« Darkness Descends On Texas | Main | Solutions: Addendum »

February 15, 2008

Comments

She certainly solved that healthcare crisis back in '93.

"Solutions" is just the latest slogan-de-jour from the clueless Clinton machine. It's even more empty of content than Hillary's bogus 35-years of "experience" and her empty "agent of change" rhetoric. What a joke! Hillary's a hopeless hack who hasn't accomplished a damn thing in public life, except make millions on cattle futures and other politically-connected, influence-peddling scams.

The Clinton campaign can't implode fast enough for me. Stop, just stop, wouldja?

I've been appalled by the venom being spewed around the blogs, by otherwise sensible people, who support Hillary and detest Obama, and those who favor Obama, but detest Hillary. The animus is unbelievable. The abuse heaped by each side on the other is alarming. Each side seems to be expressing their inner-Rove, trying to Swiftboat the other's candidate and render them unsupportable. Why this extremism? They act more like Republicans, than Democrats. Shame on all who act like the thugs we're trying to remove from our system of governance. Not everyone suffers from the dementia, but all too many do.

Exactly! I've been wondering the same thing. This is just the latest formulation of "who the hell does this upstart think he is?!" and it's not any more convincing than the earlier ones.

Rick: HRCs campaign is about as inane right now as the Kerry campaign in '04. But in '04, Kerry was all we had. There was no opportunity cost. Now, we have something better, but HRC is threatening to take it away, which explains the venom. The perception is that if she snags this nomination from Obama, which she well might, she will have cost the country a very, very good thing.

In fact, some people are coming close to feeling towards her what they feel towards Ralph Nader. It's not so much disagreement as it just is a wish that this person would go away for the good of the country.

For some reason this reminds me of Clinton's old "I survived the Republican attack machines" line. Sure she *survived* the Republican attack machine, but I'm very hard pressed to recall any instance when she actually *beat* the Republican attack machine.

The "solution" we need right now is a decisive result in the Democratic nomination process. Maybe Barack can "bring us together" against those nasty people who support Hillary, eh?

Yes, I mean to be snarky. It's not Hillary's fault or Barack's that us voters out here can't make up our damn minds decisively enough. Both of them are egotists, or they would not be running. Both of them want the glory of being President. I don't blame either one for that.

Barack is my guy. I want him to be the next President. The reason I do is because I do not for one minute take literally his "bring us together" schtick. I tend to think, that Mark Kleiman has it right: it's not that Obama won't screw the conservatives; it's just that he will kiss them first and tell them he loves them afterwards.

But I will be goddamned if I believe that Hillary would make a worse President than John McCain, and I get annoyed by people who fail to mention that, when they go on a tear about why she'd be worse than Barack.

-- TP

Tony P: I really don't think a person has to be an egotist to want to be President. There are those people who think they can do actual good and find themselves motivated by a desire to do that.

Ara--it's one thing to believe that you can do actual good. But to sacrifice years of your life and any vestige of privacy or a normal family? That takes a healthy dose of power-lust. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but you have to assume that anyone who makes a serious run for president is crazed with ambition.

Think of it this way--even if you believed yourself more qualified than the rest of the field, would you want to run for President? Enough to spend 2 years of your life doing it, knowing all along that you might not even win?

Now, we have something better, but HRC is threatening to take it away, which explains the venom. The perception is that if she snags this nomination from Obama, which she well might, she will have cost the country a very, very good thing.
Ara nails it with this observation. I'm actually something of a recent convert, a John Cole Democrat if you will, who has always viewed Hillary as a corrupt, completely artifical empty skirt. So my rancor and bias against HRC is out there for all to see. But the essential point is that she really is frustrating the aspirations of millions of long-term and new Democrats who hunger for a fundamental change in our politics, and see Obama as the only hope. A return to Clinton-era partisanship and corruption is the last thing this country needs after eight years of Bush 43's malfeasance and unconstitutional power grabs.

I began this journey in support of Hillary, if not whole-heartedly. Bit by bit, I began to be won over by Obama, and the thing that finally did it was a belief that here is a man who truly cares about our country, vs. having his own or his party's interests at the top of the list. I feel his style of government would be just the sort that people are craving...and not to mention that the man is truly articulate. So I moved to become a whole-hearted Obama supporter, while saying that I would support Hillary, if she was the nominee. However, I am moving further and further away from that position, as I see that she is only concerned with her own fortunes, and not those of the country nor the Democratic Party. And watching her campaign implode has reminded me of the mess that W created for us in Iraq with poor planning, rewarding loyalists, etc. I don't think McCain would be a better President, but if Hillary wins the nomination, especially if it is by means of the Superdelagate vote, I will stay home on election day for the first time since I have been able to vote. I will be 68 years old.

I prefer a roughly 20% solution of ethanol in water, with a lime twist.

Rick: “I've been appalled by the venom being spewed around the blogs, by otherwise sensible people, who support Hillary and detest Obama, and those who favor Obama, but detest Hillary.”

I can’t speak for other sites, but this one has become a Groupies-For-Obama blog, where all they do is accentuate the negative for Hillary, and act like yea-sayers shouting adulatory positives to the Naked King Obama and his non-existent new clothes.

It’s surprising, because when I first started reading Obama Wings, er Obsidian Wings (after Publius abandoned his own blog, before he became as irrationally and blatantly partisan as he is now) a wide spectrum of views was expressed and encouraged here, including Conservative Republican perspectives. Now, only Obama supporters seem to be allowed to post above the fold, but no privileges for democrats or independents of any stripe, if they have the common sense to support the Clintons, and want to articulate that fact.

Now, only Obama supporters seem to be allowed to post above the fold

I'd correct that to say that the only people posting above the fold are Obama supporters. There are a highly limited number of people who have posting privileges, and a few of those just...don't.

One of those used to be me, so I think I have a notion of what I'm talking about, here.

"but if Hillary wins the nomination, especially if it is by means of the Superdelagate vote, I will stay home on election day for the first time since I have been able to vote."

There's a lot of us who feel the same way about Obama winning by means of the super delegate votes, especially if Obama's delegates fight to exclude the Florida primary vote...

And if Obama is the nominee, I think I'd still vote for House and Senate candidates, but not for Obama.

And if it looked like the Democrats were going to lock up both houses, I'd consider voting for McCain, to keep things in balance.

Dan: I still think you are underestimating people's ability to be motivated to extreme lengths just by the belief that they are doing good. And I think we tend to underestimate this because we hold politicians in a particular frame that we do not hold others. Look, soldiers sacrifice an awful lot more that their privacy.
And yet we don't tend to think that they are motivated by some kind of self-interest, some kind of mad mania to shoot things, or any other loopy motive that could account for why they are willing to give up so much.

Enough to spend 2 years of your life doing it, knowing all along that you might not even win?

Let's say if you are a major candidate your realistic chance of winning is somewhere around 1/5. Again, entrepreneurs regularly give away much more of their lives than two years and incur much more financial risk for odds that are not as good. And yet we don't think of them necessarily as being driven by money-lust. Some people just like what they do and don't mind taking risks.

I'd correct that to say that the only people posting above the fold are Obama supporters. There are a highly limited number of people who have posting privileges, and a few of those just...don't.


Well, as none of the other 'highly limited' people are posting in favor of Hillary, for all intents and purposes this is a partisan Obama blog. And almost all of those responding in the comments sections are ardently for Obama and snidely, snottily, blatantly, and irrationally against Clinton-- so much so you'd think you linked up by mistake to Sean Hannity's or John McCain's web sites.

Correct me if I'm wrong: neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates WILL have the final say. It's only a question of what the superdelegates will base their votes on -- their own judgement, or the will of the last, most marginal few percent of the voters.

In the nomination contest, Jay Jerome cancels out jwo. In the actual election, jwo and Jay Jerome are on the same side: ready to accept a McCain presidency. This baffles me, but never mind. The question I pose to both of them is: why should a superdelegate care what EITHER of you think, since s/he can't possibly satisfy BOTH of you?

-- TP

Well, as none of the other 'highly limited' people are posting in favor of Hillary, for all intents and purposes this is a partisan Obama blog.

No, it's not. It's just a small blog whose two main posters happen to be Obama supporters. Publius is entirely free to change his mind, as is hilzoy, should convincing, mind-changing evidence to do so present itself.

If I were still posting, I'd probably be supporting Obama, too. Just not because I'm required to in exchange for posting privileges. If you want to be a poster, the Powers That Be might grant you the power to be a pro-Hillary faction. Then again, they might not. Knowing hilzoy, though, it wouldn't be just because you support someone she doesn't.

If Charles wanted to brave the gauntlet, I'm sure he'd be posting pro-McCain stuff at this point, or anti-Obama stuff, or even anti-Clinton stuff.

Jay -- I agree that the preponderance of those posting here are Obama supporters. Perhaps my filters are biased, but my sense is that most people are putting forward reasoned and/or evidence-based justifications for that preference. For "blatant and irrational" try Larry Johnson's blog http://noquarterusa.net/blog> No Quarter -- except he and Susan skew in the other direction.

It would be interesting to see a Clinton presidency just to watch the giant hissy fit that would be thrown by the extreme right-wing nuts.

And almost all of those responding in the comments sections are ardently for Obama and snidely, snottily, blatantly, and irrationally against Clinton-- so much so you'd think you linked up by mistake to Sean Hannity's or John McCain's web sites.

I plead guilty here. I was a rabid irrational Obama supporter arguing (nay, shouting down) dutchmarbel at the end of this thread. I was so wild with partisan rage that I wrote things like "Thanks for continuing the discussion. I do appreciate your arguments" and talked about how I would happily vote for Clinton in the general election. I have often thought that the snottiness of my comments in that thread reminds me of nothing so much as Hannity's incoherent rants, what with all the substantiative reasons for disliking Clinton's likely foreign policy.

Now, I happen to agree with you about my snottiness and snideness and irrationality, but others might not see as clearly as you do, so perhaps you could explain where specifically I was snotty and snide and irrational in that comment thread? Many thanks.

And almost all of those responding in the comments sections are ardently for Obama and snidely, snottily, blatantly, and irrationally against Clinton...

I might be snide, snotty, and blatant, but I am not irrational.

I freely admit to irrationality in this matter, but I just choose not to say much about Hillary Clinton. I'm not really even very wild about Barack Obama, but given the opposition, I don my soon-to-be-ex-VRWC noseplugs and...well, I'm still uncommitted. Although I ought to be.

I have often thought that the snottiness of my comments in that thread reminds me of nothing so much as Hannity's incoherent rants

I knew you reminded me of someone Turb… ;)

What Slarti said: decisions about who posts here were made long before any of us was supporting any particular candidate. If Charles were posting, he'd be for McCain; if Andy were posting -- well, he was for Ron Paul, though he didn't get to see the evidence of Paul's racist newsletter, which I suspect he would not have liked, so I don't know who he would be for now. Seb has posting privileges, but his views on the election are unknown to me.

The fact that publius and I ended up on the same side is a coincidence. And it's not as though I haven't been trying to cite evidence.

And of course there's von, but I haven't the faintest idea where he's coming from, either.

Jay Jerome:

[...] And if Obama is the nominee, I think I'd still vote for House and Senate candidates, but not for Obama.

And if it looked like the Democrats were going to lock up both houses, I'd consider voting for McCain, to keep things in balance.

Of course you will. You're not a Democrat:
[...] but of course that's one of the liberal knee-jerks of perception I stepped back from: you know, reading homophobic or racist intent in any criticism directed at gays or dark skinned minorities; and part of the reason why so many other Democrats have distanced themselves from the latte-liberal fringe of the party, because they’re just as narrow-mindedly obtuse as fringe conservatives, and don’t understand what the middle-ground is.That’s the reason why Giuliani was elected mayor of NYC twice, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 5 to 1 in the city; and the reason the Grope-anator won the governors race in California, where Democrats are significantly more numerous than Republicans...

And it didn't turn me conservative -- it put me back in balance. I’m a registered Independent now, and we’re the ones who are going to decide who the next president is – and that’s a good thing..

Obama sure is scary to you latte-liberal hating independents. McCain is the ticket!

Too bad Rudy isn't still in the race, or Arnold.

It's a little much to also pretend to be a Democrat, though. It's not as if people lack memories.

"And of course there's von, but I haven't the faintest idea where he's coming from, either."

I figure he he wasn't lying.

I prefer a roughly 20% solution of ethanol in water, with a lime twist.

Hey, that's a good idea! BRB

publius: "To me, the best evidence of future willingness to "solve" comes from past behavior. And "fighting for solutions" is not exactly how I'd characterize her 7+ years in the Senate."

To start, lets compare apples and apples. Obama's record of fighting for solutions in the senate has been nothing but a lot of shadow boxing. Statistically he's sponsored or cosponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, and only 9 of them made it out of committee, a little under 2 a year.

Since 2001 Hillary's sponsored or cosponsored 354 bills, and 47 of those made it out of committee, or about 7 a year.

Which means she and her cosponsors were better then 3 times as successful at moving bills forward as Obama and his sponsors. About the only thing he's been better at during his Senatorial career so far is missing votes -- 185 of 1098 votes (17%)since Jan 6, 2005. Hillary Clinton missed 152 of 2406 votes (6%) since Jan 23, 2001.

Now let's compare apples and green apple-sauce. Hillary has a long and distinguished history of accomplishment. Back in the 1970s when Barak was living in Hawaii with his grandparents and shooting baskets as a second-string highschool basketball player, Hillary was working at a law firm doing pro bono child advocacy work and publishing articles on children's rights and neglect which earned her the respect and admiration of activists and scholars alike. She also helped co-found the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state funded alliance with the CDF to promote education and advocacy rights for children in that state.

Also during that time she was appointed by President Carter to the board of directors of Legal Services, the first woman to serve as the chairperson of that organization, set up by the US Congress to "to seek to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it"

In the 1980s when Obama was getting an education, his nose stuffed into books, Hillary was the First Lady of Arkansas, working on and solving real life problems as chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, and chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she fought a long but successful battle to improve standards for teachers and curriculum and classroom size. And after that she promoted home-instruction programs for preschool kids, improving literacy and preparing them for future schooling. Next, from 1987 to 1991 she chaired the ABA's Commission on Women in the Profession, addressing gender bias in the legal profession and convincing the association to adopt measures to combat it.

This was just about the time Obama made it to Chicago as a community organizer. From 1992 to 1995 he was working at the law firm Minor, Barnhill & Galland, where he did some laudatory work, mostly focused on civil rights issues. Hillary by then was First Lady of the U.S. - the most activist First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, and the first to be ensconced into the West Wing, near the Oval Office, the Cabinet and Situation Rooms, and the Executive Office of the President. Before he was elected Bill Clinton said electing him would get the nation "two for the price of one," and he kept his word: Hillary was daily involved in the operation of the US government and the people who ran it. When it comes to governing the nation, she's been there, done that. But, contrarily, the only thing Obama knows from personal experience about the practical operation of the White House is what he's seen or heard from a distance: the difference between living inside, and gazing from the outside.

The Clinton presidency overlaps Obama's tenure in the Illinois State Legislature. There, he did some good things as a liberal legislator, but nothing spectacular; certainly nothing to show he has the capacity or ability to be a national leader.

For sponsored or co-sponsored bills he was successful passing a law requiring law enforcement to videotape suspects in some serious crimes, and another on racial profiling to create a 'study' of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. He also successfully sponsored a shield law to protect Illinois workers from federal rules threatening their overtime. The sponsorship he most touts was an ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act (1998) to statutorily regulate the giving and receipt of gifts to officials and employees of government agencies or entities, and to prohibit lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property. It was an admirable bill, to cut down on corruption, but parts of it were nonsensical, including a list of OK gifts (could you give your teacher candy for Valentine's Day, but not socks for Xmas?) and I think parts of the law were found unconstitutional and it had to be redrafted in 2005.

Hillary during this period was traveling around the world as U.S. Good-Will Ambassador, but also as a voice of conscience for women's issues, including the notable 1995 speech she made to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing where, resisting pressure from the Chinese, she publicly spoke out against practices of abuse in China and the world; she also spoke out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban.

It's also the time period she screwed up the Health Plan (she acknowledges it was partly due to her political inexperience) but she didn't sit back on her ass and sulk: along with Backstabber Ted Kennedy she was a major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program, providing funds to buy insurance to families with children with incomes too high to get Medicaid: the largest expansion of coverage for US children since Medicaid began in the 1960s. She also promoted immunization programs for children, successfully helping increase research funding for childhood asthma and prostate cancer at the NIH; helped create the Office on Violence Against Woman at the dept of Justice; and in 1997 shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which helped increase the adoption of children with special needs.

Is that enough fighting for solutions for you, pub? Obama's career is puny in comparison.

Jay-will address that post in depth given more time, but first, I must point out some laughingly hypocritical points:

you:
nd almost all of those responding in the comments sections are ardently for Obama and snidely, snottily, blatantly, and irrationally against Clinton

And then, I guess, to show how Clinton-supporters are not snide, snotty, or blatantly irrational, you give us this dispassionate, even-handed analysis of Obama:

Back in the 1970s when Barak was living in Hawaii with his grandparents and shooting baskets as a second-string highschool basketball player,

In the 1980s when Obama was getting an education, his nose stuffed into books,

And then, of course, there was this:

This was just about the time Obama made it to Chicago as a community organizer. From 1992 to 1995

What about actually reviewing what he did as a community organizer? What about Project Vote!, which helped Bill win the state of Illinois? etc etc.

Anyway, I'll go more in depth on what struck me upon initial reading as little more than agitprop tonight (Hillary was solving "real problems" that I won't really describe in length, either the nature of her problems nor the solutions...but they were real, and she did solve them! Hillary's office was physically close to other important offices...so we know she was important like them, even if she had no official role and we have no documentation of what her role was and how she fared in it!)

Needless to say, though, you didn't pass your own test of what accounts for good advocacy for a candidate by refraining from snide and snotty remarks. Considering the fact that I've seen a paucity of such infantile attacks aimed at Hillary Clinton from front pagers nor in the substantive posts in comments sections (as yours claims to be), I think you may be projecting just a bit.

Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton has missed 127 votes (27.1%) during the current Congress.
Full list of Clinton missed votes. Historical chart of Clinton missed votes.

Clinton:

Time Period Number of Votes Missed Votes Percent
2001-Q1 63 0 0%
2001-Q2 157 0 0%
2001-Q3 68 3 4.4%
2001-Q4 92 0 0%
2002-Q1 59 1 1.7%
2002-Q2 107 0 0%
2002-Q3 61 1 1.6%
2002-Q4 26 0 0%
2003-Q1 112 0 0%
2003-Q2 150 0 0%
2003-Q3 108 1 0.9%
2003-Q4 89 3 3.4%
2004-Q1 64 0 0%
2004-Q2 88 2 2.3%
2004-Q3 42 10 23.8%
2004-Q4 22 3 13.6%
2005-Q1 81 11 13.6%
2005-Q2 89 0 0%
2005-Q3 76 0 0%
2005-Q4 119 1 0.8%
2006-Q1 83 2 2.4%
2006-Q2 107 1 0.9%
2006-Q3 73 1 1.4%
2006-Q4 16 0 0%
2007-Q1 126 3 2.4%
2007-Q2 112 3 2.7%
2007-Q3 119 26 21.8%
2007-Q4 85 71 83.5%
2008-Q1 12 9 75%

You know Jay, that would have been a great comment had you left Obama out of it. But instead you're claiming you're making apples-to-apples comparisons when you're not. And making snide remarks about "greenness" which essentially amount to pointing out that he's younger, was he really supposed to be doing the same thing Clinton was when he was in high school? (note that he's the same age now as Bill Clinton was when Clinton was elected President).

Oh, and I have to correct the record on something that is laughingly inaccurate:

t's also the time period she screwed up the Health Plan (she acknowledges it was partly due to her political inexperience) but she didn't sit back on her ass and sulk: along with Backstabber Ted Kennedy she was a major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program, providing funds to buy insurance to families with children with incomes too high to get Medicaid: the largest expansion of coverage for US children since Medicaid began in the 1960s.

If anyone is a back-stabber, it would be Hillary and Bill on Clinton on S-Chip. That bill, sponsored by Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy, was sacrificed at the alter of the balanced budget by Clinton after complaints from Trent Lott. And after Bill actively politicked against the bill, trying to dissuade Senators from backing it, Hillary supported his efforts at throwing Kennedy's bill under the bus, saying, and I quote, "He had to safeguard the overall budget proposal"

Is that enough fighting for solutions for you, pub?

I think the problem so many of us have with Clinton is the above is what passes as "fight for solutions" from her, apparently. Did she eventually get back on board S-Chip? Yes (only after Kennedy and Hatch and the Children's Defense Fund and the Girl Scouts and on and on lobbied the President's office hard). Did her advocacy and Bill's as well help it's ultimate passage? Yes. But Ted Kennedy was the driving force behind S-Chip, Hillary and Bill were happy to abandon it when it wasn't politically expedient and had to be leaned on hard by Senators from both parties and lobby groups to get behind it again.

That's not "fighting". That's exactly the type of political cowardice that sours people on Clinton. And the fact that she wants to claim it a major accomplishment, and you want to cite it here as an instance of her fighting for a cause against political opposition, is laughable.

Not to pile on Jay, but about this: "To start, lets compare apples and apples. Obama's record of fighting for solutions in the senate has been nothing but a lot of shadow boxing. Statistically he's sponsored or cosponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, and only 9 of them made it out of committee, a little under 2 a year.

Since 2001 Hillary's sponsored or cosponsored 354 bills, and 47 of those made it out of committee, or about 7 a year."

You wouldn't know that I had just provided a whole list of the bills that actually became law (I'm not sure why making it out of committee is supposed to be a better index of anything.) During the time when both Clinton and Obama were in the Senate, she did, in fact, pass more bills than he did, but none of them were substantive.

I mean, if you don't bother to look at what those bills actually were, you could find yourself inadvertently being impressed by Hillary Clinton's dramatic advantage in Post Office namings. And it would be easy not to look at what they were had I not just posted them all on this very blog. It's a bit odder not to bother with what the bills actually were when they are all so convenient. Which is, actually, why I bothered to post them: I wanted to make it as easy as possible for anyone to compare them.

To draw a salient analogy, Clinton getting credit for "fighting" on behalf of S-CHIP would be like John Lewis trying to get credit for fighting for Barack Obama. Did he sing Obama's praises way back when? Yes. Is he advocating for Obama now? Yes. Might that advocacy even be significant in helping Obama win the nomination? Certainly.

But he also abandoned Obama, endorsed Clinton, and actively criticized Obama, dismissing him as 2nd-rate in between. That's not "fighting" for Obama, anymore than the Clintons advocacy for, abandonment of, and later re-upped advocacy for S-CHIP was some sort of example of their dedication to progressive causes.

It's wind-sock politics. The bill was popular and healthcare was something they'd run on, so they back it. There's opposition, so they're against it. There's heavy lobby pressure for it, so they're behind it again. Please.

Wow, just saw an AP vid describing how supporters are bolting from HRC because they were initially brought into line by fear rather than loyalty.

There is this too to think about among her fundraising. Several articles have made clear: people gave because they saw this as a way to get ahead in the coming administration. These people are investing. Obama's people are donating. The investor-types are just the ones to be most sensitive to the risk of their candidate not winning. The whole "air of inevitability" was a fundraising ploy.

Apparently lewis is for Obama now.

Thank you Ara for ewxpressing exactly whhy I get annoyed withh Hillary suupporters. TThey are out to lose the election for us out of irrationality. It pissies me off.

Hillary supporters sometimes bash Obamiacs for beinng all about hope. Annd yet HHillary supporters are all about wishfull thinking.

They think a woman with a rock solid disapproval rating of 48% can win.

They think she can win by using the 50% plus onw strategy thhat worked so well in 2000 and 2004.

They think she can win even though her batched, illconcieved campaign is managed by people chosen for loyalty, not competence.

They think she will be a change agent annd compose all sorts of thoughht pretzels to maintain this illuusion even though her actual pattern is of excessive caution, a pattern she maintainns to this day (remember thhe FISA no show?)

They think shhe can overcome her disapproval raings even thhough her behavior in this camapign reinnforces her image as unscrupulously abmitious.

And so on.

It really is the triumph of wishhful thinkinng over reasonn.

Up thhread Ughh says something abouut the hissy fit the righht wouuld through if she won. Yes probably annd they would ennjoy everute of it, too. Hating Hillary is the only thing the righht has. There's nothing thhey would love more than to spennd more time bashing her. (By "they" I mean malkin and listeneers annd so on and Repubs inn Congress).

I think Hillary supporters are primarily motivated by spite, which is understandable. However we will only get to be spiteful in ouur victory if we actually win. Hillary won't. The polls show her losing by substancial amrgins to McCain in both red and purple states. She will run a Kerryesque campaign and get a Kerryesque result. or worse.

I prefer Obama because he can win. That's that best revenge.

Hillary supporters owe it to the rest of us to take a good objective look at the facts of electability.

G. Farber: "Hillary Clinton has missed 127 votes (27.1%) during the current Congress."

That's right, distort by omission:

Obama has missed 38% of votes during this current Congress, surpassed only by Tim Johnson 66% (though that might have had something to do with his brain hemorrhage) and John McCain (55.7%).

I originally left out the current Congress missed votes because missed votes go up when candidates are campaigning; but BOs overall record for missed votes far surpasses hers, and so does his current record, which you conveniently left out.

You also left out a description of Obama's missed vote on the Iranian resolution, this after he launched an attack on Hillary for voting to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group (like they're not, right) and didn't even show up to vote for it himself after chastising her.

So thats two bits of hypocrisy: his and (fill in the blank, because I don't want to violate the posting rules for being 'insensitive') -

"Apparently lewis is for Obama now."

This is where precise writing is important. "For" conveys little of the necessary information.

To be specific, Lewis endorsed Clinton, but yesterday said he would cast his superdelegate vote for Obama. He neither withdrew his endorsement of Clinton, nor endorsed Obama.

Specifically:

[...] Though Mr. Lewis had praise for Mrs. Clinton and for her historic candidacy, he said he could decide within days whether to formally endorse Mr. Obama.
Today all the reports are just that Obama has tried and failed to reach Lewis, and Lewis' press spokesperson said:
[...] a spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, said the Times story and a similar one by the Associated Press, saying he was contemplating such a switch, were inaccurate. Both the Times and AP stories quoted Lewis directly after speaking with him; he was not available for comment later Thursday. The Obama campaign also said that Lewis and Obama had not talked recently about a change of heart.

"It is plain there is a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama," Jones said. But, she said, "those things are observations," not statements of preference. She said Lewis has left the option of changing his superdelegate support for Clinton on the table, but made no decisions. Still, it is clear that Lewis has had misgivings about the Clinton campaign in recent weeks, especially after the racially charged campaign in South Carolina, during which former president Bill Clinton was perceived to have made racially insensitive comments.

And so on.

"That's right, distort by omission"

Here's the entire entry, word for word:

Missed Votes

Hillary Clinton has missed 127 votes (27.1%) during the current Congress. See a list of her missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.

Word for word. I provided the additional links.

Here is Obama page's relevant entry, if you had trouble finding it:

Missed Votes

Barack Obama has missed 182 votes (38.8%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.

"That's right, distort by omission"

Here's the entire entry, word for word:

Missed Votes

Hillary Clinton has missed 127 votes (27.1%) during the current Congress. See a list of her missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.

Word for word. I provided the additional links.

Here is Obama page's relevant entry, if you had trouble finding it:

Missed Votes

Barack Obama has missed 182 votes (38.8%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.

Look! Here's a problem:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which issued about 144,000 trailers to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, has been widely criticized for its slow response to extensive evidence that many trailers contain unsafe levels of formaldehyde, an industrial chemical classified as a probable carcinogen.

About 38,000 families are still living in the trailers and mobile homes, federal officials said Thursday at a news briefing, including more than 7,000 in trailer parks that FEMA had already vowed to close by May, before hurricane season begins again along the Gulf. Most of the other trailers are parked next to flooded houses that families are trying to repair.

FEMA will now hasten to move families living in trailers into apartments or, if necessary, into hotels, said R. David Paulison, the administrator of the agency."

And here were people worrying about it before it hit the headlines:

"U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Barack Obama (D-IL) lauded Congress’ passage of their proposal to launch an investigation into reports that housing trailers contaminated with formaldehyde were provided to Hurricane Katrina victims. This provision, which is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations package soon to be signed into law, will initiate a long overdue investigation into why the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) failed to prevent the contamination or investigate the allegations. (...)

This provision requires the U.S. Inspector General to:

Investigate FEMA’s policies and processes regarding formaldehyde in trailers purchased by the agency to house Katrina victims;

Collect and respond to health and safety concerns of trailer occupants; and determine whether FEMA adequately notified occupants of potential health and safety concerns and whether FEMA has proper controls and processes in place to deal with health and safety concerns of those living in trailers following disasters; and

Report to Congress on its findings."

Of course, they couldn't force FEMA to actually act swiftly. That would take leadership from the administration. But they were doing what they could.

It's amazing what you notice when you've been compiling lists of legislation...

Huh. Fascinating. Another case of being alert to potential trouble while it's still potential.

Houston Chronicle and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel endorse Obama.

What a surprise, Jay Jerome didn't actually address our host's point and just pivoted. His post kind of reminded me of Lieberman's attack on Lamont for voting with Republicans a lot while ignoring most of those were procedural votes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad