything politically, you have to be impressed by what a hard worker she is.”
No one works harder than Barack when it comes to actually producing OUTCOMES. He passed ANTI Proliferation legislation in the US Senate as a rookie by working across the hard. His legislative record as a rookie in volume AND substance puts HRC's to shame.
The truth is people remark on it about Hillary because it is such a RARE thing for her to do! More importantly, even when she does it, it is only to sign on as nothing is actually ever passed, she just adds her name to others hard work.
"Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees."
So, sitting on committees doesn't mean squat! Sitting is not even words. What has she DONE. We need ACTIONS and OUTCOMES. Not sitting and words. Barack sits on committes too. BFD.
"She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health."
More sitting on her old sixty year old ample ass...where's the beef? What did she DO, what has she accomplished?
"BTW - the Senate subcommittee that Hillary chairs meets regularly and passes legislation (last met in October 2007). The subcommittee that Senator Obama chairs hasn't met ONCE since he's become Senator."
So what? Name the legislation she has passed. Most of us here know that meeting with committees doesn't mean a darn thing. It is unproductive ACTIVITY. Not ACTIONS. Do you have any outcomes to show for all those darn meetings sucking up our tax dollars? Barack knows how to priortize his time to actually get work done instead of just looking busy by having lots of meaningless activity. Show some outcomes for all Hillary's busy activity or is it just as contrived for the most part as those tears that welled up in her eyes.
Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
No wonder her butt is ample she sits on too many committees and doesn't accomplish a darn thing. If she is such a doer name something of significance that has come out of these committees that is the result of all this committee sitting she does.
Otherwise this is just a laundry list of a resume padding, doesn't mean diddly squat. As Hillary says...nothing but a bunch of words.
What has she DONE!!!!
Keith: "If your goal is to alienate a substantial portion of the electorate going into the fall"
----------
Hey, Keith: what do you think happens when Obamamaniacs say cruel, unfair things about Mrs. Clinton? Are you really claiming that it's okay to bash Hillary but it's not okay to bash Obama?
I won't vote for Obama for three reasons:
1) His ideas on policy are bad
2) He's a phony
3) He's lazy
>>>>>Did Obama have a poor attendance record in the Illinois state legislature? Or is that actually a part-time position in Illinois?
Or we could introduce a third, more compelling option: Your candidate is a smearmongering, fearmongering, race baiting, neocon-voting, chickenhawk sack of ?@#!.
I'm still trying to decide.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 12:33 PM:Keith:
As much as you'd like to distort things by creative usage of sponsorship vs. authorship to mask your candidate's lack of much substantive legislative work, two facts are indiputable:
1. Obama, after lying about his intentions to the Chicago papers while seeking election to the Senate, has, indeed, been running for President instead of doing much in the Senate since *Day One. (*Oooh, I'm really starting to hate that term).
2. Senator Obama, whose "experience" includes chairing the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, hasn't gaveled it to order one time since he's taken the steppingsto . . . uh . . . I mean . . . job as Senator.
brewmn wrote on January 11, 2008 12:34 PM:Excellent post, upper left.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 12:36 PM:Would it be too much to ask of Hillary what she might possibly have meant by the characterization of "part-time"?
Anybody?
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 12:40 PM:When will Democrats demand that our candidates stop acting like Republicans?
Because she presumed to criticize St Obama as having been a "part-time" State Senator.
Yeah, right, that would make her a Republican for sure.
You people should just try to listen to yourselves every once in awhile. You might be embarrassed. You know, if you're capable of that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 12:40 PM:It is people like you, savvy, that are sending women like me from undecided straight to Sen. Clinton. You remind us of the bad old days and, but your hatred, put everything you and other Obama supporters say into question.
Huh? Savvy's second remark, which you quoted, was in response to me, an Obama supporter, who took issue with his first remark which you quoted. How does his (her?) boorishness call into question that which I wrote? This makes no sense at all. Overhasty generalizations about all Obama supporters based on just one of us strike as a rather poor basis for selecting a prefered candidate.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:40 PM:Colonpowwow:
I'm not distorting anything. HRC has co-sponsored Webb's Amendment. Notice it's not called the Webb-Clinton amendment. McCain co-sponsored Kyle-Lieberman, it's not called Kyle-Lieberman-McCain.
1. Can you provide evidence that he's been running since Day One? Or are we just supposed to take your assertion as evidence enough.
2. Your point is what?
No-bama:
I don't advocate bashing Clinton or her record. She's an accomplished Senator who has a strong record. My goal isn't to get folks not to vote for her. My goal is to champion Senator Obama's credentials. And no amount of "code" is going to draw me into some fight about Clinton's credentials.
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 12:41 PM:colonpowwow,
I'll ignore your sudden acquisition of psychic powers (unless you can give me some stock tips). But this "hasn't chaired a meeting of his subcommittee" crap is a, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, I know: distortion.
Obama has chaired meetings of his subcommittee dedicated to the actual work of a subcommittee--markup and consideration of amendments of legislation. What he is accused of not having done is chair a "policy" meeting, i.e. calling a meeting so he and the other people on his subcommittee (which includes Joe Biden, the committee's chairman) can listen to bunch of Beltway "foreign policy experts" bloviate about Europe.
brad wrote on January 11, 2008 12:43 PM:it seems that almost every argument Sen. Clinton makes on her own behalf is either based upon fear, or on building some negative stereotype of Sen. Obama. I thinj this is 100 percent in line with her 17 year reputation as a public figure. It is also an accurate preview of her potential presidency. That said, she is a hard worker and she is very smart.
I guess what I'm saying is that when you put her entire candidacy in focus, coupled with her instinct for message control and secrecy, the candidate she reminds me of most is Richard Nixon.
I can't support her.
Obama '08.
savvy:
You really need to take a timeout from your hatred problem and learn how to process facts better.
When you insult someone's physical appearance as an "argument," you're not generating sympathy or empathy by any of the posters here, no matter who they support. This is a blog for progressive supporters of progressive candidates who don't confuse spirited debate with calling someone a "fat ass."
Lift your hands. Back away from the keyboard. And get some help.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 12:44 PM:frankly0: "Would it be too much to ask of Hillary what she might possibly have meant by the characterization of "part-time"?
------------------
What would YOU call somebody that missed 37.6% of all the votes in the current Congress? And what do YOU call somebody that often voted "present" in Springfield in order to avoid making difficult, politically-hazardous decisions?
Orin wrote on January 11, 2008 12:44 PM:Geeze. Glad to see you "found your voice" Hillary.
I have no idea why Hillary does this. It's like an instinct or something. Well, hopefully she can work herself back into the position where everyone is dumping on her so hard that she wins the sympathy vote again.
Frankly0:
Excellent point. What was Senator Clinton's point? The comment that he is perpetually running for office seems to suggest that he would get into office and start running for the next office. Hard to juxtpose her characterization with the 800+ bills, but that's precisely what she's suggesting.
Seems awfully similar to the "lazy" argument Rove has been speaking and other HRC supporters have been echoing here and on other threads.
But you're right, Senator Clinton needs to explain herself.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 12:46 PM:Did Obama, in fact, have side jobs or ventures while he worked as State Senator?
How much time might he have spent on the job as State Senator? How much time might he have spent in other activities?
Don't you think that before the characterization of Obama as being "part-time" is accepted or dismissed we might look into those pesky things called facts?
Or does nobody care about that kind of silliness anymore?
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 12:50 PM:NCSteve:
I'm sorry (no snark). I was under the impression that there was no meeting yet of his subcommittee. Could you direct me to the site or statement that backs up your characterization of the subcommittees' work since Obama took the reins.
If I'm wrong, I'll apologize and drop it.
See, cultists, how easy it is to do when one's opinion runs smack into the facts? Good thing I'm not running for Saint in this cycle.
Seriously, NCSteve. Where did you get the info on the non-Policy meetings?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 12:53 PM:I won't vote for Obama for three reasons:1) His ideas on policy are bad
I disagree that Sen Obama's ideas on policy are bad, but if one thought that, would this not be a reason not to vote for Sens Clinton & Edwards as well? After all, the specific policy proposals of these three are all quite similar (no great surprise there) and besides, everyone knows that the positions taken during an election of any of the candidates (on either party's side) will bend quite quickly to post-electoral realities once the eventual successor to Bush is elected.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 12:54 PM:He lectured at University of Chicago Law School and was a civil rights attorney when the legislature was out of session.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 12:58 PM:I don't advocate bashing Clinton or her record. She's an accomplished Senator who has a strong record. My goal isn't to get folks not to vote for her. My goal is to champion Senator Obama's credentials.
Well said. There are many good things to be said for Sen Clinton, and a million good reasons to vote for her. I simply happen to think that there are even more good things to be said for Sen Obama and even better reasons to vote for him.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 1:01 PM:It is worthwhile to think about at least one comparison that often gets made regarding Obama, namely with John Kennedy, who, in modern times would seem the closest parallel in terms of inexperience when rising to the Presidency.
Thing is, John Kennedy, at bare minimum, served in the US House of Representatives for six years and as US Senator for 8 years. In contrast, Obama has had only 4 years in the US Senate.
I think it's fair to say that a position in the US House of Representatives is a full time job indeed. I think it's fair to question whether a position in a State legislature is a full time job in the same sense. Beyond that point, of course, is the fact that a US Representative is immersed in national, not merely state, issues.
So where's the model for a successful President in modern times with the dearth of relevant experience Obama would bring to the role?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 1:02 PM:What would YOU call somebody that missed 37.6% of all the votes in the current Congress?
A presidential candidate. All of the senators running for president miss a lot of votes. It goes with the territory. It is, I suppose, regrettable, but hardly a hanging offense, unless you mean to say that no sitting senator ought ever to run for president.
[W]hat do YOU call somebody that often voted "present" in Springfield in order to avoid making difficult, politically-hazardous decisions?
An Illinois state legislator. All IL state legislators do this, or at least all the smart ones. It is a parlimentary maneuver used to accomplish desired outcomes, and a savvy legislator uses it to the best effect to promote the interests of his or her district. Sen Obama was just such a savvy legislator.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 1:04 PM:Greg DeLassus: the specific policy proposals of these three are all quite similar
--------------
There really are important differences. For example, Mr. Obama's proposals on cap-and-trade carbon reduction, his non-universal "universal" health care plan, his Social Security tinkering are all things that I just can't support.
You also wrote that" everyone knows that the positions taken during an election of any of the candidates (on either party's side) will bend quite quickly to post-electoral realities..."
Well, isn't that all the more reason to start off with the best proposals possible? I understand a president usually has to compromise his/her way to an imperfect policy...but why START with a bad policy that will only be made worse as it's considered by the Congress?
Whit wrote on January 11, 2008 1:05 PM:Even the least competent, laziest president in history has caused great change: Bush of course. So it follows that any president is capable of causing great change. And any president who is a great public speaker can get a bunch of the populace involved in creating their own change. H. Clinton has no public speaking skills, beyond the typical politician's half-truths, which ring false to anyone with a mind to hear it. Dreams do move us. Obama has real skill in presenting a dream. This can work.
(BTW: I'm still an Edwards supporter. This is an observation from the sidelines of the Clinton-Obama game. I'd just as soon they hurt each other enough that Edwards can be the nominee despite the press boycott. But, for the sake of the image of our party, I'd like to see them do that in a fair game; and Clinton's an amazingly dirty player.)
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 1:07 PM:'All IL state legislators do this, or at least all the smart ones. It is a parlimentary maneuver used to accomplish desired outcomes, and a savvy legislator uses it to the best effect to promote the interests of his or her district. Sen Obama was just such a savvy legislator.'
Triangulator...
muahahahahaha!
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 1:07 PM:Keith et al:
Again - in response to attacks on Clinton's substantive Senate work, I've listed over 20 enacted bills and amendments with her name in the title - not co-sponsorships where the author of the proposed legislation asked if she'd sign on as a co-sponsor and said "Yes."
So, the list of legislation bearing the name of US or State Senator Obama is:
(again, I'll start you out):
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
I'm telling you, for both real and perceived reasons, you don't want to get into this experience fight. It's about as big a winner as blaming sympathetic, emotional women who were led by the nose by one of their own kind's "phony tears" for Hillary's NH victory.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 1:11 PM:Greg DeLassus: A presidential candidate.
---------
That doesn't explain it. Hillary Clinton is a presidential candidate too. Did she miss nearly 40% of the votes? No. How did Hillary manage to run for president and do her job at the same time?
You also wrote that "All IL state legislators do this, or at least all the smart ones."
Then perhaps you can explain why Mr. Obama wrote in his book that, in the Illinois legislature, "[y]ou must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."
The man makes much ado about taking hard stands on tough issues...but his record clearly shows he AVOIDS taking hard stands on tough issues. That's one of the reasons I consider Mr. Obama a phony.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 1:11 PM:In my ongoing effort to be helpful and not just negative re a more winnable issue for Obama:
How about: Better Judgement on the Iraq War from before I was in the Senate and actually had to start voting on it and considering the political implications?
Just trying to be helpful.
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 1:12 PM:Colon,
Frankly, I shouldn't have said it because I'm was (and am) too busy right now to track down a source. I did it on leisuretime once but can't lay my hands on it.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 11, 2008 1:15 PM:Yes, Hillary in her Senate career has to her "credit" such "achievements" as enabling Bush's war, trying to enable his next war with Iran, voting for the disgusting bankruptcy bill to reward her corporate paymasters, and spending most of her time plotting her run for president.
Enough. It's time for the Democratic electorate to wake up and cure the party of its Clinton fungus infection.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 1:15 PM:Reading through the comments from Clinton supporters just confirms that I will never vote for Hillary.
HRC supporters are scum.
Colonpowwow:
First, I'll never run from a discussion on anything. I've yet to attack Senator Clinton or her record in the Senate. What I'm pushing back on and will continue to do so, is the mischaracterization of his record and his work ethic.
Your candidate believes that the only way to win is to lie and distort Senator Obama's record instead of running on her own. Why? I don't know, I could speculate, but that's all it would be--speculation. I appreciate that Senator Obama hasn't stooped so low and whatever happens, he will have his integrity intact. The same can't be said for your candidate.
So if you want to lecture someone on the fruitless attacks, I suggest you contact HRC and have a chat or a conversation.
How you kids defend this crap from them is amazing. Simply amazing.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 1:18 PM:HRC supporters are scum.
I guess because they engage in name-calling, which an Obama supporter would never do.
Friend wrote on January 11, 2008 1:19 PM:The Clintons are not else but a racist pair that would don anything to get back in the white house to secure their retirement. While Hilary is out running her mouth, Clinton will be getting all the blow jobs his little heart desire.
If Hilary doesn't become president, she will sure win an oscar. To people everywhere wake up. And to Black people, wake up and stop believing that Bill Clinton was the first black president.........he is not black and he never gave a damn about black people..........he gave us handouts so that we would be forever beholding to him and in so doing give him and his actress wife our votes. Please look closely at these people and see them for what they really are.......Go Obama! and just incase she manuever herself into being the presidential nominee, Mc Cain is going to chew her up and spit her up bring out all of their diry laundry. Yes, I am a born democrat........and a white women but I've had enough of the Clintons. Time for a complete revolution.
Oh by the way, I support Edwards, so don't bother trying to attribute my disgust with Hillary to Obamamania.
RWN wrote on January 11, 2008 1:22 PM:This one is like the kindergarten quip...this is her listening to her staff trying to find ANYTHING on him and then repeating the ANYTHING...
More of this and more that NV will say pass on this past.
You being a former teacher in Middle School Hillary's campaign reminds me of how the gaggle of girls would find ways to verbally bully a boy of their choosing. It is a sad commentary.
Nickal wrote on January 11, 2008 1:22 PM:Michael:
What long list of accomplishments are you talking about? He was in the state senate a relatively shport time and had, at best, a mediocre voting record (PRESENT!) and spent a great deal of time playing Cook County machine politics. Far from the "New Politics" meme that he now conveniently espouses. obama is now little more than a sweet talking pretty man. He's as hollow as a drum.
if Hillary Clinton, of ALL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, wants to use this as a line of argument against an incredibly accomplished person like Obama, then she is dumber than i thought. AS IF that isn't the first thing 90% of people think of when they think of her. she's been running for Pres. since early 1992!
drubs wrote on January 11, 2008 1:25 PM:I like Obama he is my 2nd choice and will close the deal with me when he starts talking substance. I don't blame him for relying on feel good platitudes, I would also if I were a candidate. It is not his fault if the press is ready to canonize him but as a highly intelligent man he must know that his free ride will end soon. Take the ride until it ends and be prepared to come out fighting. Until then I will reserve judgment.
ihatebeets wrote on January 11, 2008 1:25 PM:I think HRC is trying out this new line to see if it sticks. Frankly, I hope it doesn't since it is pretty low rent. I would offer that ALL US Senators are "part time" with their 3 day work weeks and 6 week recesses. Sorry Hillary, it doesn't wash.
As for HRC being the "agent of change", if you mean having a President with two X chromosomes is change, I'll buy it. Otherwise, she embodies the Washington Establishment. Obama, for all his faults, hasn't been there long enough or is beholden to enough special interest groups to carry that label. That certainly represents a big change as far as I'm concerned.
vena wrote on January 11, 2008 1:25 PM:Obama should just continue to draw contrasts between their records. I don't think he's been as sharp as he should be when it comes to making his stance known and how it differs from hers. He should begin to highlight his credentials and emphasize his contributions during his Illinois Senate years and his actions as U.S. Senator. This is what the voters should be focusing on. He'll hopefully stay above this and not give it the time of day. Even if he loses the nomination, he'll still have integrity.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 1:26 PM:Nickal:
He was in the Illinois senate for 8 years. He cast over 4,000 votes during the time and less than 4% were present votes (the majority of which were done as part of a broader Democratic strategy). Those are facts.
You got anymore, cause I can keep knocking these down all day.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 1:26 PM:Keith:
Please don't think all spririted debate based on the facts re their respective Senate records is an attack. If one claims to be more experienced, how would you suggest that one goes about proving it without comparing the two records?
I respect you as an honest and thoughtful poster (mostly - but I get carried away into hyperbole-land quite often myself ;-) - and I've said it before.
Also, it feels good to be called kid at my age. It used to feel patronizing back when I actually was one. See how the English language breathes? It's one of the things I love about it.
Now what was that "racist" expression I'm looking for from yesterday? ;-)
Joe wrote on January 11, 2008 1:27 PM:Hillary is the corporate candidate...theres no way around it. Look how much money she takes from special interests. Wake up people!
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 1:28 PM:Hillary Clinton is a presidential candidate too. Did she miss nearly 40% of the votes?
Between Sept and Nov of 2007 Sen Obama missed 80% of the senate's votes and Sen Clinton missed 63%. I grant you that 80% is more than 63%, but this still means that both of them missed the majority of votes in that competitive time period. I would the set down the difference to the fact that Sen Clinton was the front-runner, while Sen Obama was the challenger, so simply electoral dynamics demanded that he campaign harder in order to be competitive. This brings me back, of course, to my earlier point. It might well seem a shame for these candidates to neglect the work for which they were elected, but such is the only way that they are able to campaign for the presidency. Unless you mean to say that you think it wrong for any sitting senator to run for president (thus depriving the party of a substantial block of its most promising potential presidential material), your complaint has little merit.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 1:28 PM:HRC supporters are scum.
I guess because they engage in name-calling, which an Obama supporter would never do.
I'm not an Obama support but you, Frankly0 and you pals, are still scum.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 11, 2008 1:28 PM:Fun article about "experience". It sums up a lot of my concerns, but there are definitely many more:
Sen. Clinton’s White House Experience (Ron Christie)
In recent days, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has boasted of her eight years of experience during the presidency of her husband. There’s no question that she had strong influence with her husband and that she met with world leaders and scores of politicians.
My antennae went up, however, when I heard Sen. Clinton tout her eight years of experience in the White House, a clear dig at her Senate colleague and competition for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Obama, for his part, responded on Monday night by saying: “I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it.” Exactly.
Is she taking credit for welfare reform — a bill that President Clinton vetoed twice before signing that significantly reduced the number of people on public assistance? Is she taking credit for NAFTA, a trade agreement that has spurred trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico that has created well-paying jobs for Americans? What is she taking credit for, exactly?
Since she’s in the mood for taking credit for the Clinton administration’s accomplishments, why won’t she release her correspondence with her husband during their time in the White House? If we’re truly supposed to judge her on her record amassed while living and apparently working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., why can’t we examine the documents she wrote that could shed light on and offer insight into her policy positions?
Oh, and let’s not forget how FBI files found their way into the residence, the firings in the White House Travel Office and the marital infidelity that has forever placed an asterisk next to the Clinton administration. Will she also take credit for these historical events? Are these subjects now open once again for examination and review to shed light on her experience as first lady?
My guess is that this is a Pandora’s Box best left closed by Sen. Clinton. If she persists in talking about her White House experience, it will remind the American people once again about what they experienced during eight years of an administration marked by parsing, double-talk, lying under oath and impeachment. Best to leave those inside the box and out of sight.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 1:29 PM:drubs:
He's laid out several plans (especially during the summer). And if you want to know how he plans to get there, his website is publicly available.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 1:32 PM:NCSteve:
No problem. You've got me looking for it myself. I'll hold off on the "charge" until I've more thoroughly checked it out.
Thanks.
DonnaG wrote on January 11, 2008 1:33 PM:colonpowwow,
Your oft repeated list regarding Clinton's senate record is, as you present it, simply unverifiable. As I have repeatedly asked, please offer those on this thread the actual Senate bill numbers for all the fluff you assert.
If, once anew, you won't do so, I take that to mean that you, in fact, CANNOT DO SO, because her actual record is incredibly light on achievement compared to Obama's strikingly superior ability to get significant legislation passed in the US Senate in fewer years.
Colonpowwow:
I do my best to stick to the facts, which seems to be a problem for the Clintons these days. The "kids" comment is a colloquial thing, not trying to make anyone out to be infantile--I'd just call the person infantile.
As for your last comment, I'm not sure to what you are referring.
toM wrote on January 11, 2008 1:37 PM:Dare I say it?
Many of the Hillary followers, in their behaviour and inability to hear/see/speak no evil, are virtually identical to the Cult of Bush.
Egads, we've got our 'em too!
Former Intern wrote on January 11, 2008 1:39 PM:I was an intern for Michael Madigan, the Illinois Generaly Assembly House majority leader back in 2000.
All House Reps. and Senators are "part-time" legislators in Illinois. The General Assembly only meets half the year, three days a week (Tues. to Thurs.). No Rep. or Senator was in Springfield from Thursday afternoon until Tues. morning. They all went home.
They get really low pay ($50K I think) and they all work in other lines of businesses throughout the year (not just during out of session months). That's why a large percentage of them are lawyers, small business owners, insurance agents, etc. (i.e. very flexible jobs). It's also why a ton of them are absent for certain sessions.
Having non-professional legislators is very common in smaller states. The reason why it is done in Illinois is because the state government is very limited in what it can do, as opposed to California, as much of the power resides in local government (county and city) in Illinois. For example, it is well known that being a Chicago Alderman is more powerful than an Illinois State Senator.
The Illinois state budget is basically prisons, highway infrastructure, and welfare.
Jessica wrote on January 11, 2008 1:40 PM:Just a little thought on those tears. What do you think would have happened if someone asked Obama how he did it and he replied that it wasn't easy ... so personal . . . so important and started tearing up? What do you think the response would have been?
Hillary and this crap has pushed me too far. I will not vote for her under any condidtions. I've never voted for anyone other that a democrat but this time around, if she's the nominee, I guess I will or just stay home. The last thing this country needs is more of her bull.
drubs wrote on January 11, 2008 1:44 PM:Hello Keith
Ron Paul And Dennis Kucinich and Mike Huckabee all have web site too. I don't hear Obama speaking substance, and I think that perception may be the fault of the press, they cover the sweeping statements but don't cover the nuts and bolts. My own preferences may color my perception as I freely admit I more concerned with repair rather than change. That being said I could very easily see myself voting for him. At this stage any Democratic candidate is preferable to any Republican candidate.
RP wrote on January 11, 2008 1:45 PM:Hilary's construction of the term experience, of course, is not limited to being an elected official -- which would not leave her with a lot -- but her entire career, which is impressive. I'm even willing to credit the notion that, as a highly intelligent and capable individual in her own right -- she gained a lot of valuable experience and insights on the Presidency not available to most of us by serving as First Lady.
If we broadly construe the relevant experience to the Presidency as including things other than elective office, than Obama should get to count all his work as a community organizer, teacher, lawyer, in addition to being a State and U.S. Senator, into the mix. If you do that, then Hilary's experience edge comes from the fact that he's younger than her and has not been married to a President.
While experience is good, it is not always easy to figure out which experience is better. Moreover, on the issue of judgment, there is no real basis for thinking that Hilary's is superior to Obama's. On Iraq, just to take one example, his was better than Hilary's.
Finally, the issue of dynasty is a relevant one. If Hilary wins, we could end up with either a Clinton or a Bush occupying either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency for a time period that stretches from 1981 to 2017. That is something that would be without precedent. For me, that is a deal breaker on Hilary, at least for the nominating process. However, in a democracy, no one person can ever be indispensable. George Washington could have been President for life. Nelson Mandella could have done the same thing in South Africa. They both walked away from the job becasue they knew that continual domination of a political system by one person was not good. I think the same notion extends to domination of the Presidency by two families for over a quarter of a century. I think the logical for that proposition is clear if we do a thought experiment and consider whether George W. Bush would ever have become President if he were George Walker and Hilary Clinton would be the co-fronter at this point if she were Hilary Rodam. If you can honestly answer yes to both these questions then I think you can discount the dynasty concern. If you can't, I think it is something you need to take seroiusly.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 11, 2008 1:47 PM:you dare say it toM, and I believe you would be correct in that observation
The NH exit polls were striking when asking about views about other opponents. All of the other candidate's supporters showed a preference to their candidate, of course, but quite a few didn't answer questions in lock step with who they voted for. Only one candidate's supporters did that: Hillary's. It was striking that 90+% of her supporters stuck to her (or anti-Obama) down the line, while other candidate's supporters (including Obama's) showed a more normal degree of autonomy. Basically this just confirms my view that many Hillary supporters aren't willing to consider any other viewpoint but hers, and follow her lockstep with a total unquestioning lack of critical thought that is alarming. It is a very Bush-like, black and white unquestioning stubbornness and arrogance that I really thought was below the Democratic party.
Apparently not.
DonnaG wrote on January 11, 2008 1:50 PM:I take it colonpowwow will once again not answer the request for verifiable information of the fluff listing of Clinton's senate record, like say actually naming the bills to which those items on colon's list refer.
So, I open up this challenge to any Hillary supporter [kefa, frankly0, etc]. Can you identify, by verifiable bill numbers, the items on colon's list?
Warning.....trying to do so may get you as angry as I was last spring when I discovered the spun candy around a cardboard core. But, hey, I am just one person. I would think that anyone who still believes in Hillary's touted record would be eager to provide actual documentation to support it.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 1:51 PM:Many of the Hillary followers, in their behaviour and inability to hear/see/speak no evil, are virtually identical to the Cult of Bush.
It's a such a good thing that you never find that sort of inexcusable behavior in Obama or Edwards supporters.
Someone has to stand up for what's right and moral and call out unpleasant truths!
I mean, Obama is stinky and snorey in the morning. Every Obama supporter will acknowledge that human failing.
Where's the same level of honesty in a Hillary supporter?
Why can't they bring themselves to admit that she's a contemptible warmongering shrew who has no interest in anything but her own throat hold on power and is willing to use the most despicable lies about her opponents to do so?
How hard would that level of honesty be for a Hillary supporter?
Obviously, it's just way, way too much to expect from those morally bankrupt, weeping and probably female ninnies.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 1:51 PM:Friend: "Sen Clinton was the front-runner, while Sen Obama was the challenger, so simply electoral dynamics demanded that he campaign harder in order to be competitive."
Wow. You will just make any excuse for that phony, won't you?
There were other presidential candidates in the Senate. And those other candidates didn't abandon their responsibilities the way Mr. Obama did.
And I also notice you were unable to reconcile Mr. Obama's hype (as recorded in his book) with his record of voting "present" in Springfield.
Pete wrote on January 11, 2008 1:53 PM:All this back-and-forth about what Obama and Hillary "supporters" will or will not do is immaterial. There are respectable and idiotic members of both groups—as there are for all candidates.
Take a look at what the actual employees of Hillary's campaign are willing to do to win the White House (including Bill & Hillary, of course). That tells you more about the candiate, in my opinion.
They've perpetuated the Obama Muslim smear, they've tried out the COCAINE!COCAINE!COCAINE! smear, they've engaged in some subtle race-baiting and they've willfully distorted Obama's record and his message.
What similarly underhanded things do you see coming out of the Obama campaign?
Exactly. That tells you everything you need to know.
drubs wrote on January 11, 2008 1:55 PM:We had a Roosevelt or a Truman from 1933 until 1953. I like both BHO and HRC But Biden was my 1st choice. What I fine amusing is how supporters of both Senators accuse each other of being either starry eyed or lock step. Keep this up and the Republicans will eat your lunch come November.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 1:57 PM:To the supporters of a fine, honest man and great Democratic candidate, Barack Obama:
On this thread right here, we supporters of Hillary Clinton have been called "scum," and "racists," and she has been called a "fat-ass," and some Obama supporters have been tossing around calling the Clintons racists in a divisive manner that would make Karl Rove blush.
I really think it's time for Obama supporters, if uniters as they say, to ratchet down this sort of intemperate language and condemn those supporters on here who use it, don't you? I don't see where it does anything but embarrass the vast majority of sincere Obama supporters who support him and reject Clinton for legitimate policy and voting record reasons.
RP, thanks for the good, common sense, analysis of the "experience" argument. I wish Hillary supporters would realize that her experience isn't that special or unique to her (even if some of it is admirable). Her time on the Wal-Mart board of directors is also part of that 35 years, which doesn't scream change to me. Basically the point is that Obama has plenty of his own experiences, and even more experience as an elected official. Indeed, without being married to Bill, she wouldn't have had most of her appointed positions throughout the years.
When looking at the experience in an honest and thoughtful manner, it becomes obvious that they are about tied as far as relevant experience goes (with the exception of knowing where all the bathrooms in the White House are, Hillary undoubtedly prevails there). That is just my point.
I'm critical of Hillary (and her supporters) for their arguments, not because I think Obama is necessarily more qualified for the job, but because of their ridiculous insistence that she is so much more qualified than him (indeed, her entire campaign is build on that single point, which doesn't even stand up to modest scrutiny).
So experience aside, it comes down to judgment, like you said, and policies, and character, and the needs of the time (what our country needs, who divides and who unites, who is the most electable and who would be the most effective, not to mention who would be the best to have on the ticket in terms of 08 Congressional races). I believe in all of these Obama prevails, and that is why he has my vote.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:00 PM:No-bama:
The vast majority of his present votes were part of a larger Democratic Party strategy. Politics is a team sport most of the time--you wouldn't know based on the intramurals we are engaged in.
And if I recall correctly, everyone of the senatorial candidates had missed something like 60+% of the votes between September and Nov. I'm sure you, as a Hillary supporter, wished Obama was back in Washington voting on cloture motions instead of campaigning.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 2:07 PM:DonnaG:
WTF are you talking about? The names on the bills that I listed in my post ARE the names of the bills (see again, for example: Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act).
That's the name of the bill. You can look up what the bill says (if it's fluff or not - but since Obama's name is on it how could that be?) by googling it or going to Senate.gov
Simply breathtaking, DonnaG.
Former Intern wrote on January 11, 2008 2:07 PM:Do you honestly think the race baiting, cocaine, and Muslims smears are from the Clinton campaign?
I work with a lot of rightwing nutjobs, it's people like that who are propagating lies about Obama, not Clinton. The right wingers hate Clinton, but desparately need her to win the primary because that is how they raise money. The conservatives deep seated hatred of all things Hilary is a fundraising machine. Also, they know Romney will have a better chance against Clinton than Obama in the general election.
Clinton people distorting Obama's experience and voting record. Probably guilty as charged.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:10 PM:colonpowwow:
You are spot on about most of which you speak, except for the Rove points. Senator Clinton has invoked (1) fear (Day One), (2) distortion (statements on Iraq), (3) misrepresentation (abortion mailer), (4) coded attacks (all of this is "lazy" and if you need me to, I can go into much greater depth (just know it's a stereotype that dates back to when my people were in bondage).
It would be one thing if she were attacking him on actual policy differences or his approach to leading the country, but she's not. And watching you and others try and defend this type of crap is just odd.
She's playing for keeps, obviously. But I don't think she and others recognize the damage she is doing to the party at large and her chances for the general election. Over the last week, she's actually lost my vote. I expect this nonsense from Republicans, I don't expect from a Democrat, and certainly not a Clinton.
Keith: "The vast majority of his present votes were part of a larger Democratic Party strategy."
Then why, as I asked earlier, did he write in his book that, in the Illinois legislature "[y]ou must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."
And you have to factor in the fact that on many of his "present" votes, the bill in question had "overwhelming bipartisan support." In a sex crime bill, for example, Obama was the sole senator to vote present. All others -- Democrats and Republicans -- voted in favor.
Why did he vote present? Why didn't he do what he claimed in his book that a legislator has to do? Probably because he wanted to avoid the issue. And it's hard to take a person like that seriously when he later pontificates on the importance of making hard choices.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 2:16 PM:There were other presidential candidates in the Senate. And those other candidates didn't abandon their responsibilities the way Mr. Obama did.
Indeed not. As I already mentioned, above, during the most intense period of the season, Obama missed 80% of the votes, while Clinton missed 63%, Biden missed 68% and Dodd missed 65% In short, Obama missed the most but also won when others lost. In other words, there is an inverse correlation between doing one's job in the Senate and winning a presidential election. I can guarantee you that if Sen Clinton takes the nomination her voting percentage in the Senate will drop to ~20%, just as John Kerry's did in 2004.
This brings me, once again, back to the real thrust to my rebuttal of your complaint - there is a necessary tension between winning a presidential race and doing whatever job it is that one currently holds while running for president. Unless you wish to insist that no one currently serving in elected office should run for president (and thus vitiate the party's best hopes of winning), your complaint is without merit.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:18 PM:Keith: "The vast majority of his present votes were part of a larger Democratic Party strategy."
One more thing about this. You say that "[p]olitics is a team sport most of the time" -- and maybe you're right.
But doesn't that undermine Obama's message? How can we take him seriously about post-partisanship if he voted "present" for nakedly partisan reasons? Doesn't that expose him as a phony?
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:22 PM:No-bama:
Can you give me a page number on that quote? I'd like to read it in context before I respond.
As for your questions on the voting present (outside of strategy) there were less than 1% of his total votes, I'll direct you to Senator statements at the time:
HB 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." [91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99]
3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. [91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99]
When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, "News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. 'It's another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,' said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. 'We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,' said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. 'Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'" [AP, 4/30/91]
Any other questions?
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 2:24 PM:DonnaG:
If it would make a dime's worth of difference to you, I'd tell you the bill number is S 1784.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:25 PM:Greg DeLassus: "there is a necessary tension between winning a presidential race and doing whatever job it is that one currently holds..."
--------------
You're missing the point. ALL of the candidates have that tension to deal with. And all of them -- that are in the Senate, at least -- have dealt with it more responsibly than Mr. Obama.
The problem here isn't that Mr. Obama is missing votes. It's that he is missing so many more of them than anyone else.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 2:28 PM:No-bama:
Before I answer your question, let me ask you question: What's your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish with your questions?
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:29 PM:Keith: "Can you give me a page number on that quote?"
Yes. Page 130.
As for the sex-crime bill: if Mr. Obama believed the bill was unconstitutional, why didn't he just vote NO?
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:30 PM:Anonymous: "What are you trying to accomplish with your questions?"
I'm trying to get an answer. That's the only reason I ever ask a question.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:32 PM:No-bama:
Can you produce the text immediately before it and after it?
Because some politician would come along and argue that he's soft on crime. Or that he refuses to stand for a woman's right to choose. Sort of what Senator Clinton is doing now....
pete wrote on January 11, 2008 2:37 PM:The Cocaine! smear was perpetrated by Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for the Clinton Campaign, on Hardball amongst other places.
The muslim smear email was forwarded by Judy Rose, a Clinton campaign Iowa county chair (a volunteer, I believe). She was fired for her transgression.
The race stuff is a little less explicit, but we have the candidate herself denigrating Martin Luther King, suggesting that while a nice black orator might stir the soul, you need a good white president to actually pass the laws.
New Hampsire Clinton co-chair Bill Shaheen suggested that, on account of his drug use, Obama might have been a drug dealer when he was young (don't remember Bush getting accused of that, shock).
A Clinton precinct captain in Iowa said the following about Obama: "We've got to keep an eye on electability. Is America ready for a black president?"
Each and every person listed worked for the Hillary campaign in some sort of official capacity.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:37 PM:But doesn't that undermine Obama's message? How can we take him seriously about post-partisanship if he voted "present" for nakedly partisan reasons? Doesn't that expose him as a phony?
Absolutely not. He played the game as required in the Illinois Senate, just as he's playing the game as required in the US Senate. As POTUS, he'd set the agenda and the tone of the debate.
And the reason I asked what's the point of your question, is because you seem to want to verify your own bias against him. No one on here is going to change your mind about Senator Obama. Only person that can do that is you. If the facts don't fit with the narrative you've settled on, you'll just dismiss them in some form or fashion. Everyone does it to some extent.
But thanks for clearing that up for me.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:41 PM:Keith: "Because some politician would come along and argue that he's soft on crime."
--------------------
So? If you're going to run on a theme of "making hard choices," shouldn't you at least walk the walk?
I think so.
Well, at least we knows that when he claims that politicians suffer from "chronic avoidance of tough decisions" he's speaking from personal experience.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 2:47 PM:No-bama:
Or, maybe, just maybe, you don't understand politics. I know that's a stretch. Your conclusion fits better with your internal narrative about Senator Obama so I'm not in the least surprised by your conclusion.
And all we know is that you didn't, don't and won't vote for Senator Obama. But we've known that from your first post.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 2:47 PM:Keith said:
"Because some politician would come along and argue that he's soft on crime. Or that he refuses to stand for a woman's right to choose. Sort of what Senator Clinton is doing now...."
What was said is the fact that Obama voted "present" on such matters before the Illinois legislature (spare me the strategy lecture - I get it, really ;-)
What you object to is not the fact, but the inference which you characterize as "dirty pool" and dishonest.
So what is the inference of "Unlike Hillary, Senator Obama doesn't accept contributions from lobbyists?"
Is lobbying illegal or even wrong?
Do schoolteachers lobby?
Do lobbyists have 1st Amendment rights?
Are they subject to the same ethics laws that corporations that use and contribute to lobbyist are (and that Obama cheerfully and legally takes donations from)?
Isn't the inference that Hillary is, therefore, somehow corrupt and "in the pocket" of these lobbyists?"
Otherwise, what's the point of the charge?
No dirty politics to see here. Move along, oh sainted ones.
lombard wrote on January 11, 2008 2:49 PM:Look Obama supporters, these are legitimate tactics and questions in a political campaign.
Part of the problem I have with Obama (and probably many other voters, too) is that he hasn't paid his dues. Lots of people wanted Clinton to run in 2004. She declined. Probably because 1) she calculated that she would have a poorer chance of winning AND 2) that such a run would give the appearance that she merely became a Senator as a stepping stone to the presidency. OK, maybe she did become a senator as a stepping stone to the presidency but at least she had the good sense to establish an acceptable level of residency in the position before she announced her presidential run. She has also gained many favorable reviews from other senators for her work there. Obama, on the other hand, started running for president after two years into his first senate term.
Is Clinton more desperate than Obama? Well, why not? He knows he will have other chances. For her, this one might be her last.
Also, negative campaigning will only hurt Clinton to a point. Everyone believes that she is fully capable of being ruthless and using everything in her bag of tricks to win. Negative campaigning on Obama's side, however, will puncture the saintly image his campaign and the media have given him.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 2:51 PM:You're missing the point. ALL of the candidates have that tension to deal with. And all of them -- that are in the Senate, at least -- have dealt with it more responsibly than Mr. Obama.
No, you are missing the point. Yes, they all had the same tension to deal with, and the rest of them chose to deal with it in such a way that they lost the elections. To say that Sen Obama missed more votes is true but tells only half the story. The other half of that tension is that he also won more early contests (coming in 1st in IA and 2nd in NH, compared to 3rd in IA and 1st in NH for Clinton, 5th in IA for Biden and 6th in IA for Dodd). You are, in other words, defining "responsability" as "running a losing campaign." Once again, unless you really mean to say that no one ought ever to run for higher office while still serving in a lower office, your point here is without merit.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 2:52 PM:Hillary also benefits by having the luxury of a past president campaigning full time on her behalf so she doesn't have to miss as much time herself. Not to mention she is the "default" candidate so she hasn't had to try nearly as hard as Obama has. She needs to complain a little less about her failures because she has had every opportunity that no other candidate has had, and the majority of the voters don't want her regardless.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 2:55 PM:Keith: "As POTUS, he'd set the agenda and the tone of the debate."
Don't be so naive. Presidents have been overestimating their ability to force change for more than 200 years. It wasn't very long ago that another presidential candidate claimed "I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another."
You also wrote that "No one on here is going to change your mind about Senator Obama."
I suspect that no one here is going to change YOUR mind about Mrs. Clinton either.
As for changing MY mind? You're right. All the slurs and insults against Mrs. Clinton aren't likely to make me any more disposed towards Obama.
But the plain truth is that Obama could get my vote in a second if he came up with a rational plan for governing (that is, policy proposals) that I could support. As it stands, I don't like his cap-and-trade scheme. I don't like his proposals on Social Security. I don't like his incomplete health care plan.
Unless he comes up with a coherent and competent plan for governing, I can't vote for him. And his eloquence doesn't matter to me. I'm not swayed by emotional appeals and pretty speeches.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 2:55 PM:Maybe its time to update this post---before the Obama supporters fall off the deep end.
This is something Obama stated HIMSELF:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/11/update-obama-describes-h_n_81109.html
...Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called "mushrooms" (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."
SarahWest wrote on January 11, 2008 2:56 PM:Someone needs to ask Hillary if she was running for President with her 2002 Iraq War resolution vote. I think we all know the answer. ;)
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 2:56 PM:The problem here isn't that Mr. Obama is missing votes. It's that he is missing so many more of them than anyone else.
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, in the vice-presidential debate in 2004 from Dick Cheney.
Jeremy wrote on January 11, 2008 2:56 PM:Hillary is really opening herself up here. First of all, Obama was an exceedingly accomplished state Senator. Second, he's achieved as much or more in a shorter amount of time in the US Senate. Hillary doesn't have the track record to back this up. Furthermore, does she really want to focus attention on her record as a Senator?
Does she want attention on her work with Rick Santorum that could limit access to emergency contraception?
Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics. (1)
Or how about her support for the use of munitions notorious for blowing the limbs off of children?
However, the most compelling reason Senator Feinstein gave was neither humanitarian nor military-oriented. It was entirely strategic:"I also know that there is a dud rate--in other words, a rate at which point these bomblets do not explode. I ask this question: How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in those countries where we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill young children? How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?"
-FeinsteinThat's a good point. When someone's kid is killed by picking up a small piece of shiny explosive from a bomb the United States dropped on your country, they're not going to be very happy with the United States. In fact, they're very likely to start hating us. (2)
Of course, Hillary didn't want to look "weak on defense". She doesn't want those oh-so-experienced DC insiders calling her "naive" for supporting diplomacy either. That must be why she voted against the 2002 Levin Ammendment. Does she want to talk about that part of her record?
This resolution doesn't determine that we won't go alone if the United Nations does not promptly act to authorize force. It withholds judgment on that very different and difficult issue. It does provide that the President can convene us quickly to authorize going it alone should the U.N. fail to act.Mr. President, the vote we take today may have significant consequences for our children and our grandchildren. I believe our security is enhanced when we seek to enhance the authority and credibility of the United Nations and when, if military force is required, it is done with support of the world community." (3)
(1)http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
(2)http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/21/151841/41/822/425303
(3)http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm
DOG WHISTLE ALERT:
There she goes again!
"My working class Latino brothers and sisters, as you all KNOW, black people are lazy. Did I happen to mention that Obama is black? Well, then who are you going to vote for, the hard-working white professional woman, or the lazy black guy?"
Meanwhile, my Latino brothers and Sisters, Ms. Clinton, is signing onto free trade agreements that undercut the power of unions; her chief political strategist is a union-buster who will make sure you continue to get screwed.
In other words, she thinks you're stupid.
Well are you?
Dem08 wrote on January 11, 2008 2:59 PM:...Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called "mushrooms" (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."
Once again TMP is rushing to judgement...you media types never learn. Keep bashing the lady, its working for her.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:00 PM:Colonpowwow:
No, Senator Clinton said that he refused to stand for a woman's right to choose 7 times. I object to that because she and you know that that isn't true.
As to your question, the plain inference is that Senator Obama doesn't take contributions from federal lobbyist and that Senator Clinton does.
The rest of your post is predicated on the notion that the implied inference is that she is dirty and he is not. But that's not what he's saying. He's position his candidacy as one funded and driven by the people. He's just spelling out how he's running his campaign.
But I'm sure that wasn't the answer you were looking for. Yes lobbyist have rights to. There is nothing untorrid, on its face, from accepting contributions from any lobbyist. Bad Obama. Bad, bad Edwards.
converse wrote on January 11, 2008 3:00 PM:Kefa: "...Obama is selling a myth or a fairytale. The idea that change is possible if one hopes and if the American people want it enough."
OK, so much for the power of democracy. Slick Willy and Kefa say it's just a fairytale.
No-bama wrote on January 11, 2008 3:02 PM:Greg DeLassus: they all had the same tension to deal with, and the rest of them chose to deal with it in such a way that they lost the elections.
--------------
Mrs. Clinton had the same tensions. Mrs. Clinton won New Hampshire. And Mrs. Clinton still managed to vote in the Senate.
Your point here is absolutely ridiculous. If what you claim is true, we should have expected Dodd and Biden to have trounced Mrs. Clinton. After all, they were absent and on the campaign trail far more than she was.
The idea that there is some direct correlation between missed votes and electoral success is complete nonsense.
And your "coming in 1st in IA and 2nd in NH" excuse sounds a bit like Mitt Romney's concession speech.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 3:03 PM:katie, I hate to have to point out, but my "part-time" he means it doesn't run year-round, just like no legislatures run full-time year-round.
I feel like a babysitter here..
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:03 PM:Hello! Take a deep breath and recognize that Hillary's statement wasn't an attack, it was a fact. Words taken directly from 'the chosen ones' mouth.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:07 PM:"Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."
Point, set, match.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:07 PM:wow--even when faced with actual facts you distort them. You should use prettier words, you'll be just like your candidate.
He said it..not me..and not Hillary. Hopefully as his other job, (seeing as how representing the people is only part-time work) he was able to pull in lots of cash 'working' for his corrupt buddy Tony Rezko. Maybe someone even bought him another house!
looking like Obama is no saint (not saying Hillary is) but people around here like to treat him like one.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011704.php
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:10 PM:No-bama:
The only person who's had any effect on my views on Senator Clinton has been Senator Clinton and her surrogates. I was prepared to work for her campaign prior to Senator Obama announcing and have been generally receptive to voting for her if she's the nominee. That's changed over the course of the primary season, not because anything said in these threads, but because of Senator Clinton.
And you should probably look into Senator Clinton's plans a little close because I believe she supports cap and trade, she's supported a similar measure on raising the cap with a donut hole for SS (albeit, after reaching fiscal responsibility) and the major difference between their health care plans are (1) he doesn't require individuals to purchase and she does, (2) his saves individuals more money (I think $300) and (3) his plan costs half as much. The debate there, has focused, to date, on #1.
And I'd link you to Obama's plans, but my guess is you aren't going to read it. Just know, there is not a tremendous amount of daylight between the major proposals between the Democratic candidates. Although you wouldn't know based on the arguments we seem to have amongst each other.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:11 PM:katie,
Do you think that the Obama supporters are now going to go on all out attack of Obama because he spread this vicious "part-time" rumor about himself?
Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 11, 2008 3:14 PM:To all Dems here, regardless of who you support: If Obama is the nominee, he should expect a hell of a lot of mud-slinging. It's started already, obviously. But how is he going to counter it?
Consider Whitewater, a failed land deal in which the Clintons lost money. Look what the rethugs did to them, and how the mainstream media ran with it? Many Clinton-haters on this site even talk about Whitewater still, as evidence of Hillary's corruption.
How then can Obama and his supporters deal with the following? What will rethugs do with stories like the one below?
"Chicago newspapers are much more interested in Obama's close 17-year friendship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a long-time Obama donor and property developer awaiting trial on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering and fraud. A low-income housing project received more than $14m from taxpayers while Obama was a state senator, but he consistently denied that he had done any favours for Rezko...That was until the Chicago Sun-Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project. Democrats and Republicans alike in Chicago, too, are intrigued by the question of why Obama paid $1.65m for a mansion in the city's south side in 2005 - $300,000 less than the asking price - on the very same day Rezko's wife happened to buy the house next door for the asking price." from the New Statesman
How do you, how does he respond to these claims?
I really hope his response to mud-slinging isn't going to be to claim to be above partisan politics, because then he just looks soft. The rethugs will crucify him. He's gotta learn how to take it, and to fight back. And his supporters can't just deny it - that does nothing to discredit the criticisms.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:14 PM:No--but I'd expect you to lay off the Clinton attacks for once. Prime example, jumping all over this post before realizing that she's just quoting the man himself.
Admit you were wrong to jump to conclusions about this, and maybe slowly but surely you'll realize you jumped to conclusions about your candidate.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 3:14 PM:The politics of cynicism is the politics of the status quo. Of course, Clinton is in favor of it as a card carrying member of status quo Washington DC these days.
Ever since Iowa the pitch for her candidacy has basically boiled down to "I'm white and he's black".
In New Hampshire she pandered to prejudices of a segment of the white electorate with the "getting a free ride" and the "false hopes" bit; in the Nevada race she panders to a segment of the Hispanic electorate with "guess what, he's black and lazy". Perhaps even the Iowa "electability" argument boiled down to race as well.
The irony in all of this is that Hillary Clinton's record of achievement is pretty spartan -- and she will be exposed in a general election along these lines. Her negatives are high with independents and Republicans, so she won't move votes on the electability issue. Unlike Obama, who got where he is through a combination of hard work and dedication to a cause; we have Clinton who in recent years has ridden her husband coat-tails into a job in New York; and who has about as much contact with the outside the DC bubble as, well the White House's current occupant.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:15 PM:It must suck to keep getting duped by the Hillary-hating media. Just to realize that their attacks, like Obama, are much hype and little actual substance.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:15 PM:Katie:
I see the are sending in fresh troops from Hillaryis44.com.
Rezko bought Obama a house? I thought he sold him a portion of a parcel of land at fair market value. Can your provide a link to the current investigation into Obama's malfeasance or are you just spreading the manure around hoping to stink up the place a bit?
If so, I'll put down some newspaper and remind everyone to watch their step.
Rove and Hillary: Obama is a lazy, shuck-and-jivin', trash talking, do nothing Senator. Is that about right?
Other than working to reform the death penalty, expanding health care coverage, and passing ethics reform he did very little in his time as an IL Senator.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:16 PM:katie,
If you were responding to my post, I think I should probably point out I was being sarcastic and that I agree with you.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:18 PM:Anonymous! Don't bother trying to hide your identity. You're obviously Chris Matthews!
and Keith..if you're looking for some reading material. You can start here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi_news_politics_util
Looks like his hometown paper has a better idea of who the guy really is..and what is just a myth.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 3:20 PM:Keith:
My point, of course, is that absent significant policy differences, candidates will point to facts and directing the voting pool to make inferences. Sometimes the inferences are nasty distortions (Obama is anti-choice, Clinton's a racist on the take), but that's politics and they all do it.
The difference is that Obama and his supporters act like it's all Hillary and that he'd never do such things to get elected.
I guess he got elected to be the Senator from Illinois (noted for not having pitched political battles) without having ever having to dip into the dirty pool himself (Biden did say he was clean LOL).
And I understand that Obama gets all of his campaign money from dewey-eyed children who break open their piggy banks because he's the only hope for them realizing their American dreams.
Who are the ones calling out "corrupt" (and now "racists") since early last year? She tried the high road and that's what she got from the progressiver-than-thous for her effort.
Now it's time to take the gloves off and expose some of the real contrasts factual and implied. If some of that seems "dirty" to you, well, you know all the politics cliches. And Obama, as an elected US Senator from Illinois, has proven himself able to dish it out as well as he takes it. No difference. Game on.
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:20 PM:frankly0--you're right. Apologies! I misread your post.
Here in Obama Talkings Points land, its so rare to find someone agreeing with anything I say. Even when faced with basic facts.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:21 PM:Politics of fear are here. Everyone go hide under your beds because they've got innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations/implications to spread around.
I've seen this movie before. It has a terrible script and ending. In the end we all lose.
Benjamin wrote on January 11, 2008 3:24 PM:WTF are you talking about? The names on the bills that I listed in my post ARE the names of the bills (see again, for example: Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act).That's the name of the bill. You can look up what the bill says (if it's fluff or not - but since Obama's name is on it how could that be?) by googling it or going to Senate.gov
The reason she's likely asking is that the Library of Congress just calls it "S.1784
National MEDiC Act (Introduced in Senate)." It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect folks tom use LoC for this, so where are you looking to find the title listed with the sponsors included?
@ Keith
Actually the accusations are quite substantiated. Hardly innuendo at all.
Rusty wrote on January 11, 2008 3:26 PM:Amazing how so few of the commenters here are from Illinois. Part-Time? I dunno, but he wasn't *that* much more than another of Emil Jones' gophers -- then again, as a young pol, what more is fair to expect?
katie wrote on January 11, 2008 3:28 PM:Keith-
The fact of the matter is that both Senators Obama and Clinton are dedicated public servants AND politicians.
I'm just sick of Obama supporters running around and trying to pretend that he's perfect and has never had a wiff of corruption in his life. It takes a lot to get to be where both candidates are, and I don't expect them to be squeaky clean, nor should you. Your harsh and unfounded criticism of Hillary are ridiculous, and its unfortunate that you can't acceptthat both would be excellent presidents. I support Hillary because I think she'd do a better job, but there's no need to go pretending that it would be the end of the world if either won the nomination.
sorry for bursting into your obama-only land here. It's sad that so many Obama supporters say that they wouldnt' support Clinton if she won, its short-sighted, and honestly, sad.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:30 PM:I think I might be just a little embarrassed to be one of the legion of Hillary haters here who couldn't contain their outrage that Hillary might even dare to hint, much less outright declare as she did, that Obama was only a part time legislator.
I might think of wearing a paper bag over my face around here if I could. Is there an emoticon for that?
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:30 PM:colonpowwow:
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night is none of my business. You chalk up to politics if you like, but it's doing for more damage to the Clintons than apparently you or they realize.
Katie:
I'm confused, he was a part-time legislator, who's always been running for office, who's a do-nothing legislator that someone wanted to bribe? Seems to me a waste of money.
Look, this implication by proximity didn't endear me to the Republicans back in the 1990s, why do you think it will endear folks to Senator Clinton? Do you have evidence that Obama was involved in a quid pro quo? All evidence points to the contrary, but if you have some juicy tid bit other than your inference post it. Otherwise move on.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 3:35 PM:So, to recap for those just joining the conversation, Imelda Blahnik has wondered aloud to herself and the rest of us whether Sen Obama is tough enough to take on the Republicans in November. Then Katie implied that Sen Obama worked at one time for Tony Rezko and that Rezko bought Obama a house. To back this up, Katie links to an article which claims that Rezko offered Obama a job which Obama turned down and that Obama, not Rezko, bought Obama's house. When Keith calls Katie on this and asks for her to back up her contention that Rezko bought Obama's house for him, Katie cites another article which has nothing whatever to do with Rezko or houses, but which makes plain that Obama is plenty tough.
In summary, so far Katie has answered Imelda Blahnik's charge that Obama is too soft for the hard-hitting world of politics, but has not really addressed Keith's rebuttal of her rather off-topic smear. We now rejoin our program already in progress, wherein our heroine, the plucky and defiant Katie, exposes the Obama people for the frauds they are (or something like that)...
Jeremy wrote on January 11, 2008 3:36 PM:Keith. Hillary's haters have nothing but smear and fear. Notice how they ignore the posts in this thread pointing to actual aspects of their track records.
goethean wrote on January 11, 2008 3:36 PM:Two reasons to vote for Obama are: his experience (more years in elected office than HRC) and electability (beats Republiacns in match-ups).
I'm not sure what the argument to vote for HRC is anymore.
turtlesallthewaydown wrote on January 11, 2008 3:37 PM:According to Ms. Clinton, Obama "immediately started running for president" upon his election to the Senate; are we expected to buy the idea that she hasn't been doing exactly the same thing during her tenure there? Please.
progressivedem wrote on January 11, 2008 3:37 PM:The Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama primary season is not going to be a love feast at this point, and both have impressive flaws (as well as some strengths) as candidates. Assuming he's on the ballot, I'll vote for Edwards on February 5th.
DonnaG wrote on January 11, 2008 3:37 PM:colonpowwow, thanks for one senate bill identification number for one out of twenty, which I assume refers to one with Obama's name on it.....
What happened to the identifying numbers for the other 19 pieces of legislation you assert are Hillary bills that have been passed?
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:38 PM:Katie:
I don't think the man is perfect and never suggested otherwise. Nor have I cast dispersion on Senator Clinton for her past actions (again, I was actually quite fond of her and looked favorably on her prior to the primary).
This thread and this site is open to everyone. If you support Clinton, that's great and I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else otherwise. But if you come in her spinning bullshit and trying to defend her spinning bullshit, don't act surprised when people respond. That's why I don't spin Senator Clinton's record; it's counter-productive and dishonest.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:40 PM:Thanks Greg for the recap and the laugh.
converse wrote on January 11, 2008 3:40 PM:Oh Mommy! Can I stay up late and watch the rest of the program?!?
Franklin wrote on January 11, 2008 3:42 PM:Actually the anon was mine. The point stands though that Clinton's advocacy for the nomination is based in part on pushing racial prejudice buttons -- it's the same old dog whistle. In Iowa and New Hampshire it may have been more of a generational one -- in the case of Nevada, it's exploiting a different set of prejudices.
I've been scratching my head about this for a while, because the electability and experience arguments that she's rolled out seemed specious on their face (e.g. Obama has more elected experience -- he has broader life experience; more legislative experience; higher positives with independent voters; fewer negatives). The only way that a person could say: "Oh that argument is sound" is if that person was the kind of person who took a lot of things on faith -- especially if it was asserted enough.
Even in the case of Bill's attack, he at least structured an argument along the lines of:
Claim
evidence1
evidence2
evidence3
Conclusion
The evidence may have been specious, but the structure of the argument was formally sound.
Hillary's arguments though seem to be a string of poll-tested assertions -- she rarely cites votes or data in making her argument.
I wasn't aware of the "lazy" troupe in Iowa or New Hampshire -- but in a state like Nevada with a sizeable Hispanic majority with it's own set of prejudices -- it is not suprising at all (for a candidate of the Hillary Clinton ilk) to roll out this kind of appeal.
I think these kind of wedge politics are getting old -- REAL old.
converse wrote on January 11, 2008 3:42 PM:I wanna see if Katie makes a comeback...like that other lady, uh, Hillabeans.
walkman666 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:46 PM:I think both candidates are strong, and while I prefer Obama, I think they can run positive campaigns without having to be petty or demeaning in any way. It's the fear of losing (power) that drives the campaigns towards low-brow cracks and attacks. What do you want from your leader? Why did Hillary then "remind" her constituents that Obama had a "part-time role" as an Illinois State Senator? As a way to knock him down and bolster her allegedly superior experience (experience as...what I am not sure...elected official, spouse of an elected official, lawyer???). He can do the same, but where does it get you? A fractured electorate. The Dems have three of the strongest candidates, let them realize that and have the confidence to campaign on the knowledge, political viewpoints, and strategy. I guess that's pretty idealistic, too. Sigh.
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 3:46 PM:Keith:
So what do you have to tell yourself at night to fall off to sleep when you support those here who expound with a straight face that Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of corporations and that the Clintons are racists?
That's what Obama supporters are saying on these boards these days. You okay with that?
And, again, don't get me wrong. Hillary's my first choice, but Obama's a strong second choice in every way in my book. I have a hard time countenancing the baseless corruption charges and the rightwing-based Hillary-hate with the denouncers of "politics as usual."
rikyrah wrote on January 11, 2008 3:46 PM:Who is she kidding? She's been running for President since 2000. They sabotaged Al Gore and John Kerry.
She's gotten nothing on her own in her entire professional life. She's been riding Bill Clinton's coattails for forever.
FYI, he did his job as an Illinois State Senator. Period.And, he has more ELECTIVE experience than Hillary.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:47 PM:Well Franklin, Drudge seems to enjoy. Head on over and look at the blaring headline.
on2ndthought wrote on January 11, 2008 3:48 PM:Hmm...I think Hillary was a part time everything her whole "career"...it basically seems like a little here, a little there, nothing strikingly presidential about any of it, minus being married to a president, which also seemed a little part time.
I'm really tired of all her negativity and attacks. She isn't the person I thought she was.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 3:52 PM:Colonpowwow:
Huh. You probably miss this earlier post of mine:
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 11:30 AM:
The Clintons want Obama to go personal but he won't. I suggest the Obama supporters follow his lead. No need to distort Clinton's record or positions. This game will be won by those that don't play.
The Question That Won't Go Away
Is Bill Clinton A Stone-cold Rapist Or Isn't He?
By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/16news.html
walkman666 wrote on January 11, 2008 3:56 PM:The racial thing is a shame. I don't believe the Clintons are racists and they have done a lot for African Americans, but you have to be careful about what you say. If African Americans are potentially offended, and apparently many are, then it becomes an issue. An issue that likely has very little if any basis, and winds up distracting the campaign from the real issues (e.g. what are you going to do about poverty in the U.S.?)
Kefa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:57 PM:Here's the hard part to swallow Obamaites....the hard part to make yourself understand....just like the Bushbabies....to look in the mirror one day and the face looks back and says SUCKER.....you are all SUCKERS....being sold a bag of magic beans. We will change the world...poof just like that. Pied Piper Rats you are. A bunch of suckers. No substance. Just slogans. Remember Bugs Bunny....when the villans turns into a Jackass or an all day sucker. That's how you are gonna feel. Step back and play you are for the other person whomever he/she maybe play the advocate for a minute. Advocate against BO's case. See no beef. Just an empty suit. Magic beans.
david wrote on January 11, 2008 3:59 PM:Beginning to see why 45% of the nation vows to never vote for her, irregardless of her opponent. Geez. How pathetic, sad and classless.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 4:02 PM:"THIS is the voice that Hillary found in NH?
Got it.
Hillary's voice.
Listen people, can you hear it?"
I love it. The voice she found is the one telling her to lie through her teeth at every opportunity about a man who, regardless of your support for or against him, is a rising star in our party and should not be torn apart by one of his own.
Lynn wrote on January 11, 2008 4:24 PM:drubs is right, folks. Better get over it when the nominee is chosen. Why do Dems always eat their young?
colonpowwow wrote on January 11, 2008 4:59 PM:"Pathetic, sad, classless, fat-ass, scum, racist"
These are from just a few of the words used by Obama supporters right here on this thread today, talking about Hillary Clinton, her supporters(fellow Democrats), and who out of the other side of their mouths now decry the Clinton's so-called negativity.
I know it doesn't rise to the level of "shuck and jive," but do any of you Obama supporters possess an irony meter?
Shesjusta wrote on January 11, 2008 5:03 PM:Bitch, period. End of story.
Get of the stage, both of you!
goforbroke wrote on January 11, 2008 5:14 PM:Obama admits that state senate was a part time job, See NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1343448000&en=cbc7a06f6a31e9bb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
"Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called “mushrooms” (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: “Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done.”
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 5:32 PM:Obama had a part-time state senator job after all and it looks he liked it that way:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/11/update-obama-describes-h_n_81109.html
Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."
from the Chicago Tribune-" Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw."I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists."There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements.""
An interesting characterization how Obama entered politics. Not so whimsical after all. Not so nice.
Kefa - You can believe Bill Clinton - a compulsive liar - and you call other people suckers? That's pretty funny.
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:So, to recap for those just joining the conversation, Imelda Blahnik has wondered aloud to herself and the rest of us whether Sen Obama is tough enough to take on the Republicans in November. Then Katie implied that Sen Obama worked at one time for Tony Rezko and that Rezko bought Obama a house. To back this up, Katie links to an article which claims that Rezko offered Obama a job which Obama turned down and that Obama, not Rezko, bought Obama's house. When Keith calls Katie on this and asks for her to back up her contention that Rezko bought Obama's house for him, Katie cites another article which has nothing whatever to do with Rezko or houses, but which makes plain that Obama is plenty tough.
In summary, so far Katie has answered Imelda Blahnik's charge that Obama is too soft for the hard-hitting world of politics, but has not really addressed Keith's rebuttal of her rather off-topic smear. We now rejoin our program already in progress, wherein our heroine, the plucky and defiant Katie, exposes the Obama people for the frauds they are (or something like that)...
LOL! Ya know, at this point they are trying to throw as much shit on the wall as possible hoping something sticks. I seem to remember Dan Burton saying in the 90s that he was trying to do that to the Clintons. I guess Obama is right when he says we can vote for that stuff all over again or we can turn the page.
I'm voting for turning the page.
Mwangangi wrote on January 11, 2008 6:53 PM:This textual warfare has spawned a blog that I shall copy here:
Consider if you will...
As the more rational people continue to point out; the three leading democratic contenders are the strongest candidates, and very little separates their policies. Since all of that is a wash; as much as you hate to admit it, if you're voting democrat, you're voting for style.
This is odd because our understanding of politics (especially in the light of the recent years of political failures) is that it is a SERIOUS THING.
With the parity of our leading candidates however, we're forced to focus on their minute differences and details; you know the superficial stuff. This is why we have intra-party political discussions that are eerily reminiscent of jr. high (also known as middle school in other places). Not surprisingly we get into extreme confrontations with our contemporaries (democrat/progressive/liberal/whatever you call it nowadays). So now we have a democratic voting bloc fractured into cliques, who wander the halls (of the internet and elsewhere) in bristling packs of insularity.
Why? Because nothing is worse than a heretic. Those people who almost agree with you. The alien mindset (in this case Republican) is written off as obviously wrong, an abstract evil to be confronted at a later date. Your fellows (in this case Democratic voters) are subject to acute, harsh, and intense criticism. Perhaps it arises from the staggering amount of commonalities leaves you frustrated that the others "get" so much of it and just happen to be "misguided" over that last bit of difference.
You can convince some of those people of the correctness of your understanding and you should, it's good politics; but hoping, wishing and working towards full unanimity in the party isn't democratic, it's fascist.
Dudeabides wrote on January 11, 2008 8:54 PM:
Hillary Clinton has missed 103 votes (23.3%) during the current Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 10:51 PM:see video: It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot
see video: Petty Clinton Omits Gravel, Hillary Shows Her True Colors
see video: Noam Chomsky applauds Senator Gravel's past and present accomplishments
thormigo wrote on January 12, 2008 11:22 AM:This message of naming Hillary's 'experience' as an asset is getting really tiring...
Everybody tends to forget Obama's work as a state senator (which now Hillary has the nerve to call a part-time job), no-one points out the fact that about 20 years of Hillary Clinton's comparatively fabulous 'experience' were as a First Lady of either Arkansas or the US. She also actually has less time in elected office than Obama. Furthermore, at least some of her experience is as a member of corporate boards, so where's the 'change' here?
Given that all that would have taken to know all of the above is to check out the Wikipedia article on her, why haven't any fact-checkers highlighted these contradictions between her message and the actual facts? Beats me.
Seems fairly obvious to me but I could be wrong. First let's think from a republican standpoint.
Hillary (announcing presidential campaign a good time ago), first woman that actually had a really good shot at becoming president. If Obama was out of the picture it would almost be a no brainer.
What better way to smear that novelty as First Lady President than to get a Black guy to run at the same time, weakening her dramatically (she will most likely lose 70%+ of the black vote).
So, now instead of having first lady running, we have first black guy running.
Just think, why do the republicans dislike HRC so much?
To me it seems Obama is more of a tool than anything.
And I would like to bring up something real quick. It was Obama that started the discrediting of Hillary along time ago (first democratic debates) while Hillary was trying to go after the republicans.
Sad thing is, HRC fail right into the trap. She let it get to her and got defensive at which time Obama ceased with the attacks while she was on the defensive and portrayed her as a mud slinging Republican.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 3:55 AM:*mispelled fell-sorry. Thanks to GF for correction..lol
NinaK wrote on January 13, 2008 5:53 AM:Have read most of our posts. Lots of good input. Fact remains, Hillary is deceitful and downright ugly. I am waiting to see her next personna. Right now, they appears to be the "emotionally disturbed crying Hillary". In my view she is a weak woman and an insult to all strong, self-made women. Hillary would be nothing if not for her philandering husband. They deserve each other as they are codependent. Any psychologist or psyciatrist could tell you this. Usually codependent people don't have high esteem of themselves therefore they have to tear everybody else down in order to feel good about themselves.
Marc wrote on January 13, 2008 9:07 AM:I am from illinois and Barack has not passed one bill since becoming a Senator. His voting record is "present". He has not done one thing for state of Illinois. Hillary Clinton may not have the cleanest record but she is a fighter and a doer. If Barack gets elected it will be because of his rock star image. Hillary visted 9/11 victims. She was one of the most if not the most active first lady EVER. She was the first to recognize 9/11 cough and get treatment for people.
Say what you want about what happened will Slick Willy in the White. She was not only humiliated in front of her family and friends, but she was humiliated in front of the United States of America and the World. Look where she is at today. She has done so much good for the State of NY she actually picked up 50% of the votes in Republican communities.
When it comes today day one in the office. Hillary will know what to do. Barack will just stare at everyone with a blank look on his face.
ivan wrote on January 13, 2008 11:37 AM:Hillary is right! He doens't have the exprience that she does. You just need to compare all the projects that Hillary did and the ones that Obama did. HUGE DIFFERENCE!! SHE IS SMARTER THAN HIM!!!
THAT IS THE REALITY!!!!
To Savvy:
PLEASE!! You're saying it's better to get surrogates to do your dirty work than to have honest discussions about actual experience? Talk about dirty!! I guess you believe he can't stand on his own record or he wouldn't need dirty tactics. I thought he was campaigning on the "politics of hope". He answers comparisons with more rhetoric, not clarifying facts if he has them.
I was torn between Obama and Clinton and I have been her supporter for years and years and years. But what I am seeing is that Obama supporters can attack all they want to, but anything that is said by the Clinton campaigh is immediately declared "racist". She's facing a camera and stating what she believes are legitimate differences, nothing shady there. Don't you think you have a right to know where they stand on policy and what they have done?
I am also looking at what actual experience means versus being a motivational speaker. I'm looking at him right now and all I hear is "there's nothing we can't do", not how to do it. Talk is good, but the walk is better. Dreams are wonderful and can come true, but you have to wake up, have a plan and work to get there. He says what we need, but not how to get it.
Think about it folks, I'm listening to both of them and I hope you do too. Like I said I was torn between them, but don't like this being turned into a racist event to get votes. All analyst clearly identified where Hillary's votes came from in NH, but then it began. They admitted it was not the "Bradley effect" there but, because he lost let's start looking actively for racism from now on.
I will support the Democrat candidate unless I feel he gets the nomination, not on merits, but because he is black. Then shame on the black community.
The thing about Obama, I thought he was replacing Al Sharpton, I thought he was hope. I always totally supported Jessie Jackson and the way he brought attention to injustices (they needed to be addressed swiftly and decisively, but not instigating hatred), but Sharpton keeps racism alive and well to benefit himself.
Nancy wrote on January 13, 2008 2:20 PM:For those of us that recall the inaction and humiliation that the Clinton Administration brought to the White House, this sort of attack from the Clinton camp just wafts that old stench right back up in our faces. Not to mention that Clinton's remark is absurd: Obama has had a longer career as a *lawmaker* than Clinton. This is one of the many reasons why Obama is endorsed by numerous key members of the US Senate. Hillary's experience? Let's not forget that her attempts at a health care plan in the 90s flopped like a seal on a beach.
sytgrl wrote on January 18, 2008 2:56 AM:I'd just like to add to Pete's post "way up there about the Clinton's use of smear tactics during this campaign:
Bob Jonson, founder of BET (which many African Americans view as a pepetuator of negative stereotypes for blacks and women), said this while introducing HRC before a speech in SC:
"To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book — when they have been involved...,"
Which is a clear reference to his drug use. He would later say he was referring to Obama's community organizing, but it does not explain the negative connotations of his comments.
He later says in the same speech (and this was not publicized as much by the MSM):
That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me or a guy that says I want to be a reasonable, likeable Sidney Poitier 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.' And I'm thinking to myself, this ain't a movie, Sidney."
This may seem silly, as Sidney Poitier is widely revered today, but this reference will resonate with the over 50 AA crowd attending this speech. Sidney Poitier was disliked by many blacks at the time because several of his roles did not deal with racial issues. It was not until "In the Heat of the Night" and the slap in the movie that many african americans were won over. Not to mention that the movie involves SP's engagement to a white woman (a racial taboo in the south at the time).
HRC's response?
"We both have exuberant and sometimes uncontrollable supporters," said Mrs Clinton, who had been present when the comments were made. She agreed that they were "over the line" while suggesting people accept Mr Johnson's insistence he was not referring to drug use.
She, like the MSM, made no reference to the Sidney Poitier comment.
And let's not forget the anonymous Clinton advisor who said:
"If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool."
And let's not forget Andrew Cuomo's (AG of NY and HRC supporter) comments:
Cuomo said of the early primaries: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy your way through."
He added later, "You have to sit down with 10 people in a living room. You can't shuck and jive at a news conference; you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you, saying 'answer the question.'"
Later:
A truncated version of Cuomo's quote appeared first on the Albany Times Union's Capital Confidential blog Wednesday with the claim - later clarified - that he was talking about "Hillary's win in New Hampshire."
Look in ANY dictionary, and you will find it is a highly charged racial slur.
If HRC's "part-time" comment were in isolation, maybe I would let it roll off my back, but clearly it's not. I hope that this will encourage all of you look past what the MSM media is feeding you and look at all of the candidates without blinders.
P.S. Bill Clinton is widely known for his cocaine use. In fact, his stepbrother was arrested for the crime:
"Hot Springs police record Roger Clinton during a cocaine transaction. Roger says, 'Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.'" He is convicted with a light sentence and later pardoned by Bill in 2001.
Talk about glass houses!
