Why I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President

By Josh Kardon of Portland, Oregon. Josh is the chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton for President. [Editor's note: Josh is also Senator Ron Wyden's chief-of-staff, though Senator Wyden has not endorsed any candidate for President.]

I was working as a Legislative Director on the Hill when I first met Hillary Clinton in 1993. She was making the rounds with members of Congress to discuss health care reform and stopped in to visit with Rep. Ron Wyden, then a young, health care hot-shot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I sat in on the meeting despite my utter lack of knowledge on the subject. What struck me immediately about her was her near-constant eye contact and the barely-perceptible nodding of her head. It took me awhile to put my finger on it, but eventually it came to me -- she was listening! It was the last thing I had expected from a First Lady, particularly given most of my experiences up to that time, and since then, with those at the top rungs of power in Washington, D.C.

The Clinton health reform effort obviously fell short, but she sure fought like hell for it. As a result of her experience on that campaign, I would wager that no candidate for President before or since knows more about what it takes to actually deliver on fundamental change than Hillary Clinton. The challenges faced by our next President are obviously daunting. More people face financial and health insecurity today than at any time since the end of the second world war, opportunities to attain middle class status have declined alarmingly under President Bush, and remaining in the middle class has never been more challenging due to ever-shrinking wages and the risk of catastrophic illness (the number one cause of bankruptcy in America). And, of course, our standing in the world is an unfathomable nightmare to such a degree that many Americans wonder if the damage will be repaired in our lifetimes. Each of these challenges will require someone with an extraordinary capacity to listen, someone intellectually top-shelf, someone who understands the multiple layers of government, policy, politics, media and how they interact. Someone who is progressive and inherently empathetic. That person is Senator Hillary Clinton.

I believe very strongly that if we have learned anything from the wreckage of the past seven years, it ought to be this: no matter whom we elect President, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, that person ought to be the best prepared for this unbelievably demanding and complex job. The nation knew George W. Bush was intellectually lazy and painfully inarticulate, but took a flier on the guy. Didn’t work out so good. That, by far, the best prepared person for the job this time happens to be a brilliant, progressive woman -- and a great listener -- cinched the deal for me.

For decades I had sat with friends, usually over beers, and played the “which woman is ready to run for President?” game. Diane Feinstein, Pat Schroeder, my former boss Barbara Boxer, Geraldine Ferraro, Ann Richards: there was always an allegedly disqualifying objection that kept them from even approaching the starting gate. Now, for the first time in my life, I could say, without qualification, that a phenomenal woman was by far the best prepared person for the job. As a father of two daughters, I couldn’t in good conscience turn away from this great woman and this historic opportunity.

I don’t know Senator Obama and regret that I didn’t get to work around him before I moved to Oregon. He is a phenomenal talent. One old friend of mine is his Chief of Staff and another is his media consultant, and if Senator Obama wins the nomination, I will bust my hump to get him elected (and salvage my friendships).

I did get the opportunity to observe Senator Clinton up close in D.C., however. She was quietly and powerfully effective, and charmed friends and Republicans alike with her surprisingly modest ego, as evidenced by her still-extraordinary listening skills. There is typically very little listening to one another on the floor of the House or the Senate, but plenty of talking at each other. Hillary could have played that game, and it would have put her on front pages across the country from Day 1. But instead she put her head down and went to work. She listened, fought for good, progressive economic and environmental policy, and became an exceptionally popular figure in New York and the Senate, even among her former detractors. I know she will do the same as our next President.

I want to strongly encourage all who want to help Hillary become our next President to e-mail us at [email protected] or join the “Oregon Stands with Hillary” group on Facebook.

Comments

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What struck me immediately about her was her near-constant eye contact and the barely-perceptible nodding of her head. It took me awhile to put my finger on it, but eventually it came to me -- she was listening!

    Every report I have read about Hillary's health care debacle in 1993 suggests a primary cause was that Hillary didn't listen. What Josh may have considered listening might more likely have been a case of sizing up Ron Wyden.

    I can understand why Democrats might stick with Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee, but I wouldn't bet on many independents switching from Obama to Hillary.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excellent. Nice to hear from someone who's worked closely with the Senator.

  • Randle McMurphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh Kardon for President.

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's nice to see you're open to either Dem in the general election and will work for that person. Thanks for your personal insight.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How could we ever entrust as President someone who had the poor judgment to vote to invade Iraq, without even bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate? When it counted, she showed she would rather play politics rather than do the right thing and is not someone to be trusted with our votes.

  • Billy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn

    Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which Mark Penn is CEO.

    Tells you a lot about Clinton when her top advisor's company also advises the Republican nominee.

  • (Show?)
    As a result of her experience on that campaign, I would wager that no candidate for President before or since knows more about what it takes to actually deliver on fundamental change than Hillary Clinton.

    That's like saying no team understands more about what it takes to win the Super Bowl than the Arizona Cardinals...how does failing to deliver ANY change, give you the knowledge on how to deliver it?

    I see no evidence that Clinton has any desire to effect change in the political system that so badly burdens us. She doesn't have a problem with K Street, she doesn't have any interest in building the party beyond a narrowly defined base of "her" Democrats, and she is far too entrenched in the current power centers to attempt to buck them.

    And I have to ask you, Josh--do you believe as Clinton does that McCain is better equipped to be President than Barack Obama?

  • (Show?)

    Excellent piece, Josh.

    Since Obama's been in the Senate, don't Clinton and Obama have identical voting records on Iraq?

    And everyone in politics associates themselves with people who are linked to some people. I don't think it was fair when people were harping on Obama's connections to certain undesirable donors, nor do I think Clinton's connections to Penn are telling.

    And I don't think Clinton's efforts on health care died because she failed to listen -- my read is that she didn't capitulate to certain interests, who then torpedoed her with misinformation to the voters.

    That said, I think Obama does better things for the ticket, as well as being more electable, and despite Clinton's impressive skills (I think she'd be the most competent president of the three), I'm backing Obama.

  • (Show?)
    I don't think it was fair when people were harping on Obama's connections to certain undesirable donors, nor do I think Clinton's connections to Penn are telling.

    Penn's not a disconnected donor; he's the architect of Clinton's campaign! Not at all the same.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ...the best prepared person for the job this time happens to be a brilliant, progressive woman -- and a great listener -- cinched the deal for me.

    The experience argument is a loser, no matter how you spin it. Sen McCain has more 'experience' than Sens Clinton and Obama combined. She's only been in the Senate since 2000, and if we include a tangential role in the (Bill) Clinton administration that's 1992. In 1992, Sen McCain had already been in Congress for 11 years -- in addition to 26 years in the Navy.

    Judgment, not experience, is the Democrats only of of muting John McCain's sizable experience advantage.

  • Josh Kardon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mathew, I understand your frustration with her vote on Iraq, but I don't believe for one second that Hillary Clinton would have taken this country into war with Iraq. We will never know if Sen. Obama would have voted for that resolution had he been in the Senate at the time like Sens. Edwards and Clinton.

    Billy, think what you want about Mark Penn, but you are being irresponsible when you infer that Penn has anything to do with advising the McCain presidential campaign. Obama's media consultant, GMMB, was purchased by Fleishman-Hillard which is now a subsidiary of Omnicom which owns right-wing lobby shops that support McCain. It would be equally ludicrous to accuse GMMB of advising McCain.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary's lifetime of experience canard is not based in reality.

    Laura Bush is one senate term away from having as much "experience" as Hillary.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The experience argument is not at all "a loser." The difference between McCain's experience and Clinton's experience is that she is a Democrat and good on the issues. Nobody's saying that her experience is the only thing she has going for her.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, Hillary just sat and made cookies while Bill was in office.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    facts suck, huh, peter!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In terms of electability, Clinton is the clear winner in a general election.

    Take a look at last night's spread in Ohio. Now ask yourself, do you think that Obama can win Ohio in a general? Do you think that Obama can win Florida and New Mexico, both with sizable Latino populations, in a general? Do you think that Obama can win Nevada in a general?

    No, he can't. And those are the pivotal swing states that matter. Without OH, FL, NM... well, it's difficult for him to put together a winning strategy.

    Obama wilted like a plucked daisy after a week of modest "attacks" by Clinton. (And by "attack" I mean a commercial, the red phone one, that made zero explicit reference to Obama.)

    He would get absolutely creamed in a general election.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    <i<>He would get absolutely creamed in a general election.

    hey Peter, how many moons on the planet where you live? "cause it sure as hell ain't this one.

  • Jonathan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Neither candidate will lose to McCain. I think one of the major issues in the campaign, is really a question of political strategy. Obama is the heir to Howard Dean's campaign and reflects a faith in the idea that change happens from the bottom and then goes up. Also a reflection of his experience as a community organizer. His campaign his based on bringing in new voters, harnessing the internet and new media to bring in small donors and build a grassroots network. Hilary's campaign is one of a partisan fighter and she sees change happening from the top down. For Clinton, bringing out the base is what wins election, including micro-targeting sub-groups. This is Karl Roves strategy and has proven effective. Clinton has worked hard to build a network of large donors while Obama is building a network of small donors. The real debate is over which political strategy will be most effective in winning back the Presidency, building the democratic majorities in Congress, and strengthening the party across the country. I tend to alternate between the two at times, but end up in the Obama camp in the end because I believe Obama's strategy will leave the party stronger after each election cycle.

    I don't think it should be forgotten that Obama was 20 points down in both Ohio and Texas just two weeks ago. Obama ran a great campaign but I think both candidates have run into a wall now. I think nationally both candidates have a ceiling of support around 48% and this will continue throughout the primaries. Neither will pick up or lose substantial support from that range. The only thing that happens in each election is one beats the medias expectations going into the primary and then is considered to have won. The national polls will continue to oscillate between each candidate having approximately 45% of the national support. That is why Hilary's failure to build organizations in the 11 states following Super Tuesday was such a strategic blunder, because there will be little opportunity for either candidate to change the dynamic in the last primaries. The election will therefore come down to Super delegates and the debate over FL and MI.

    I just can't wait until we celebrate victories across the board in November from the Presidential race, to the defeat of Gordon Smith, to getting a new Democratic House Rep. from Or. 5. That will be a great day.

    Last comment. I don't understand why independents and some democrats say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. Both Clinton and Obama have pretty much the same policy goals for this country, and these policies are substantially different from McCain. Do people really vote that much just on whether they think a candidate appears more likable on TV?

  • Erin White (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I frequently view this blog but rarely post. While I have enjoyed this primary process, I can't help but feel anxious as the campaigns head to Pennsylvania.

    In the lead up to the March 4th primaries, both candidates I think went negative. I'm afraid that Democrats are so busy bashing each other, we have lost sight of the real opponent-- John McCain.

    While our candidates are beating each other up about NAFTA and universal health care, John McCain is uniting the Republican party against all the issues Democrats really care about. McCain can just sit back right now, amass his war chest and allow Clinton and Obama to do the mudslinging for him.

    We need to begin focusing our arguements against the Republican nominee. I don't know if anyone else caught it this morning, but Peter DeFazio argued as much on today's KPOJ. In case you missed it he said (I'm paraphrasing) that the candidates shouldn't focus on tearing each other apart, but on who can build the best campaign to take on John McCain. We need our candidates to focus on developing a message that sticks with voters and can withstand the Republican spinmasters. I think Peter's comments were spot on.

    I hope that the negative attacks can give way to productive conversation about the strength of a Democratic nominee to take on McCain, both in the campaigns and in the comments of bloggers.

  • John Forbes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There was an article in The New Yorker last year taking about how dictatorial and menacing the Hill. was during the Healthcare fiasco. Several Senators recalled how she basically threatened retaliation against anyone who didn’t fully support the Clinton plan. Bill Bradley said he pretty much wrote Hillary off after that.

    In a more recent article, I think in Newsweek, some D members of congress at the time recalled how Hillary and her team pressured them to publicly attack TN US Rep Jim Cooper for offering a rival plan. Cooper was the D nominee for Senate against Fred Thompson.

    Josh, you must have had your beer goggles on, because you saw a different person than did many others.

  • nic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter Bray please come back to planet earth. Evan Manvel welcome back to planet earth.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I will never support Hillary.

    Hillary will the destroy the Democratic party for her own personal ambition.

    She will not be the nominee. And she will have no regrets about taking us all down with her.

    What's on Hillary's agenda for this week? More of the same? Endorsing John McCain for president, calling Obama a drug user and a slum lord, and not a Muslim "as far as she knows", running ads that make Obama look blacker, whining about first questions and media bias, demanding the rules be changed for MI and FL, threatening lawsuits against caucus procedures left and right?

    WOW - now that is a campaign to be proud of! Nice work, Josh.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, Pat, facts suck don't they. This, by the way, from an Obama supporter. Why do you feel it necessary to so badly distort someone's record: Laura Bush is one senate term away from having as much "experience" as Hillary

    Clinton: Wellesley BA, Yale JD Worked for Marian Wright Edelman out of college. Interned for a law firm involved in child custody cases in Berkeley. Worked on the George McGovern campaign. Published articles on child custody in the Harvard Educational Review. Staff attorney for the Childrens Defense Fund. Member of the Watergate impeachment staff. Passed the DC and Arkansas bar exams. Served on the faculty of the University of Arkansas. Xontinued to work and publish on child's advocacy issues after she married Bill Clinton. Served on the national board of the Legal Services Corporation. Since 1978, when Clinton was elected to the governorship, she's pretty much been his wife / political partner. Oh, and most agree she essentially headed up (for better or worse) the health care task force in 1993.

    Now Laura Bush. What are her credentials other than being George Bush's wife?

    BS from SMU. School teacher for three years. Library science degree at UT Austin. Elementary school librarian for the next three years. Married Bush in 1977 and after that, volunteered for the junior league and the PTA.

    Seriously. Can't make this stuff up.

    You're right, Pat. Other than the Senate term, I really see no difference between the two. Thanks for straightening that out.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh,

    If you help Hillary hand the White House to McCain in November, your political career is over, I would think. It should be.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    anon, I can tell you what's on Obama's agenda today - his campaign is now asking the press "what is Hillary hiding?" Huh, seems like he's not as clean as you would like us to believe when it comes to campaigning. I'm curious how you see this campaign as "her own personal ambition." What of Obama's ambition? And what the heck is wrong with either of them having ambition?

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK, you should really read the "Hillary's War" NY Times Magazine article I linked on my comment. Not only did she vote to authorize the war and fail to read the NIE, she also voted against the amendment that would have required further diplomacy, and used the "stay the course" and other Bush Cheney pro war slogans for years before shifting her position against the war.

    In all cases she acted for political purposes, and showed the same warlike tendencies as the current White House occupant in hopes of advancing her career.

    I have two kids JK, both boys. Do you really think I am going to vote to install another president who wants to play politics with war in a world that is already experiencing too much strife? It ain't going to happen.

    I'm holding my tongue a bit here and am trying to be as polite as possible, but I hope you get my point.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mathew, I understand your frustration with her vote on Iraq, but I don't believe for one second that Hillary Clinton would have taken this country into war with Iraq. We will never know if Sen. Obama would have voted for that resolution had he been in the Senate at the time like Sens. Edwards and Clinton.

    JK (presumably Josh Kardon): You can believe what you want about Hillary taking this country to war on Iraq, but many others are quite willing to believe if going to war was politically expedient for her she would have done so. After all, she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that rattled some sabers against Iran suggesting a willingness to expand this monumental disaster beyond Iraq.

    Now let's discuss some points about Hillary's (and McCain's) vote to go to war that other Hillary supporters have repeatedly failed to answer.

    First of all, there was an abundance of evidence that the Bush scenario for war on Iraq was full of holes. Millions of people around the world didn't buy it as did approximately a quarter of senators (including Sen. Wyden) and representatives in Congress and about a fourth of the American people. Were you also ill-informed or sufficiently naive in 2002 to believe the crap the Bush Administration put out? Every attempt Hillary has made to explain away her vote has been shredded and has suggested a contempt for the intelligence the people. Her contempt for the intelligence of people was justified in some but not in all cases.

    Second: Hillary and all those in Congress who signed Bush's blank check to go to war reneged on their oaths to defend the Constitution by transferring authority to go to war from Congress to the president. This indicates at least indifference to, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Senator Byrd gave senators a lecture on their responsibilities to the Constitution and told them they would not be living up to their obligation if they voted for the AUMF. How do you feel about this treatment of the Constitution? What value would you place on the word of a senator who reneges on such an important oath?

    In the same vein, voting for this war violated the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions, so essentially what Hillary and all the others were saying was they didn't care about international agreements to which the United States is a signatory. Do you agree with them?

    Third: This war has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and well being. Make that millions if you add the refugees that have had to flee from their homes in Iraq for one reason or another. That all adds up to a crime against humanity. The eventual cost for this war is estimated to reach as much as three trillion dollars while our national infrastructure is in decline and tens of millions of people are living in poverty and without health insurance. And the instability created in the Middle East has helped gasoline prices rise from less than two bucks a gallon to over three on their way to four. This is all damaging to our economy.

    When Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, was asked about the half million children who died because of sanctions on Iraq, she said, "We thought it was worth it." "We," presumably, included Bill and Hillary. Would you agree that it was worth it and this war will be worth it?

    Fourth: You say that if Obama had been in the senate he might have voted for the war. That is a lame attempt at spin. When Senator Wyden visited Central Oregon in 2002 he gave the impression that he was leaning towards voting for the AUMF, but he changed his mind, presumably, after getting an ear-full from constituents. If he voted "No" after leaning "Yea" why do you think Obama, who was already opposed to the war, might have changed and voted for it?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're confused, Paul.

    Hillary's lifetime of experience claim in the context to which I was referring (and in the context where she placed OBAMA behind Mccain) regards national security. None of the resume items you so painstakingly listed adds up to a lifetime of national security experience. It's a lie; -- a lie that you fell for.

    Laura Bush is one Senate term away from having as much elected office and national security experience as Hillary Clinton.

    And the reality is, Paul, that Hillary Clinton was elected to a senate seat in a state where she's never lived because of who her husband is.

    Pretend that's not true all you want there, feller, 'cause delusions aren't just a chain of islands off the coast of alaska.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Do we want another John Kerry who refuses to play rough? Do we want an edifice built solely on "hope" but nothing else? Do we want someone who, for whatever reason, turns off a significant democratic constituency (latinos)? Do we want someone that wilts at the first time of criticism (and whose proxies whine:" "that's not fair!")?

    Or do we want a blood-and-guts fighter that can do what is necessary to win?

    (Sorry for the mixed metaphors.)

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 11:44:05 AM

    The experience argument is not at all "a loser." The difference between McCain's experience and Clinton's experience is that she is a Democrat and good on the issues.

    I'm sure the American public would render a different judgment this November, Katy. If experience is the main issue -- and John McCain is certainly trying to do that with his 'no on the job training' slogan -- he has a monopoly on it. For Hillary, who ran a good part of her campaign on her 'experience,' to go toe to toe with McCain on this issue is doomed for immediate and total failure.

    Obama, meanwhile, has run his campaign on change (which HRC stole) and judgment. These issues expose fundamental differences between Obama and McCain, such as the war in Iraq, and excite our base. Hillary, since she voted for the war resolution, would be under siege for her apparent flip flopping, 'I was for the war before I was against it.' Obama will not be exposed to this argument since he has been opposed to the war since 2002.

    So, despite being a Democrat and being 'good on the issues' (whatever that means), Hillary stands little chance of being competitive in a general election match-up against John McCain. He's running as the pro-war candidate with experience; she's been running as the anti-war candidate (despite voting for the war in the first place) with (dubious) experience.

    Obama runs on change and judgment. Where McCain, like Clinton (thanks to her vote for the war resolution and her place in the establishment), is vulnerable. A race between Obama and McCain will be one of clear, distinct choices between war and no war, yesterday and tomorrow. I don't see that divide existing in a Hillary-McCain match-up.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    -Josh,

    I am not suprized to hear a party insider siding so closely with Hillary Clinton. She is the "insider" politician, afterall. She is the pick of the year by the DLC, no? This is that infamous organization that tilted the Democratic Party toward coorporate interests and to the right on most major issues in American thereby making Bill Clinton, once everything is taken into account... not a LEFT leaning President, but a moderate-Right leaning one.

    I began this campaign cycle with largely neutral feelings toward Hillary Clinton. Overtime, one negative attack after another: Hinting that Obama is a Muslim, that people should vote for McCain over Obama and using FEAR.... FEAR to turn the tide of the election. This is a Rovian tactic. It can work, but is that really how we want to win the W.H.? Is that really what will inspire millions of young voters to come to the polls? Will inspire independants and Republicans to vote for her? No. In fact, it will turn them off.

    The arrogance of the Hillary for President Campaign and the DLC establishment is simply incredible.

    Josh, you should be ashamed of yourself! You call yourself a Chief of Staff? It is time to retire. Get back into the real world and understand what the mood of the nation really is.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yikes. Y'all are getting pretty heated. Remember, we need to get along and work together once the primary is over. Compared to Sen. McCain, both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are fantastic.

    Ples, heated angry diatribes never convince anyone of anything.

  • (Show?)

    Great post Josh.

    I see nothing new really in all of the pro-Obama folks' objections - no new information, and certainly no REAL sense of unity like Mr. Kardon puts forward regardless of who the nominee is.

    For those who keep crying "Mark Penn, Mark Penn" over and over: this fiddles along to the tune of the Obama camp's favorite narrative, that Hillary's campaign is just some skillful insider machine movement.

    Sorry, it's baloney. Mark Penn is not running for President (any more than David Axelrod is), and he did not give Hillary a 12-point victory in Ohio yesterday. Others are associated with Hillary too you know: Gavin Newsom, Dolores Huerta, Maya Angelou, Darlene Hooley. Why don't you trash them in the same breath?

    Hillary's campaign is a campaign of millions and millions of Americans reaching out to others. I've been in plenty of phone banks from Oregon this year and I can tell you that none of them involved a big political machine or expensive consultant; they involved regular folks like us putting their hearts into it. That's what won the day for Hillary yesterday and each time she's come back from the heavy-handed calls that she quit (calls which she never made for any other candidate).

    All campaigns hire high-powered consultants, but Hillary is still in this fight not because of them but because of the millions of Americans who support her, and you can't simply go on ignoring them and expect Obama to waltz into the White House.

    Come to grips with what Hillary's campaign really is: a campaign of workging-class Democrats, women, Hispanics, the LGBT community, teachers, seniors, moderates, and many many others in all walks of life. If you can't come to grips with this - if you are really happy shutting all of those people out of YOUR tent with mind-numbing refrains of "Mark Penn, Mark Penn" - I don't see how on earth you will ever build the coalition that will be needed to win.

    Go Hillary!

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Look BCM, their plans for Iraq are the same now and nobody in their right mind will say Clinton is flip-flopping given the current situation. If she wins the nomination those against the war are not going to vote for McCain over Clinton, that's silly. We don't know how Obama would have voted on the resolution if he had been in the Senate. ...and I never said that experience was the "main issue" I said it's an issue, along with a number of other issues. Can you please tone down the nastiness a little? I have not problem defending my candidate (or Obama for that matter) but you really make it no fun when all your posts are so angry.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As to the unfair accusations against Clinton by another poster above:

    • Clinton did not "endorse" McCain. Rather, she made a commercial that drew a contrast between herself and Obama in terms of experience. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that this is an endorsement of McCain.

    • She never said "as far as I know" Obama is not a Muslim. Instead of repeating illformed gossip (much like people are doing about Obama re: islam), go to the source, 60 minutes, and watch it.

    • In regards to making Obama look "blacker", you apparently haven't been watching political ads lately. Making an opponent look bad in video, by using grainy footage, darkening the footage, re-hueing the footage, and so on, is par for the course. Even if this was done, which is far from certain, it is silly to suggest that this was done for racist reasons. It is par for the course.

    • In regards to Florida and Michigan, well, what do you want to do? Do you want to deny two swing states that have huge populations from having their say? Or do you think that they should be able to vote (or re-vote)? I gather you probably would have them denied the vote because both states would go overwhelmingly for Clinton (which is why Obama purposely did not engage with either).

    If you like, I can also spread various rumors that have been making the rounds about Obama. That his campaign locked pro-Clinton caucus goers out of Texas schools. That he has used misogynistic terms to refer to Clinton: "the claws will come out" and implying that she is suffering from menopausal emotions. That his rise in fortune is directly tied to a political fixer and shady slumlord. That he only reveals facts about this case when they come out. That a person who said "I wish we planted more bombs" raised funds for Obama and chaired a committee with him. That he says one thing (NAFTA is bad) while doing another (hey Canada, NAFTA is cool).

    Unfair accusations are simply that, unfair. So stop parroting anti-Clinton talking points.

  • (Show?)

    The nation knew George W. Bush was intellectually lazy and painfully inarticulate, but took a flier on the guy. Are you kidding? Al Gore was ELECTED President, Bush sued and was appointed to office by his Pappy's Supreme Court. I am appalled by and ashamed of any Democrat that would suggest otherwise.

  • (Show?)

    Do we want another John Kerry who refuses to play rough? Do we want an edifice built solely on "hope" but nothing else? Do we want someone who, for whatever reason, turns off a significant democratic constituency (latinos)? Do we want someone that wilts at the first time of criticism (and whose proxies whine:" "that's not fair!")?

    Or do we want a blood-and-guts fighter that can do what is necessary to win?

    It's not fair to compare either candidate to Kerry. Certainly not Obama, who had a response to Clinton's "vote for me or your sleeping children will die" ad circulating in a matter of hours.

    Peter: you obviously didn't watch the video of Clinton on CNN. She stated that she and Mccain had more experience than Obama. There was no commercial involved.

    Also, since you bring it up: Florida and Michigan should in no way shape or form seat delegates at the convention without re-voting. It's short sighted to suggest that they should be counted because your candidate would benefit, and that would go just the same if any other candidate including Obama had won those primaries. Yes they are crucial states that cannot be ignored in the general election. But they have to play by the rules just like all other 48 states did, and they can't simply move up their primaries to have more influence.

  • (Show?)

    I don't understand why independents and some democrats say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

    I probably won't vote for McCain; nor will I vote for Clinton. And I'm a liberal. I don't believe in restorations. For me, it's that simple.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can you please tone down the nastiness a little? I have not problem defending my candidate (or Obama for that matter) but you really make it no fun when all your posts are so angry.

    There was no nastiness in my posts. I haven't launched into personal attacks, I've stayed on the issues. Thus your plea falls on deaf ears.

    I've questioned Hillary's experience and her vote for the for the war resolution. I encourage you to refute these points with intellectual responses. Unfortunately, you have chosen to drop back and punt.

  • (Show?)

    BCM, you have been nasty on several posts lately, but in the interests of real dialog here's one for you: Hillary and Iraq.

    Go Hillary!!!

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BCM, you were pretty darn nasty all day yesterday and again today. I'm not sure I understand how you can say for sure how Obama would have voted on the resolution?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary is so classy and so caring, and has such great values!

    Here's an example of some of her work. It was so thoughtful of her to make Barack Obama just a little blacker than he actually is, and to make his nose just a little flatter than it actually is in her video of him. Such creative inspiration: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677

  • (Show?)

    Katy, you demonstrate one of the upside-down facts of this campaign: it's the Clinton supporters who are the cult. dig this, via HuffPost:

    Credit is due to the eagle-eyes over at 1115.org, who also note that the recent Pew poll shows that Obama's supporters are more likely to stay in the Democratic camp if their candidate doesn't get the nomination: More Clinton supporters would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee than Obama supporters would if Clinton is the nominee: "A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November..."

    you repeat talking points ad nauseam and take invididual comments to tar entire groups of people. your response to the negativity of the Clinton campaign — and that's not a smear but the description being used by virtually the entire media, mainstream and beyond — is to say the Obama campaign is going negative; that's not an answer, Katy.

    and on my #1 issue on which i have asked you numerous times: why should i trust Hillary, who voted to start the Iraq and has refused to admit her vote was a mistake; Hillary, who extended her mistake to unnecessary provocation of Iran; Hillary, who didn't adopt a decent withdrawal plan until Obama and Edwards forced her to do so; why should i trust her with the life of my son when he goes to Iraq in a year? i used to think the world of her; four years ago, i assumed i would support her in 2008. as i said in my post yesterday, she threw that support away.

    she earns no congratulations for digging into the muck to win one more delegate than Obama (the last count i saw). she has already lost the trust and respect of millions of Americans. it's already hard enough to face what's ahead for my son; the prospect of her becoming president will not help that one damn bit.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I flat out don't like Hillary Clinton as a Democratic politician, she plays Bill's game of triangulation and corporatism in spades. You know what Hillary is for by putting your finger in the wind. That is exactly what the Iraq vote was about, her's and some other Democrats. It is complete Bushism to blame her vote on George II, too many people figured it out and voted right and too many in the public figured it out despite the media's obfuscation. Hillary weighed political gain on that vote. Hillary did some real careful weighing on Joe Lieberman as well. Hillary does real careful weighing of corporate support and Americans can come in second. She "now" thinks NAFTA needs fixed, she watched its results along with the rest of us and kept real quiet until it had a benefit to say so.

    She is one of the most coldly calculating politcal manipulators I've seen in a long time, and as with Rove, there are short term benefits, but in the long run we've had some insight to how it works out with BushCo.

    Hillary wants to claim the Clinton Presidency, except where it went south, that was all somebody else's fault. It is never Hilary's fault. So in all that experience that so qualifies her, what happened to all the stupid crap that she was involved in? How did all those messes she was involved in come about? They didn't start in a vacume, she actually was a part of it. The fact that the Republicans made more of it than was there doesn't excuse the judgements that set it up. THIS is what the Clinton apologists like to gloss over, there was bad judgement, there was the outright appearance of impropriety, it did not come from NOWHERE.

    You can keep polishing this old worn out shoe, it is still that and it is still the Terry McAuliff version of Democrats, the Mark Penn version of Democrats, the corporatized moneyized anything for 50+1% that we'ver lost with and lost with. And deserved to. And they're up to it again. 3:00AM is not harmless, it wasn't inteded to be so, it is flat out rovian. The Canadian/NAFTA mess has political finger prints all over it, something is seriously amiss. Somebody better real quick take notice that Obama has a black child, er two. This is how Republicans play, sorry for the swear word...

    By the way, Obama was fairly far down my list when this started, so you're not getting Obamamaniac here. What he shows is two very different things, judgement and coolness; and the ability to draw others while possibly somewhat defusing some of the bitterness across a wide spectrum. That's small beer in the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric, but we've seen where that goes, as well.

    As for those who'd not vote or vote McCain/Nader/Mickey Mouse over a Clinton nomination, there is such a thing as cutting your nose off to spite your face. I have to get along with the choice of the 2nd Amendment with lukewarm support from a warmonger corporate whore Republican and our two with stupid and unConstitutional views and count on the Supreme Court - yuk. If you try to count me a Hillary hater in view of that, you ain't paying attention.

  • Sid Anderson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill put things quite nicely. I think Clinton exercised the worst judgment she possibly ever could have in voting to go to war. And then she pours salt on the wound by saying "well, had I known it would turn into such a mess, I would have never..." That's just lame lame lame! Does she think we are that stupid? I can't deal with that excuse because Clinton should have known, since so many of us knew what a disaster this war was going to be. And if she truly did not know, then she doesn't deserve the nomination (or my vote.)

  • Larry McD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    May I repeat parts of a posting I did on Marc Ambinder's site this A.M.?

    Five Samples of Hillary's Vaunted Foreign Policy Experience:

    1. Doing nothing until 250,000 people had died in the Balkan Wars, including the slaughter at Srebrenica.
    2. Doing nothing as over a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda.
    3. Fleeing Somalia after a badly planned UN incursion went wrong.
    4. Bombing a baby food factory in Sudan using grotesquely bad intelligence.
    5. Bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, resulting in a near dismantling of our embassy in Beijing by Chinese mobs.
  • (Show?)

    t.a. - Hillary pushed for restrictions to the authorization vote in 2002, and at the time John Edwards voted AGAINST her, WITH Lieberman.

    Hillary introduced legislation to de-authorize the war before anyone was even officially running for president.

    Hillary led the effort to ensure that the Pentagon at least HAD a contingency plan for withdrawl, and was doing these things at a time when Obama was just voting 100% for the war and CRITICIZING Democrats who opposed Bush appointees.

    You guys keep acting like Obama is Kucinich, and I'm sorry, it just ain't so. He's to Hillary's right on most domestic issues. Hell, he refused to even HAVE HIS PICTURE TAKEN WITH GAVIN NEWSOM because he thought the gay marriage mayor would hurt his career!!!

    On the war vote: here's a bite-sized piece from Joe Wilson, who was there when Obama wasn't.

    Go Hillary!

  • helys (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry if my levity offends but after this I needed a little Seuss.

    Do you like green eggs and ham?

    I do not like them, Sam-I-am. I do not like green eggs and ham.

    Would you like them here or there?

    I would not like them here or there. I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

    Would you, could you, in the rain?

    I would not, could not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train. Not in a car. Not in a tree. I do not like them, Sam, you see. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not eat them here or there. I do not like them anywhere!

    You do not like green eggs and ham?

    I do not like them, Sam-I-am. I do not like green eggs and ham!

    You do not like them. So you say. Try them! Try them! And you may. Try them and you may, I say.

    Sam! If you will let me be, I will try them. You will see.

    Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat. And I would eat them with a goat...

    And I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so good, so good, you see!

    So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!

    I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you, Sam-I-am!

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll shelve the personal attacks and mis-characterizations in the interest of decorum.

    Chris, I read your blog post. What I suspect you're missing is the political calculations Hillary has made in the past in regards to Iraq. Her Iraq 'triangulation' gives me great doubt over her ability to lead effectively as president, let alone contend against a staunch pro-war Republican.

    You can bet if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will rake her over the coals with the war resolution. Moreover, the contrast between her position in 2002 and 2008 is stark. This leads me to the conclusion that she supported the war when it was popular and turned against it when is wasn't.

    Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll shelve the personal attacks and mis-characterizations in the interest of decorum.

    Chris, I read your blog post. What I suspect you're missing is the political calculations Hillary has made in the past in regards to Iraq. Her Iraq 'triangulation' gives me great doubt over her ability to lead effectively as president, let alone contend against a staunch pro-war Republican.

    You can bet if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will rake her over the coals with the war resolution. Moreover, the contrast between her position in 2002 and 2008 is stark. This leads me to the conclusion that she supported the war when it was popular and turned against it when is wasn't.

    Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

  • Josh Kardon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I won't get down into the muck here - it's too thick. I posted because countless Hillary supporters and good progressives have felt unwelcome on progressive blogs and that has led to a deficit of information about our candidate. Paddy's post from a couple of days ago also inspired me to show the flag and finally break my blog silence by posting my first-ever piece on BlueOregon. Obama-come-lately Kari Chisholm (sorry, Kari) gets big ups for running a fair blog with regard to equal time for all campaigns. Thanks, Kari.

    Chris Corbell, Katy, others, thank you for swatting down some of this negative crap. You have far more patience than I do.

    I will respond, however, to two of the funnier posts. First, to Liberalincarnate, I don't do this as a Chief of Staff, but as a private citizen and true blue progressive. And I don't choose my candidate based on the mood of anyone other than myself. After 7 years of Bush malpractice, I'm in the mood for the most competent progressive for the job. I happen to believe that person is Hillary.

    Anon, from your lips to God's ears, if this is to be the end of my political career. I didn't take on this honor to further my political career. Working for my real boss is the zenith of that career, period. If I were choosing a candidate in Oregon on the basis of my political career in Oregon, I would have chosen Obama because I certainly understood then, as I do now, that Hillary is a decided underdog in this state.

  • Matthew Deschaine (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Clinton wins the nomination I'm done with the Democratic Party...for good.

    Clinton is untrustworthy. She will do and say anything to get elected.

    Let's take note of some of the most egregious examples:

    There was old Bill playing the racecard in South Carolina.

    There was the airing of the red-phone ad in Ohio and elsewhere (fear-mongering).

    There was the incessant references to Obama's youthful drug use (I won't fall prey to the Clinton tactic by actually mentioning the specific substance).

    There is her proposal to seat MI and FL delegates despite the states having broken party rules.

    The list goes on.

    If Clinton gets the nomination, I promise you that it will tear the Democratic party apart. African American will stay home, or worse, defect from the party in droves. The youth vote will go back to apathy. Greens will leave the coalition. And so on.

    I don't want a third consecutive term of Republican rule, but I sure won't hold my nose again and vote for a candidate I really don't like. I want to vote for something, not against something or someone.

    It's as simple as that.

    My advice is for Clinton to do the math. If she remains behind in pledged delegates she should concede, and well before the convention.

    It's the right thing to do.

  • (Show?)

    Yikes.

    How many bridges have to burn before we're all alone on little islands...

  • jaded (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy wrote: BCM, you were pretty darn nasty all day yesterday and again today. I'm not sure I understand how you can say for sure how Obama would have voted on the resolution?

    Well the speech he gave when he was running for Senate in October of 02 might be a good place to start. See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/.

    While voting is certainly one way of standing for a principle, I would assert that Obama opposing what was then a popular president and a nominally "just" war is another way to stand up for your beliefs. It is to his credit that he was willing to do so in the midst of a senatorial bid.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TA, I'm really confused. From the PEW poll:

    "A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton."

    Am I reading this wrong?

  • (Show?)

    May I repeat parts of a posting I did on Marc Ambinder's site this A.M.?

    Good list, Larry, but you forgot a few:

    NO EFFECTIVE OR SUSTAINED RESPONSE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: First World Trade Center bombing (1993) Khobar Towers bombing (1996) Embassy bombings in Tanzania & Kenya (1998) USS Cole bombing (Aug 2000)

    Another failure was doing nothing in reaction to the seizure of power by Taliban in Afganistan (throughout the 90s) and the attendent genocides they undertook toward religious and ethnic minorities in Afganistan--just as bad as what happened in Sierra Leone in the 90s (which Clinton also didn't do anything to stop)...and lest we forget, the abject stupidity on display at the Branch Dravidian seige in Waco (1993) for which no one was held responsible...oh yeah, and our very tardy entry into Bosnia...the list goes on...

    The nostalga for the Clinton years some Democrats have never fails to amaze me. Did none of these things seem like mistakes to anyone?

    If Hillary Clinton is claiming her years in her husband's administration as her experience, I'll shop elsewhere.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I should clarify by "I'll shelve the personal attacks and mis-characterizations in the interest of decorum," I meant that I wasn't going to respond to some of the comments made against me.

    <hr/>

    JK- As a reader of Blue Oregon, I enjoy reading columns from all vantage points. If there was collective head nodding on BO I would never come back. Diversity of opinion makes BO fun to read and engage in.

    Some people take things too far, but for the most part real issues were raised in this thread. I contested your point that Clinton had lengthy experience, for example. In my opinion, this was fair game and above the fray of personal attacks.

    Dissent comes with the territory of taking a stand here. Labeling dissent as 'negative' and applauding those who 'swat it down,' contradicts the diversity of opinion argument you made. I encourage you to rebut proper dissent, not simply dismiss it as inherently negative. The former fosters a healthy debate, the latter a one sided head nodding.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I doubt Clinton is going to make it, she's just not as popular as Obama. Plus she seems to have this truly amazing knack for getting folks to positively hate her.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK, if Bush committed "malpractice", the strongest evidence of that is Iraq. As such, we must agree that your candidate is "jointly and severally liable" for sharing in that malpractice.

    And you really shouldn't write the comments here off as coming from a "progressive blog." There are a lot of moderates here as well and we think that Hillary is bad bad bad for the Democratic Party and our Country.

  • (Show?)

    Josh Kardon:

    I would have chosen Obama because I certainly understood then, as I do now, that Hillary is a decided underdog in this state.

    SO you do have a good feel for where the grassroots are on this one.

    Appy-polly-loggies as my Droogies like to say....

    <hr/>

    It's passing strange that Wyden is one of the very few US senators that understands that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the Bill of Rights have been trampled pretty much to death by The Powers that Be and with the complicity of the vast majority of elected Democrats lead and prodded by the DLC Bastids that think that, when in doubt, the party should always move to the Right, and the law be damned.

    Clinton and the DLC crowd also turned the deregulation of financial markets over to Phil and Wendy Gramm and the wholesale misdirection regarding fiscal policy and trade to Grover Norquist's allies, with predictably disastrous results.

    Like Chuck Butcher mentioned above, (or on the other thread) I'm a late convert to Obama, but since Clinton herself touts the history of experience that she shares with McCain, in contrast to Obama's putative experience, (the delivery of a single speech), I don't need to recycle that one do I?

    Why doesn't any of this bother you Josh? It's sure bothering the grassroots.

  • (Show?)

    I'll read this afternoon, but a brief conjecture: I don't think McCain will make any issue of her vote on the authorization, that's illogical since he voted for it as well. He objected to the Rumsfeld conduct of the war (too few troops in McCain's opinion), not the authorization vote. In fact Hillary's vote disarms to an extent his argument that she would not protect American interests or support the military.

    The Republicans always try to paint the Democrats as weak on national security; it's the longest-held trump card. For a simple reason: it works among the working-class center and the legions of skeptical moderates. These Americans think the war was handled terribly but that does not mean they've all categorically become anti-war progressives, and McCain will try to reel them back in. They will play the Reagan strong-America card hard against Clinton and hard against Obama. Remember, a terrible war was underway in '72 and McGovern ran a strong anti-war theme (with Hillary volunteering for him BTW), and he got absolutely destroyed by Nixon.

    Of course I'll support whoever faces McCain, but it would sure be tough to see Obama unravel before him, simultaneously attacked as the weak-on-defense liberal and as the person whose votes in the Senate don't match his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Not to mention the whole subcommittee issue; imagine a veteran, former POW and multi-term Senator asking Obama why he think's he's qualified to command the military when he didn't even find the time to call one meeting of a committe which relates to NATO, our allies in the current war in Afghanistan.

    I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk for Hillary either, but I think she has deeper credentials here including Senate Armed Services committee service, pushing through veterans benefits and health care for national guard, and the support of people like Wesley Clark and Henry Hugh Shelton - nearly 30 flag officers have endorsed Hillary for President. That will disarm McCain, and Hillary WILL end the war.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry for the non-sequitur, that was meant as a reply to BCM.

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh, Glad to see a Hillary staffer on here. I have been supporting Hillary all along on this forum and signed up for the campaign, but have not heard anything back. Check out my blog. Please contact me via email.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh -- You highlight the question -- Who can deliver real change? -- that is at the heart of this debate. But I come to the opposite conclusion.

    Clinton says we need to fight for change based on the idea that we need to defeat the Republicans to achieve it. That resonates with a lot of Democrats who are tired of getting kicked around by the GOP. But Democrats have been focused on "beating" Republicans since Reagan was elected, and we don't have much to show for it.

    Obama, on the other hand, talks about change happening from the bottom up, of a groundswell of activism that forces change onto Washington's agenda. He doesn't talk about beating the Republicans, he talks about "reaching across the aisle" to form solutions that respond to that groundswell. Obama's approach is less compelling from a revenge perspective, but ultimately will be more effective in achieving real change. It also resembles Wyden's political approach. Wyden is currently pushing a collaborative, bipartisan health reform plan. In the late 90s, he worked with Bill Thomas (R-CA) on a moderate Medicare drug bill when Bill Clinton was pushing a much more partisan proposal. Wyden's career has been about finding common ground and making progress where possible.

    I know you're commenting as a private citizen, so I won't ask you to reconcile the difference between Wyden's approach and Clinton's. But I will say that I think Wyden and Obama have the right approach if we actually want to make progress on difficult issues. Clinton will spend her time fighting against her opponents, and while that might make us feel good it won't provide health coverage to a parent who is struggling to make ends meet.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris Corbell,

    Ya, that's the trick! Increase electability by being almost indistinguishable on the issues from your opponent. What this country needs is a choice between two presidential candidates who believe the problem in Iraq is that we have not occupied it successfully.

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Five Samples of Hillary's Vaunted Foreign Policy Experience:

    1. Doing nothing until 250,000 people had died in the Balkan Wars, including the slaughter at Srebrenica.
    2. Doing nothing as over a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda.
    3. Fleeing Somalia after a badly planned UN incursion went wrong.
    4. Bombing a baby food factory in Sudan using grotesquely bad intelligence.
    5. Bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, resulting in a near dismantling of our embassy in Beijing by Chinese mobs.

    Uh, different Clinton. Why doesn't the Senator get to have a separate existence, a separate persona, and separate achievements (and failures) from her spouse?

    Criticize Hillary Clinton, by all means. (I do, frequently.) But kindly bear in mind that Bill Clinton is not a candidate now.

  • Josh Kardon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BCM, your comments on Hillary's experience were well within bounds, though obviously I disagree. I was referring to the Mark Penn comments, false characterization of Hillary's joke about Obama's experience, etc.

    Matthew, I'm glad that a moderate Democrat is commenting on BlueOregon, but my characterization of this site is based on the following which you will find at the top of the screen: "BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."

    Matthew and Pat, there are a lot of BlueOregon readers who supported another great progressive who voted for the war authorization - John Edwards. I would be careful about using too broad of a brush if you are trying to woo former Edwards supporters.

  • (Show?)

    Miles I wonder how much of that distinction is based on each campaign's rhetoric vs. actual legislative history? Because it looks to me like Senator Clinton has an excellent record of working across the aisle and getting work done, and a great reputation for humility and work ethic among fellow Senators. But on specific issues she's adopting a firmer stand, not in as pugnacious a manner as Edwards was but in a pick-your-battles (and actually fight them) way.

    I think Obama's non-partisan approach is largely theoretical, and I'd sure like to see him prove it actually works on some substantial legislation before I hand him the keys to the Oval Office (or the party nomination).

    Also electorally I think you (and Obama) may be overestimating the power of pop groundswell and underestimating the skepticism of the average American come November.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK,

    Edwards has said his vote on Iraq was a mistake. Please supply citation of Clinton doing likewise.

  • (Show?)

    Chris-

    You make it out as though everybody in the Senate who looked at the intelligence that Obama did not have access to voted in favor of the war. In fact, there were 23 Senators who saw the exact same intelligence as Hillary and still had the good judgment to vote against the resolution. For me, that renders the entire "Obama wasn't there" argument null and void.

    I don't think McCain will make any issue of her vote on the authorization, that's illogical since he voted for it as well.

    Following that logic, Bush shouldn't have made an issue of Kerry's vote on the resolution in the 2004 campaign.

    Hillary's record on the Iraq war is full of contradictions and she will be torn apart by McCain if she wins the nomination. Yes, she voted for the Byrd amendment, which is commendable, but at the same time she voted against the Levin and Durbin amendments (and yet now claims hers was a vote for diplomacy). She advocated that the US should "stay the course", using that exact line. Then, in 2007 when it was clear that the Iraq war would be a major issue in the campaign, then and only then did she start pushing a de-authorization and asking about contingency plans. McCain has been pro-war since day 1 and will paint himself as confident and resolute while Clinton is opportunistic and, dare I say it, a "flip-flopper".

  • Jeremy Rogers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What this country needs right now is someone who can make our federal government functional. Good ideas won't get you very far if one party's mission in life is to make you look bad and destroy you.

    This is how congressional Rs treated Bill Clinton and this is how Congressional Ds treat George Bush.

    I fear that electing Hillary Clinton = more of the same.

    John McCain, for better or worse, has shown that he can work across the aisle and Congressional Democrats don't have a visceral reaction to him like they do to George W. Bush. While his colleagues-both R and D-may disagree with him, they trust that he is honest, has the best intentions of the country in mind, and are willing to work with him.

    Obama is running a campaign geared toward many of these same ideals. While he doesn't have the proven track record that McCain does at creating this "culture of collaboration" in Congress, his limited experience in the Senate and the way he is running his campaign suggest that he would embody these beliefs.

    Hillary Clinton, even though she has built good relationships in the Senate, is still hated by most Republicans (at least this is my understanding. I'd love to hear from folks who work on the hill). I fear that even though she thinks that she can "make change happen" she is actually the worst of the three for making that so.

    Thoughts?

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeremy, I decided a long time ago not to let the right wing decide who I would vote for.

  • Jeremy Rogers (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What this country needs right now is someone who can make our federal government functional. Good ideas won't get you very far if one party's mission in life is to make you look bad and destroy you.

    This is how congressional Rs treated Bill Clinton and this is how Congressional Ds treat George Bush.

    I fear that electing Hillary Clinton = more of the same.

    John McCain, for better or worse, has shown that he can work across the aisle and Congressional Democrats don't have a visceral reaction to him like they do to George W. Bush. While his colleagues-both R and D-may disagree with him, they trust that he is honest, has the best intentions of the country in mind, and are willing to work with him.

    Obama is running a campaign geared toward many of these same ideals. While he doesn't have the proven track record that McCain does at creating this "culture of collaboration" in Congress, his limited experience in the Senate and the way he is running his campaign suggest that he could be effective in this regard.

    Hillary Clinton, even though she has built good relationships in the Senate, is still hated by most Republicans (at least this is my understanding. I'd love to hear from folks who work on the hill). I fear that even though she thinks that she can "make change happen" she is actually the worst of the three for making that so.

    Thoughts?

  • Josh Kardon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Miles, I really appreciate your point. I won't pull my boss into it, but your characterization of him is accurate, IMHO. I will also point out that I have no reason to know or believe that Obama won't pursue solutions in a similar fashion.

    My broader point was that unless you have been in the thick of a big-time cause like health reform, you really have no concept of just how difficult it is to actually pull off change. The sheer volume of moving pieces combined with the partisanship and hundreds of millions of special interest dollars is very difficult to comprehend unless you have lived it (like Hillary has).

    I would have to strongly disagree with you regarding Hillary's approach consisting of "fighting against her opponents." Her reputation on the Hill is one of bipartisan problem-solving. She has made admirers of former foes in the U.S. Senate, just as she has done with Republicans and Independents in New York.

    Anyway, many thanks for your thoughtful post and good luck to your candidate.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Miles I wonder how much of that distinction is based on each campaign's rhetoric vs. actual legislative history?

    I'm taking Clinton at her word that she's going to "take on" Republicans in DC in order to achieve her agenda. And of course they'll "bring it on" as well. And we'll have four more years of partisan gridlock where nothing gets done.

    Clinton has every right to be angry at how she and Bill have been treated by the vast right-wing conspiracy. I just don't think that anger is what America needs right now.

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Michigan will hold a new Presidential 'contest'

    Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM PST

    "Michigan Public Radio is reporting that MDP and DNC have reached an agreement to hold a new 'contest' to allow the seating of the Michigan delegation to the Democratic National Convention.

    "There are no details yet (will update this when there are). This must be what we in Michigan call a 'caucus', but is in reality just an election held by the party instead of the regular civil election machinery.

    "This is great news for those of us in Michigan who have been hoping we would reach a compromise."

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was responding to Chris C. in the above post, but it gets at the same point you were making, Josh. My friends on the Hill confirm your impression of Clinton's bipartisanship, which is ironic because I would be much more amenable to Clinton's candidacy if she talked less about fighting and more about getting things done.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is one of dozens of reasons why I cannot support Senator Clinton for President.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

    It is especially classy where she rags the wonderful women of Code Pink about her access to intelligence they can't see....all along never bothering to read the damned intelligence report herself. At about 10:30 on the tape, one woman lays out EXACTLY what so many of us predicted. And we were proven fing right.

    And what has Senator Clinton learned? Nothing. Hands Bush another loaded gun re: Iran. Good judgement and experience my rosy red butt.

  • Jeremy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy,

    There is a difference between "letting the right wing decide you you are voting for" and wanting things to get done.

    I think that Americans need someone who really can work with Congress.

    Hillary keeps asserting that Obama won't be as good at her as this. Based on what I've seen, I just think that this is isn't true.

    More importantly, I don't think that this is just my sentiment, I think that it is the sentiment of the American people. If we want to win in November, we should pick who we think will be able to work with their Congress the best.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I've noticed lately a lot of Obama supporters are bashing Hillary instead talking positively about their own candidate. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters and forced over and over again to defend theirs.

    It might serve you better to write about why you're supporting Obama? Just a thought.

  • (Show?)

    Tom, yes John Edwards apologized after he ran for Vice-President and before he announced to run for President again. It's a distinction without a difference.

    Both Sens. Edwards and Clinton looked at the situation and voted for the authorization. I don't believe for a second that John Edwards would have taken the country to war in Iraq, and I would have been extremely happy with him as my President. Ditto for Hillary.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why won't Senator Clinton throw me even the smallest scrap of red meat? Why won't she at the very least find out why she was so fooled by bush to ensure dim people like her aren't fooled again? She takes the Democratic base for granted and I'm sick of it.

    give me some red meat Renounce your Iran vote. Apologize to Code Pink for mocking them.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a former Edwards supporter who liked him in part because he had the guts to own up to his mistake on that vote, I would point out that Hillary isn't going to learn form her mistakes if she won't admit them.

    Plus, she has a track record of saying things she doesn't mean. Actions speak louder than words.

    When Bill was first running for office SHE SAID: "I'm no Tammy Wynette baking cookies and standing by her man."

    But when her forever-philandering husband was caught red-handed spraying sperm around the oval office like a leaking fire hose, WHAT DID SHE DO? She stood by her man like Tammy Wynette.

    So you can understand if people fear that Hillary's words won't be backed by action.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a father of two daughters, I couldn’t in good conscience turn away from this great woman and this historic opportunity.

    oh Now imagine having two draft-age sons then ask yourself if you could support a candidate that just handed the idiot another loaded gun. Since 2003 I've called her office three times and they will not tell me whether Senator Clinton recommended to her daughter that she serve in Iraq. You think this is a nasty question? Well watch the Code Pink video from that very time frame. She was so arrogant and unapologetic about her position. Willing to send young men and women to an illegal, immoral invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 911. Nothing. She has admitted that bush blew it and is not to be trusted, yet votes yes on Iran.

    No.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK,

    So, there is no difference between apologizing and not apologizing?

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How do I find out how much Senators Clinton and Wyden have received from AIPAC? The trial is coming up soon and the public deserves to know.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK - Thanks for both the column and clarification. Difference of opinion is welcome.

    <hr/>

    Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 4:10:45 PM

    I've noticed lately a lot of Obama supporters are bashing Hillary instead talking positively about their own candidate. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters and forced over and over again to defend theirs.

    Let's stick to the issues please, Katy. There are some posts that are over the line on both sides; but, having a different perspective isn't necessarily 'bashing.' Ignore the people who are out of line and have a civilized debate with those who aren't.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When I think of my sons being dragged into some crap with Iran I become very uncivilized.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh, could you also please let us know when Senator Clinton will release her tax returns? Obama did this a long time ago and Senator Clinton indicated in the last debate that she will be releasing hers.

    Also, what about her White House records, when will those be released? She indicated in the last debate that she would do everything she can to get those released. And then afterwards the Administration made it clear that the Clintons' side of things was the real hold up.

    Please let us know on both of these points. Thank you.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd still like to know why, in 2006 when she visited Portland during her NEW YORK Senate campaign, she tried to raise money out of us without giving anything at all to local Democrats or DPO. I said something about it on Thom Hartmann, made calls to the party and they too were embarrassed that she wasn't using her considerable star power to help our people. Not enough money in New York for you Senator? It was only through our nagging that she finally caved and made a small donation to DPO.

    Selfish. All about her.

  • tvdpdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's why I don't. I wrote this for huffingtonpost.com on Monday:

    HILLARY CROSSED THE LINE

    It may be true that an untidy cat box could beat sad sack John McCain this year.

    But.

    Senator Clinton, please shut up.

    Every charge you angrily hurl at Barack Obama gives the Republicans a talking point.

    On yesterday's 60 Minutes, you crossed an unforgivable line:

    "You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Steve Kroft asked her.

    "Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

    "You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

    "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

    As far as I KNOW? What if the situation were reversed?

    "Sen Obama, What about those smears that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who likes to skinny dip with her Iranian 'assistant...' and 'gal pal.' What do you think about those rumors?"

    "She is a heterosexual happily married to former President Bill Clinton, as far as I know," Obama responds.

    Who are you, Senator Clinton?

    You are doing exactly what the Republicans do when they campaign.

  • (Show?)

    Matthew and Pat, there are a lot of BlueOregon readers who supported another great progressive who voted for the war authorization - John Edwards. I would be careful about using too broad of a brush if you are trying to woo former Edwards supporters.

    Thanks for the Heads up Josh. I am one of those former Edwards supporters who decided on Obama because I'm not absolutely sure he'd sell the constitution down the river.

    I have no similar doubts about Clinton, because as she and her supporters continuously point out, she's the one with the record of comity and cooperation with her fellow senators.

    Oh, and I'm not too interested in recruiting anyone for any specific candidate, but I am hoping to sway one or two to the antiquated concept that the law matters.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I won't get down into the muck here - it's too thick. I posted because countless Hillary supporters and good progressives have felt unwelcome on progressive blogs and that has led to a deficit of information about our candidate.

    Josh: I challenged you to explain Hillary's reneging on her oath to defend the Constitution by voting to give Bush authority to go to war. I also asked you if you agreed with those who voted for the war about disregarding the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

    Is the above your answer to those and other questions I posed to you? If it is, it is not to your credit. But, then I don't expect much out of HRC supporters. Apparently the Constitution, oaths to defend it, law, human rights, and treaties to which the United States is obliged mean nothing to HRC supporters either.

    As for good progressives on this blog, you should read it more often. Several of them are frequent contributors.

    Both Sens. Edwards and Clinton looked at the situation and voted for the authorization.

    In Bob Shrum's recent book he explained that he persuaded John Edwards to vote for the war against Edwards' better judgment and Elizabeth Edwards' opposition to voting for the war. This was most likely another of those professional politicians telling potential candidates if they wanted to become president they would have to vote for the war. I understand Kerry was given the same advice. Kind of gives you an idea of the immorality and amorality that exists in and around the Washington Beltway and that Tom DeLay and his Republican friends didn't have a monopoly on it. At least Edwards had the decency to be straightforward and admit he was wrong and he regretted his vote.

  • (Show?)

    Scanning the whole series of comments, if this is the best 'unity' we can muster, we're screwed in November. I do appreciate the voices that were more accepting, but it's clear that for every one of them there are at least a half-dozen winner-take-all Obama bloggers who are going to eviscerate Hillary at every opportunity, with as extreme language as you can muster.

    I mean, if so many of you who so adamantly support Obama can't tolerate Hillary or welcome her supporters better than this (we -are- Democrats and we -do- think she's a great woman, y'know), how do you seriously expect to get people who don't hold 95% of the same policy positions as you?

    Do you realize that 73% of Republicans still think that Bush is doing a great job? Do you think the vitriolic relfexes you've trained on Hillary all year long are really going to win over would-be McCain supporters, after you've disheartened all her Democratic folks? Is that the magic of the new "unity?" Think! WE'RE ON THE SAME SIDE HERE!!! Using such extreme denunciation against a very hard-working and committed woman in your own party is NOT an example of "a new kind of politics."

    I'm sure this conversation will continue. Kudos to Josh though for starting such a prolific thread, and for bringing the bright and brave Hillary supporters out of the woodwork.

    Hillary for President!

  • (Show?)

    Katy, i provided the link to the blog & to the PEW report. do some research & tell me if you're reading it right or not.

    in the meantime, can you please get beyond this:

    I've noticed lately a lot of Obama supporters are bashing Hillary instead talking positively about their own candidate. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters and forced over and over again to defend theirs. It might serve you better to write about why you're supporting Obama? Just a thought.

    you have not a single original thought there. i have written tens of thousands of positive words about Obama, not just here in BlueOregon but at oregonforobama.net. i avoid talking about other candidates; i've had far more negative things to say about Paul Krugman, who slips into liberal-hack mode when he attacks Obama, than HRC. you seem to think it's your duty to tell Obama supporters how to behave, and then you throw baseless accusations like the one i've just quoted.

    and still you refuse to tell me why i should trust my son's life to a woman who, in the most important vote of her Senate career, did not read the NIE, who took Bush (and his cabal) at their word, and who, unlike John Edwards, has refused to admit her mistake. she had to make one vote right, a vote Ron Wyden got right, and she demonstrated a stunning lack of -- intelligence? savvy? guts? if 21 Senators could vote to stave off war, why couldn't she?

    even if she hadn't gone into sleaze-mode the past month, this vote alone puts her a far distant second to Obama (yet ahead of McCain, an advantage she refuses to give Obama, as we know). feel free to trust your life to the likes of Clinton; i don't.

  • (Show?)

    Josh, how is it your boss could get the authorization vote right and HRC wrong? what was the difference? and isn't it galling to know that when she should have gotten that vote right, that there was no damn excuse to get it right (best protest sign pre-war: "Even Gresham is against the war"), she managed to give Bush his authorization to start the worst and most stupid war in American history (and that's saying a bit)?

    i'm trying to picture you writing this post with a straight face. i'm not seeing it.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris, I agree 100% with absolutely everything you've said on this thread. This has been really eye opening for me today, I cannot believe the demonization of Clinton on this blog.

    If this group of Obama supporters is any representation of the overall base of his support I gotta say, we are truly screwed in November if he wins the nomination. I so so so hope you are not a good representation.

    Do you have any idea how polarizing you sound?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy,

    If Obama supporters are so anti-Clinton, as you write, would it not make more sense to believe that "we are truly screwed" if Hillary wins the nomination?

    Overall, the Clinton/Obama threads on BlueOregon are not as nasty and silly as the Merkley/Novick threads.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, one way Tracy Flick, er, Hillary could avoid being "demonized" (as you call it) by fellow Democrats would be for her to stop making the case for John McCain.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh c'mon, Tom. This thread is plenty silly (insert emoticon of choice here)

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sheesh TA. I was actually seriously asking you about that poll. I posted that here yesterday and was worried I hadn't read it correctly. "do some research and tell if you're reading right or not." Dang. Okay? Well, I was listening to NPR tonight and turns out I was reading it correctly after all. Phew. I'm so sorry to have actually tried to engage with you on something we both found interesting. I understand that you think I'm not "original." Oh well. I've answered the Iraq question so many times, you guys just don't like my answer? I'm feeling pretty confident that any outside observer reading through these posts that my plea was in no way "baseless."

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I stand corrected, Pat

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once again, it SHOULD all come down to electability. Obama and Clinton, after all, are pretty much the same in terms of votes (with one or two notable differences).

    Obama will get creamed in the general election. While he may be winning in pledged delegates, he is either up slightly, or down, depending on which source you use, in the popular vote. In other words, his support, even among Democrats, is thin.

    Obama has a serious Latino problem. In primary after primary, he has lost the Latino vote by huge numbers. Given that Latinos make up sizable populations of notable swing states, including Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, Obama already starts way down. And when you remember that McCain is/was cursed by the GOP for his amnesty program, you have to realize that Latinos absolutely will break for McCain.

    Obama is a like a deer in the headlights when attacked. For whatever reason, he just sits and takes it, much like Kerry of yore. He seems incapable of putting together a counter-attack. One gets the sense that HE is the one that is totally poll-driven and consultant-driven. He can deliver powerful speeches, but he seems intellectually weak, not only in debates, but also when responding to reporters' critical questions.

    Clinton is certainly a centrist. But centrists get elected. And centrists often get things done for the progressive cause. After all, the two most effective liberal Presidents in my lifetime were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. And it is thanks to these centrists, particularly Nixon, that we have (or had) the EPA, Clean Water, Clean Air, Endangered Species, 60 million acres of roadless areas, and on and on.

    Obama kinda reminds me of Carter. Talks a good game. But, heck, 2 decades later what do we have of Carter's legacy? Six billion+ a year in weapons and aid to the middle east, and the secret service on extra special caution against killer rabbits!

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scanning the whole series of comments, if this is the best 'unity' we can muster, we're screwed in November.

    Did it ever occur to you that some of us are independent (NAV) and are more interested in the nation than the Democratic (or Republican) Party? So forget about "unity" if it means going along with whatever candidate you claim to be the one we should follow. If it comes to Hillary vs. McCain I have no idea how I'll vote in November. It's highly unlikely I'll vote for McCain, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for Hillary. Perhaps, Hillary supporters may like to explain the differences between them on significant points. Neither has any compunction about getting this nation into war and both are obsessed with becoming president so that they will do anything without regard to morality, ethics or integrity to get the job and, very likely, maintain the imperial powers Bush has accumulated. I know, Katy, Hillary said she would pull back on the power grab, but she took an oath to defend the Constitution and that proved worthless. Unlike you and your think-alikes, some of us are not inclined to believe whatever drivel or pablum politicians pass out.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One of the interesting things about the Internet, and particularly blogs, is that it is dominated by largely white, well-off, highly educated, and young people.

    Sadly for Obama, the rest of the US is not similarly structured. Indeed, Obama has a big, big Arhchie Bunker problem.

    Obama would be toast in a general election. He cannot win. And polls that show him handily beating McCain are exaggerated due to the glowing media focus on Obama.

  • (Show?)

    [Editor's note: At Josh Kardon's request, I've relabeled his comments above with his full name - to distinguish him from at least two other commenters on BlueOregon calling themselves "JK".]

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When push comes to shove: It's the Supreme Court Stupid.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill? Are you serious? We can talk about choice, the environment - equality?

  • (Show?)

    Bill Bodden wrote: Perhaps, Hillary supporters may like to explain the differences between [Hillary and McCain] on significant points.

    I find it really, really hard to believe that you're not being disingenuous here Bill.

    Hillary has a 90% lifetime rating from the league of conservation voters, McCain has 0%. She has proposed an Apollo-scale project for a new green economy. McCain has not.

    Hillary supports a woman's right to choose 100% (and never avoided that commitment by voting "present"); McCain does not and he will appoint supreme court justices to roll back Roe v. Wade. Maybe you don't care about that but some woman in your life might.

    Hillary has always been a champion of fiscal responsibility, a fair tax structure that helps the middle class and small business, and an end to corporate welfare; McCain supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

    Hillary supports non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, strong hate-crimes law, civil unions for same-sex couples, and has a deep understanding of LGBT issues; do I really need to tell you where John McCain stands? (Also: Hillary never refused to be photographed with the Mayor of San Francisco like... oh wait, that was Obama).

    Hillary supports beginning to bring the troops home from Iraq within 60 days, McCain supports keeping them there for 100 years.

    Hillary has a coherent and courageous plan to provide health care for every American; John McCain does not.

    Hillary supports strong labor, has the endorsement of several labor unions and promises that her Secretary of Labor will actually be pro-labor. John McCain does not.

    We could go on all day but at some point I'm doing your homework for you. One thing I'd suggest is that you go to ProgressivePunch.org and look at Hillary's voting record across the candidate. Comapare it to McCain. Compare it to Obama as well.

    I hope that gives you a start on filling in the gaps in knowledge that you profess about the difference between these candidates - if you were sincere, that is. If not, go ahead; respond to each point here; tell us why this woman's last seven years of hard legislative work, her years of advocacy for abused children, her inspiration of women all over the world, her reform of the education system in Arkansas, her achievement of national health care for poor children, her fundraising for countless young progressive politicians including Barack Obama in 2003 - do tell us why all of that is so hard for you, with your independent perspective, to distinguish from John McCain.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter Bray says: "Sadly for Obama, the rest of the US is not similarly structured. Indeed, Obama has a big, big Arhchie Bunker problem.

    Obama would be toast in a general election. He cannot win. And polls that show him handily beating McCain are exaggerated due to the glowing media focus on Obama."

    Do you have evidence to support this claim, or is this simply the projection of your own attitudes?

    Here's a WAPO/ABC poll just out today. So you are claiming that the people interviewed on this poll all hate black people and are lying? The evidence here is that Obama leads McCain by 12 nationally, and Clinton by 6. Polling I have seen indicates that women have a larger Archie Bunker problem than black men. And Clinton often runs more than 50% disapproval ratings. So your argument against electability for black men doesn't hold water. Maybe it says something more of your attitude than the public attitude. Because there is simply no empirical evidence to support what you are saying.

    <hr/>

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/05/both_democrats_lead_mccain.html

    Both Democrats Lead McCain A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows both Democratic presidential candidates ahead of Sen. John McCain in general election match ups.

    Sen. Barack Obama leads McCain, 52% to 40%, while Sen. Hillary Clinton is ahead, 50% to 44%.

    Key finding: "Another obstacle for McCain may be his age. More than a quarter of those polled said they are less inclined to support McCain because he would be the oldest person ever to become president. The percentage discouraged by McCain's age is more than double that of people who would be less enthusiastic about supporting Obama because he is African American or Clinton because she is a woman."

  • (Show?)

    Katy, i took you seriously. i put the link to the PEW research (which was also in the original HuffPost article) so you could see for yourself and not take someone else's analysis. if i hadn't taken you seriously, i would have ignored you -- as you persist in ignoring the one question i've trying to get you to answer.

  • (Show?)

    But, heck, 2 decades later what do we have of Carter's legacy?

    Here's an excellent op-ed about that very subject.

    Given that Latinos make up sizable populations of notable swing states, including Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, Obama already starts way down.

    Obama would be toast in a general election. He cannot win. And polls that show him handily beating McCain are exaggerated due to the glowing media focus on Obama.

    So because the polls disagree with your personal preferences, we're supposed to write them off? I believe that's called truthiness.

  • (Show?)

    "In other words, his support, even among Democrats, is thin."

    Who's funding him $100 at a time, Republicans? Let's keep a tether to reality tied around your ankle, there. The guy's a teensy bit popular among Democrats.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!"

    Why in the HELL don't we hear Clinton saying "SHAME ON YOU GEORGE BUSH?"

    She'll fight like hell for her own hide, but she won't fight for us, or for the Constitution.

  • (Show?)

    "Given that Latinos make up sizable populations of notable swing states, including Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, Obama already starts way down."

    Considering the Democrat one exactly one of these states over two elections, how is this a barrier to winning? How about Missouri? How about Virginia? Iowa (which Gore won)? Colorado? This was a poor analysis, I think.

    The truth is that with the money advantage Obama and the Democrats will have, McCain will be strapped to adequately defend those states, and will likely have to risk states no one's even considering, like North Carolina or Montana or Indiana or even Georgia or other non-Florida deep South state with a heretofore largely disenfranchised African American population.

    The real story out of Texas is not the small edge in delegates Obama got, but the enormous building for the Democratic Party. Think those caucus voters will be allowed to disappear into the night again by their respective county parties? They aren't signing in just to be official; they're signalling themselves as likely Democratic voters. That is happening in every state the race comes to, and now that Clinton has decided to fight for as many states as she can, she's creating a strong base for the general as well. You can't overestimate the impact that's having. I bet Jenni S. would tell you that a lot of newcomers would be shocked there IS a Democratic Party in some parts of Texas, and to discover how many people there actually are out there--that builds voter confidence and pride in their political beliefs.

    Which is why I'm so distressed that Clinton threatens to waste it all on her Quixote-with-a-reckless-rapier routine. Putting your likely opponent on a platform above your primary foe is just bad news for the party, and could well ruin the wonderful groundwork being laid.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Bodden wrote: Perhaps, Hillary supporters may like to explain the differences between [Hillary and McCain] on significant points.

    Chris Corbell wrote: I find it really, really hard to believe that you're not being disingenuous here Bill.

    Chris: I was being more cynical than disingenuous, but I'll concede your point on the environment and a couple of other issues and give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on the Supreme Court, but I don't take her word on the rest. Do you really believe she will bring an end to corporate welfare after all the corporate donations she has taken for her campaign and probable corporate donations to Bill Clinton's temple of vanity in Little Rock? Do you think she will care all that much about the people when she has been in cahoots with Rupert Murdoch and others of his ilk? Her health plan is better than what we have now, but if it defers to the insurance and medical corporations it will be nothing for the people to be thrilled with. When I said "significant differences" I had war in mind. She got off her war horse when she saw that was necessary to get elected, but if she gets in the White House she will be just as ready to go to war with the support of Bill's hawks - Albright and Holbrooke, etc. - as John McCain will and Bill Clinton became.

    If we do get stuck with choosing between Hillary and McCain, my feeling right now is that I'll write in "a pox on both parties" but November is a long way down the pike so I could change on that.

  • Tony Korala (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excellent article by Josh Kardon,a man who has been around Senator Clinton and can personally vouch for her abilities. What I hope and pray is for Senator Obama to realize the need for unity and accept the position of a Vice Presidential running mate with Senator Clinton. After 8 years, Senator Obama would have gained valuable experience to be an excellent President. If we fall pray into to the so called talking heads like Ed Schultz, we will end up loosing the White House once again to a Republican. I personally think Ed Schutlz is in McCain's payroll. He wants to destroy the Democratic party. Please everybody request the 620 AM station to scrap this talking Johnny's so called show. He is the poison for all progressives.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Money matters far less than people think in politics (Freakonomics anyone?).

    National polls right now in March, after a media coronation of Obama and far more focus on the Democrats (rather than the Republicans), mean very little.

    Here's a good article on the Archie Bunker problem.

    Obama is think soup. Thin soup.

  • (Show?)

    Bill Bodden wrote: Do you really believe she will bring an end to corporate welfare after all the corporate donations she has taken for her campaign and probable corporate donations to Bill Clinton's temple of vanity in Little Rock?

    Bill, the problem is you're using a pop-culture image of Hillary to make your decisions and not checking this woman's record. It's a terrible way to make your policitcal decisions.

    Based on how she <u>voted></u> - how she exercized power in the Senate - check out her Senate career progressive ratings in the following categories:

    Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad: 98.87% Corporate Subsidies: 100% Fair Taxation: 96.88% Government Checks on Corporate Power: 96.49% Health Care: 98.95% Housing: 100% Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful: 94.21%

    Please don't tell the media or the Republicans, but Hillary is more progressive than her husband and, on balance, slightly more progressive than Obama in her voting record. This is what counts, Bill, how the woman has voted and the kind of leadership she's offered, not some charicature of a calculator invented by the right wing and propogated without evidence by her rivals.

    And before you assume that you can peg a candidate based on donations, explore two facts and verify them on your own: 1) 90% of Hillary's contributions have come from individuals -throughout- this campaign, and 2) Obama received more bundled money from large corporate donors in many categories than Hillary does, including big pharm and insurance (a fact which first Mike Gravel, and later John Edwards, called him out on, but the left seemed to have collectively gotten up and gone to the refrigerator at those moments).

    Hillary has credibility; she has, frankly, done too much good to be in this just for herself.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter Bray wrote:

    "Once again, it SHOULD all come down to electability. Obama and Clinton, after all, are pretty much the same in terms of votes (with one or two notable differences).

    Obama will get creamed in the general election. While he may be winning in pledged delegates, he is either up slightly, or down, depending on which source you use, in the popular vote. In other words, his support, even among Democrats, is thin."

    Peter, I am not an Obama endorser, but I do not agree with your premises here. While electability is always important, making it paramount as a general rule leads to severe difficulty in moving from the status quo. So, there must always be a balance between perceived electability and expected policy and execution of it. Obama and Clinton are similar in many ways and different in some ways.

    I have heard and read more compelling arguments suggesting that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than the opposite. He seems to attract more independents. He seems to attract supporters voters who would otherwise not turn out to vote. His success in caucuses suggests he attracts supporters who are willing to do more than vote. He will assure massive turnout among Afro-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic up and down the ticket. He does not activate as much opposition from conservative Republicans as does Hillary Clinton. I do not think that any of your points to the contrary are as convincing as these pro-Obama points. McCain will be encumbered by Republican mania over illegal immigration and is not likely to please many Latinos beyond anti-Cuban Cubans. Without Clinton to rally hard-righters to action, McCain will likely suffer contraction of the Republican volunteer base. Both Democrats are handily out-raising McCain

    I think a strong argument can be made that either Democrat is likely to win, but that Obama would likely win by a larger margin. So, subtle differences in policy positions and competency may be the best basis for picking a candidate to back.

    All this, I believe, is the opposite of your contentions.

  • Blake C Hickman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Clinton supporters on this blog seem eager to talk about Obama's problem among Latinos. They seem less eager to talk about Clinton's problem with African Americans.

  • MajorMajorMajor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow, look at all these comments for a post that can essentially be summarized as: "Ambitious Oregon politico who bet big on Hillary really hopes she'll pull it out." Mr. Kardon's a Washington insider. He's aligned himself with the candidate of Washington insiders. And it's easy to imagine there's much to be personally gained for Mr. Kardon should the candidate whose steering committee he leads somehow manage to maneuver her way to victory.

    Point is, the "powerful personal story" this post wishes to represent doesn't ring very sincere. Personally, I care a lot more about the opinions of thoughtful contributors whose only "skin in the game" is their love of country and yearning for a better path to the future than the dismal one George Bush has mapped for us.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 5, 2008 8:51:37 PM

    [Editor's note: At Josh Kardon's request, I've relabeled his comments above with his full name - to distinguish him from at least two other commenters on BlueOregon calling themselves "JK".]

    LOL - "The internets are serious business."

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    African Americans are a reliable Democratic constituency that have been voting, in the vast majority, for white candidates for a long time. There's nothing to suggest that Clinton, a white candidate, would do worse among this group than previous white Democratic candidates, such as Gore and Kerry.

  • Ian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't know how to feel about Obama or Clinton at this point. I really don't like Clintons negative run as of late. I don't want a push over either. As far as electability I feel that Obama has a better chance. On the other hand Clinton wont take any republican crap.To be honest I don't want a whiner running for president or a wuss either. What to do.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter, there would certainly be a black vote for Clinton in the general, although there is simply no grounds to argue that it would be nearly as big as Obama's. He excites the black electorate, meaning that he gets votes that otherwise would not necessarily be cast.

  • Dorothy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 5, 2008 11:40:30 AM

    Hillary's lifetime of experience canard is not based in reality.

    Laura Bush is one senate term away from having as much "experience" as Hillary

    <hr/>

    Pat, While Laura Bush has sat quietly in the private residence at the White House and come out occasionally to discuss reading programs, Hillary Clinton was quite engaged in not only the healthcare plan, but other legislation as well while she was First Lady. In fact, when the healthcare plan failed in the early years of the Clinton administration, she worked both sides of the aisle and got a children's vaccination program passed.

  • Dorothy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Blake C Hickman | Mar 6, 2008 12:12:22 AM

    The Clinton supporters on this blog seem eager to talk about Obama's problem among Latinos. They seem less eager to talk about Clinton's problem with African Americans.

    <hr/>

    Blake, Hillary Clinton had a good relationship with the black population before this campaign and as far as I know, she still does. However, most have abandoned her for "one of their kind". For them to abandon her for a black brother brings a different kind of racism to the forefront. If a white person doesn't choose a black candidate because of the color of their skin, it is racism. But, if a black person does choose a black candidate because of the color of their skin, shouldn't that be considered racism as well?

  • J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think after 100 comments on a given thread Blue Oregon should offer Chalupas.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dorothy, since you weren't quoting anyone but yourself, you don't need the quotes around 'one of their kind.' I think it leads to the false assumption that you weren't making a racist remark.

  • Displaced Oregano (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Five Samples of Hillary's Vaunted Foreign Policy Experience:

    1. Doing nothing until 250,000 people had died in the Balkan Wars, including the slaughter at Srebrenica.
    2. Doing nothing as over a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda.
    3. Fleeing Somalia after a badly planned UN incursion went wrong.
    4. Bombing a baby food factory in Sudan using grotesquely bad intelligence.
    5. Bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, resulting in a near dismantling of our embassy in Beijing by Chinese mobs.

    I've been reading "Against all Enemies" by Richard Clark the last few days, and most of these events are analyzed and discussed at length. The evidence shows conclusively that the Clinton administration (Bill, that would be) in fact acted appropriately and proactively in these situations, and in the fight against terrorism through 2000. That ball got dropped in Jan 2001.

    It's simply ridiculous to blame any president for munitions targeting errors, let alone his wife.

    The Somalia thing was inherited, and again a military failure more than political.

    Clinton acted more aggressively in the Balkans than others would have.

    He has admitted that the failure to act in Rawanda was his major regret; but try to recall the position he was in with opposition congress and what they would have done/said had he sent US troops to Africa. There isn't even any oil in Rawanda.

    I sort of recall that the baby food thing was a GHW Bush, 1st gulf war screw-up.

    I support Obama, but lets be civil, rational, and fair.

  • joel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Have a good look at the front page photos of Clinton and Obama in the Thursday Oregonian.

    They've dinked with the color to make Obama's skin tone lighter. Obviously the O is trying to undermine African-American racial solidarity with Obama (making blacks vote for Clinton) and also trying to make Archie Bunker-like white bigots less scared of Obama (sending votes his way). Clearly something nefarious is going on.

    Also, they've removed some of Clinton's wrinkles and made her lipstick even redder than it really is. Obviously the O is trying to make Clinton more appealing to the youth vote and misogynist males, and also trying to alienate her from hard-core feminists who reject makeup.

    I'm going to get myself worked up into a lather about this and write a nasty letter to the O just as soon as I figure out what I'm most outraged about.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is another example where there is no difference between Hillary and McCain - Israel/Palestine. Both are dogs wagged by the Likud/Kadima/AIPAC tail. And this is the latest example of how inhumane the American government can be in this area. Based on their previous statements regarding Israel I don't believe there will be a change in a McCain or Clinton II administration.

    Before anyone responds with some asinine statement about anti-Semitism, first check some of the comments made about Likud and Kadima by some Israelis living in Israel such as, Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. Next check on what the word "Semite" means. It is not a synonym for "Jew" but includes a number of tribes in the Middle East of which Jews and Arabs are the largest.

    And with Bill Clinton as First Husband having friends like this I doubt Hillary will have much to take pride in when it comes to human rights, especially after she went along with the sanctions costing half a million Iraqi children their lives.

    Chris C: You have cited some examples of Hillary's positions that look good, but I'm not inclined to take them at face value since she does everything for political reasons. She took an oath to defend the Constitution and reneged on it. She was pro-war on Iraq and after it became obvious a majority of the people wanted out of Iraq, she gradually maneuvered to this position using deceitful arguments. After she began to back down on the Iraq war, she joined in the saber rattling against Iran with the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. She modified her position on abortion to something with a broader appeal. You cited her support for gays and related LGBT issues, but if they threatened to get her below 50% + 1 she would get around quickly to dumping them too.

  • Jerry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm used to take to the Senator floor to tell stories from his touchstone of public opinion Mr. Dickie Flatt. The Dickie Flatt “test” was his barometer of whether or not a policy would fly with a small independent businessman.

    Dickie Flatt meet my mother

    Mom’s a caring, generous, conservative born again Christian. She follows James Dobson religiously and gives money to Gordon Smith (yes, Christmas visits are often dynamic). As a native Southerner, she didn’t vote for Bill Clinton, but she wanted to seem him succeed and felt betrayed by his personal failings. And like many of her generation and background she is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.

    It isn’t fair or logical or justifiable, but it “is” nonetheless.

    So why care about what my mom thinks? She’s obviously way to the right of anyone the Dems put forward, right?

    Except she likes Obama.

    Not his policies. I doubt that Mom has reviewed his website and grocked his position papers. But she has watched the debates and interviews and likes the way he presents himself and is willing to listen to his ideas on the issues of the day.

    Don’t get me wrong, she probably won’t vote for Obama. He is, after all on the opposite of many of the issues she considers core to her belief system.

    But for every one of my mom--someone unable to vote for a pro-choice Dem--there are hundreds, maybe thousands of center right and moderate Rs and NAVs who are not shackled to her religious dogma. Obama, at the very least, appears to be able to get them to listen to him.

    For better or for worse, the same cannot be said of Senator Clinton.

    I don’t think my experience is all that singular. How many Blue Oregon watchers have similar experiences with acquaintances that hold an unnatural antipathy for Senator Clinton? I’ll bet it’s more than a few. No matter how great her ideas or foresighted her policies, she is simply the wrong messenger for much of the American electorate.

    Lastly, let’s assume either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama prevail in November. Upon inauguration, who do you think will best be able to bring the Congress together to start reversing the damage wrought during the last 8-28 years?

    If Senator Clinton is elected, the same obstructionist Senators who gained and held office based on their opposition to all things Clintonian, will once again be able to dig in their heels to oppose any and all Clinton policies. In fact, they will have to if they want to stay in office, as their base feels the same way about Senator Clinton.

    So, while I appreciate Mr. Kardon’s personal perspective on Senator Clinton and agree that Senator Clinton would be a “fighter” on at least some of the issues important to me; unless the unforeseen happens and there are 60 Democratic Senators come January, it seems to me a President Obama has the best chance of actually governing the country.

    Because we’re going to need at least a few people like my mom to make the changes the country (and the world) so desperately needs.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter Bray repeatedly notes Obama's "Archie Bunker" problem. For anyone who didn't click the link, here's what he's talking about:

    "If Obama gets in, it's going to be a black thing and it's going to be all blacks for blacks," said Victoria Mikulski, a 63-year-old clerk in Edison Park (OH). "Everything's got to be equal."

    Honestly, Peter, this bullshit racism is something you think we should pay attention to? It needs to be stomped out wherever it exists, and the best way to do that is nominate a black man for President -- particularly since he's the best choice of the remaining three.

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 6, 2008 1:37:55 AM

    Chalupas!!!

    Are they on you?

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jerry - great perspective piece. You described many mothers including mine. She does have a few added traits including a devout sense of patriotic duty when it comes to voting. She will of course vote for the candidate with the freaky lincoln-esque ears. She senses that he is a good listener.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If these news stories hold up, it looks like the NAFTA-gate that cost Obama Ohio may backfire on Hillary:

    So who the hell called the Canadian embassy?

    Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

    NAFTA-Gate’ Began with Remark From Harper’s Chief of Staff

    Trade Controversy: Obama vs. Clinton on NAFTA

    If investigations into this controversy prove that the Clinton campaign was playing dirty pool, how will Clinton supporters react? The old cliche about they all do it?

    What say you, Josh Kardon? Dodge this the same as you dodged my questions to you posted above at Mar 5, 2008 12:37:32 PM?

  • Indy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think its time for Obama to put together a plan to run as an independent. After all he's not really a democrat.

  • (Show?)

    Hey, I just noticed that this article was added to the rolling links from hillaryhub.com - cool to see a BlueOregon article show up there.

  • (Show?)

    "Bill, the problem is you're using a pop-culture image of Hillary to make your decisions and not checking this woman's record."

    The record is that she's taken more PAC money than any Democrat in the Senate. Holy Joe is 2nd, but well behind Clinton.

    As for who is more progressive, looking at ALL Roll Call votes, Obama is 10th and Clinton 20th most liberal in the Senate 110th. Last session he was 21st, she was 25th.

  • (Show?)

    torridjoe: That data is just for this year, correct? Do you know how it counts skipped votes? Surprising that they have Dodd and Biden so high; lifetime they're both to the right of Obama and Clinton, but your data has them to the left. But maybe that's true for this session, good for them.

    According to ProgressivePunch.org's career ratings, Hillary's 18th most progressive and Obama's 24th, which was the source of my comment.

    A difference in algorithms (both our rankings are based on a formula) and scope, but in any case the gist supports the idea that these two are on the same side of the aisle.

    McCain ranks 59th on ProgressivePunch.org lifetime, and by your data he comes in at #94 (ouch!). Again I think the lifetime score is a little more accurate, but in any case any voter with a progressive or liberal agenda should clearly prefer either Obama or Clinton to McCain, by a country mile.

  • renee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Reason #1 to support Hillary: In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.

    Reason #2 to support Hillary: In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would INCREASE discrimination

    Reason #3 to support Hillary: After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.

    Reason #4 to Support Hillary: She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

    Reason #5 to Support Hillary: She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act

    Reason #6 to Support Hillary: She's authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans.

    Reason #7 to Support Hillary: She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them.

    Reason #8 to Support Hillary: Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman's right to choose.

    Reason #9 to Support Hillary: She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.

    Reason #10 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

    Reason #11 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Reason #12 to Support Hillary: Vows to protect next generation by paying off national debt.

    Reason #13 to Support Hillary: Fought in Congress to "Help people facing foreclosure; don't just bail-out banks." (Aug 2007)

    Reason #14 to Support Hillary: In 1962 she met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago and learned from him the importance of equal rights for all.

    Reason #15 for Supporting Hillary: In 1965 she brought black classmates to her until-then all-white church.

    Reason #16 to Support Hillary: Since 1995 has criticized China's human rights abuses.

    Reason #17 to Support Hillary: IN 1988 Instituted gender diversity Report Card within the American Bar Association, which sets standards for lawyers in the U.S.

    Reason #18 to Support Hillary: In 1972 worked as a lawyer suing white-only schools, working with Marian Wright Edelman on enforcing school desegregation in the South.

    Reason #19 to Support Hillary: In October, 2000 she said it's not enough for America just to apologize for slavery and move on; we need to concentrate on civil rights now.

    Reason #20 to Support Hillary: Has been pushing for a "Privacy Bill of Rights" for all Americans since 2000.

    Reason #21 to support Hillary: Will end don't ask, don't tell in the military, "Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight." November 2003.

    Reason #22 to Support Hillary: Supports civil unions, with full equality of federal benefits.

    Reason #23 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on adding violent crimes based on victim's sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

    Reason #24 to support Hillary: Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

    Reason #25 to support Hillary: Freedom of Speech: Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

    Reason #26 to Support Hillary: [A.K.A "Whoopi Goldberg's reason to support Hillary"] Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)

    Reason #27 to Support Hillary: Voted more funding and stricter sentencing for prosecution of hate crimes. (Apr 2001)

    Reason #28 to Support Hillary: Voted to Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

    Reason #29 to Support Hillary: Although she was in college during the height of the drug culture in the late 1960s, she was devoted to work on civil rights instead of partying and taking drugs.

    Reason #30 to Support Hillary: She is fighting for Universal pre-kindergarten.

    Reason #31 to Support Hillary: Wants to establish an education "Bill of Rights" - Establish right to education from pre-school thru college.

    Reason #32 to Support Hillary: Since 1998 has fought publicly to keep art and music programs in public schools. "Arts education is needed in our schools."

    Reason #33 to Support Hillary: 'Government should pay off all student loans for teachers who go to urban schools." March, 2000

    Reason #34 to Support Hillary: Wants a complete re-write, a Total change in No Child Left Behind. (August, 2007)

    Reason #35 to Support Hillary: Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.

    Reason #36 to Support Hillary Voted YES on spending $448B on education & debt reduction instead of Bush's tax cut for the rich. (Apr 2001)

    Reason #37 to Support Hillary: Wants to "Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us." (Jun 2006)

    Reason #38 to Support Hillary: Wants to build a "$50B strategic energy research fund from taxing oil companies." (Oct 2006)

    Reason #39 to Support Hillary: Wants to Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won't be outsourced.

    Reason #40 to Support Hillary: Called on U.S. to Ratify Kyoto; and fund more mass transit. (Sep 2000)

    Reason #41 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

    Reason #42 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

    Reason #43 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

    Reason #44 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

    Reason #45 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

    Reason #46 to Support Hillary: (listen up Louisiana!) Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

    Reason #47 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

    Reason #48 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)

    Reason #49 to Support Hillary: Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

    Reason #50 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)

    Reason #51 to Support Hillary: Called on Bush to "Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares." (Aug 2007)

    Reason #52 to Support Hillary: Her Support for green-collar job training

    Reason #53 to Support Hillary: Introduced bill to Better track kids' products for exposures to toxic materials coming from China.

    Reason #54 to support Hillary: Calls for the government to treat kids as "child citizens" not "minors" under the law. (Since Dec 1999)

    Reason #55 to Support Hillary: Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition

    Reason #56 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include poor Eastern Europe nations. (May 2002

    Reason #57 to Support Hillary: "Smartest strategic choice is peace." (Nov 1999)

    Reason #58 to Support Hillary: Calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (June, 2007

    Reason #59 to Support Hillary: IN the 1970s worked to pass Constitutional Amendment to allow young people aged 18, 19, 20 to vote.

    Reason #60 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress

    Reason #61 to Support Hillary: Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world

    Reason #62 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.

    Reason #63 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

    Reason #64 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)

    Reason #65 to Support Hillary: Says, "Torture cannot be American policy, period." (Sep 2007)

    Reason #66 to Support Hillary: She would never say anything as creepy and cult-like as "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

    Reason #67 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.

    Reason # 68 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

    Reason #69 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)

    Reason #70 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

    Reason #71 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

    Reason #72 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

    Reason #73 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)

    Reason #74 to Support Hillary: Voted: No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased.

    Reason #75 to Support Hillary: Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)

    Reason #76 to Support Hillary: Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.

    Reason #77 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)

    Reason #78 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

    Reason #79 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing

    Reason #80 to Support Hillary: Admits she made mistake in believing in WMDs in Iraq after being mislead by the Bush Administration.

    Reason #81 to Support Hillary: Reaches out to conservatives but voting record is progressive.

    Reason #82 to Support Hillary: "Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on & beat them." (Aug 2007)

    Reason #83 to Support Hillary: Served as a Staff attorney on Watergate/Nixon impeachment investigation.

    Reason #84 to Support Hillary: 1976: Organized Indiana for Carter-Mondale campaign. She knows what it is like to work on a democrat campaign in RED STATES!

    Reason #85 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.

    Reason #86 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Reason #87 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.

    Reason #88 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.

    Reason #89 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.

    Reason #90 to Support Hillary: At Wellesley in 1968, steered college anti-war movement.

    Reason #91 to Support Hillary: Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.

    Reason #92 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)

    Reason # 93 to Support Hillary: 1980s: Led her church to found the largest daycare in Arkansas.

    Reason #94 to Support Hillary: 1978: chaired Legal Services Corp. in President Carter's Administration - allowing Poor Families access to legal aid

    Reason #95 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report to get us out of Iraq in a fast, safe manner.

    Reason #96 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders eliminated by the Bush Administration.

    Reason #97 to Support Hillary: Worked with Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others in the 1980s to rejuvenate the Democratic Party from within.

    Reason #98 to Support Hillary: In 1969, she entered law school as "vehicle for social change"

    Reason #99 to Support Hillary: Calls to Increase spending for libraries.

    Reason #100 to Support Hillary: In October, 2006 - called for "Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris C: I can't share your enthusiasm for Progressive Punch. In fact, I think it is a lousy site. I just checked Hillary's score on War and Peace Issues:

    War with Iraq: She scores 85.11 on that after she voted for the war and was gung-ho for it until she got her presidential campaign going and saw the people opposed to it were in the majority and holding steady. Signing on for an illegal war that has evolved into a crime against humanity is progressive? You have to be kidding.

    Respect for International Law and the United Nations: When she voted for the war on Iraq she voted for a war that was in violation of international law and against the United Nations Charter. And PP gives her 83.33 points even though she gave the law and the UN the finger. What a crock!

    Relations with Iran: What does N/A mean? Was PP ignorant of her vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment to threaten Iran and possibly expand the war into that country?

    Well-being of America's Military Personnel: Her concern came long after the wounded troops came home and their lousy treatment became public. If she had thought about the troops before the war, she would have insisted they not go to war until they had adequate armor and once there they have all the equipment and supplies they needed. She got 100.0 from PP which shows how ridiculous this site is. I suggest you read "Betraying Our Troops" by Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman to get an idea of how well Congress was looking out for the troops in Iraq.

    Israel-Palestine Conflict: Again, what does N/A mean? She has been an accomplice with Likud, Kadima and AIPAC in their human rights abuses and crimes. When it became obvious the Israelis had been grossly and barbarously excessive in their response to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon she never said a word, even when there was a lot of publicity about the Israelis killing women and children fleeing north from the Israeli border. I guess to her the Palestinians are like the Iraqis - unpeople.

    Who publishes that site? The DLC?

  • renee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In the 3 years Obama has been in the US Senate, he has sponsored just 24 bills with Repub co-sponsors. During the same period, Clinton sponsored 53 bills that attracted Repub co-sponsors. This so-called image of Clinton not beable to bring people together is really at odds with the facts and just more Clinton bashing. She continually proves her ability to work across the aisle even with her enemies and detractors. She is very well respected in the Senate for her intelligence, her depth of knowledge and her accomplishments.

  • (Show?)

    Bill Bodden:

    The whole point of ProgressivePunch is that it's algorithmic, not subjective. Your objections seem to be subjective based on a few votes that are important to you; very fair game for discussion, but that's not a fair criticism of the site.

    The algorithm is explained clearly on the site. Check it out, it's pretty simple: when a vote splits the most conservative with the most progressive members of the Senate, how does a candidate vote? If you always vote with the progressives you get 100%, if you always vote with the conservatives you get 0%. Obviously if you vote with progressives 7 times and defect to vote with Republicans 3 times, you've got a 70% rating. If you don't have any rankable votes in a category, you get (N/A). Unanimous votes have no meaning and so are not factored in. Absences generally don't count, however if you're absent for a close vote and it's lost, that counts against you.

    There has been more than one vote on defense issues in the last seven years, you know. Strictly on defense issues, 85% of the time Hillary has voted with her party against Republicans; it's a fact and you can drill down to sub-categories and all the way down to the individual votes to verify it. 85% is her most conservative categorical ranking; the fact that it's in War and Peace is no surprise as she does position herself as slightly more of a centrist on defense. (As does Obama when he actually votes in the Senate).

    But easily a dozen Senate Democrats are further right on defense, and ProgressivePunch ranks them appropriately - Feinstein, Rockefeller, Biden (yes, it's true, KLA notwithstanding), Kerry, Landrieu, Bayh, etc. And as you'd predict, party defector Lieberman rates 50%, and then we enter Republican land. Gordon Smith's War and Peace rating on ProgressivePunch is 16.3% - there's some great data for Merkley to use.

    These statistics are not the whole story, but they are one very factual view into someone's overall exercise of power. And isn't that good data to have to counter the sound-bite politics?

    I know there are those who see the authorization vote as a litmus test, and maybe nothing will change your mind. (But don't Obama folks still like Kerry? He voted yes on the authorization, and votes with Republicans more often than Hillary on defense issues overall.) But it is not correct to infer from that that any of the Senators who voted for the authorization are identical with people like Smith who vote with the right wing the vast majority of the time. Nor is it correct to trash a perfectly good progressive resource like this website just because the data doesn't corroborate your subjective exaggerations about Hillary's record.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But it is not correct to infer from that that any of the Senators who voted for the authorization are identical with people like Smith who vote with the right wing the vast majority of the time.

    Come on, Chris, surely you can do better than that. They all voted for the war. They many not all have been like Smith voting with the right wing most of the time, but on this vote they were like Smith and they voted with the right wing and now over 4,000 young American men and women have died needlessly if you add in those who returned with PTSD and couldn't take it any longer and committed suicide. Twenty-some thousand have suffered serious wounds. Reliable estimates have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and maimed and four million refugees and the Middle East is more unstable than it has been since the Iraq-Iran war. Then, of course, there are the billions of dollars being wasted every week while dire needs are being ignored at home.

    Nor is it correct to trash a perfectly good progressive resource like this website just because the data doesn't corroborate your subjective exaggerations about Hillary's record.

    Statistics have their virtues but only when they are used with intelligence, and from what I saw it doesn't look like much intelligence went into that site.

    Where did I exaggerate? I'm very much offended by the war on Iraq and the human misery it has caused as anyone claiming to be a progressive should be. Too bad you see that as a subjective exaggeration.

    I missed a point above when I was criticizing the assessment on taking care of the troops. Hillary was on the Armed Services Committee, and she didn't know about Walter Reed until it was exposed in the Washington Post. The troops were also betrayed by the generals and the private contractors. I haven't heard anything about Hillary holding hearings on this crime. After all, it isn't like she was confined to other committees that didn't have anything to do with the military.

  • Scott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I wish people would see the future a little better and understand what is coming this election cycle. Terrorism, Bin Laden Videos, Massacres, $4/ gal gas, summer fires, more hurricanes, and more Carl Rove. Obamaniacs and Hillary Haters whine about Clinton's so-called going "negative", just because the campaign painted a scary picture and posed a real question about security. What on earth do you folks think the republicans are going to do with Barack and his "extensive" resume? We may loath the thought of it, but McCain wields the full force and might of the corporate new world order, ExxonMobil, GE, and the Fed. Obama's youth, inexperience, naivete, and grandiosity will be gobbled up and spit out of the frothy mouths of the repukelean election war machine like so much candy and beer. It will be four more years of lost futures for our children, and another mindless, agonizing lurch of hand wringing by Dems whailing on incessantly over another "stolen" election. While new beginnings, and "hope", and "change" are all fine and dandy, the next act of the American saga will play out on whether or not, within the first four years after Bushville, our President and Congress will be able to ferret out all the dark holes of the Justice Dept., Dept. of Defense, Intelligence Groups,etc etc ad infinitum that The Crime Family has infiltrated and taken over. Hillary can't say this but I can... this country has been taken over by the single most powerful organized corporate crime syndicate the world have ever seen. The Constitution, the American voter, our RIGHTS....NONE of these things are as powerful as this syndicate. Many of us say we want change, but merely electing Obama is not going to change the enemies' agandas. Too many people think that the day after Obama is sworn in, we will all wake up to a new America. HA!! Repubs, Media, Big Oil, MIC, will quickly Jimmy Carter him. Obama wont know where it coming from, how its coming, or when its coming. It will all just keep barraging him. I believe Hillary, on the other hand, knows JUST ABOUT EVERYONE in the power playground, and I believe she has the stature, the muster, and the mandate of the People to rid our country of the treasonous corporate war mongers and Justice Department operatives. She held her tongue and lived with poise and patience through years of withering republican attacks on her and Bill. Do you all forget that? SHE WON. Bill lost. The republicans with their marriages, mistresses, scandals...THEY LOST. She has been through the forge. IT IS HER TIME. American people want more than change, we want JUSTICE to be served on the CROOKS that got us here, and we want our LEADERS to enact measures to make sure this kind of hijacking can NEVER happen again. Hillary, as a former first lady, a senator, an advocate, a lawyer, and yes (why do people avoid this one) a WOMAN has the know how and the chutzpah to act on this mandate. If Hillary wants to win this election, she needs to leave Obama alone standing in the desert exorting his "change" and "hope" into the lonely stiff wind, and refocus America on the RATS that have been running our country.
    A little Ju Jitsu on Obama, that is...just fahgettaboutim. She needs to start up the machine against the crooks. Be the voice of the common man and woman announcing that we're coming to get them and there's no where for them to hide. Obama for Veep..Junior needs time to learn some more chops. Right now, we need a proven FIGHTER, an advocate for JUSTICE, some one who has tangled with the republicans and won. Someone who can lead us in the political Battle Royale that the next four years is bringing. Go Hillary!!!

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Josh - are you still proud of your traitor candidate after Keith Olbermann's show tonight?

    Hillary should be drummed out of the Democratic party for life.

    She is blackmailing us - put me in as your VP our I'll run with McCain and screw you all.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LOL. Scott, that's pretty darn passionate. Not convincing, but passionate just the same.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

    There are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

    Hillary's selfish, destructive scorched earth campaign.

    h

  • (Show?)

    I'd take either of them over McCain, no question.

    And as bad as it ever gets on this thread, or in Oregon, you'll never outdo the Waffle King, Senator Bill Nelson, who basically ceded Florida to the Republicans because Howard Dean wouldn't let them cheat their primary date. FGS, we were already Super Tuesday!

    My question is this, to both candidates, and it matters to me, very much.

    Because even though I'm in the People's Democratic Republic of Florida (all hail Charlie Il Crist!), I have resources, who are Sen. Clinton's OR Sen. Obama's for the taking in the general. If they'll answer me ONE question:

    If you are elected President, who will you choose as chairman of the Democratic National Committee?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Re the links above to NAFTAgate. Did anyone see anything about this in the mainstream media - newspaper or television?

  • lonnie G. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Formally, I was an Edwards supporter.

    For a variety of reasons. I thought long and hard about who I was going to support after he dropped out. It boiled down to a couple of things:

    1) Obama's supposed "anti-war" stance. He talks a good talk, but the bottom line: He didn't even serve as a senator when that vote was taken, but he makes it sound like he did take a "no" vote. I just don’t trust him. I wanted to, believe me. At first, when I decided to support Hillary, I still liked Obama, but now, it’s all too appearant that he’s not the person he claims to be. He’s just as dirty with campaign tactics as Hillary, but doesn’t own up to his BS.

    Lots of good, progressive democrats took the "wrong" vote on the war, but the information given to them, and to us, the American people was a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration. Overwhelmingly, American's first supported the war because of the lie of "weapons of mass destruction. If she had to do it over again, in the same set of circumstances but this time armed with the truth, she'd vote "no" as would most of the other D members of congress.

    Her vote on the war is nothing more than a justification by the "Hillary Haters" who buy into right wing media innuendos about her character. The "Obama at any price" supporters, your naiveté is astounding and your commitment to a progressive agenda is nothing but a grandstanding popularity contest that has NOTHING to do with the good of our country. Facts don't matter to you. Your hatred for Hillary is based on right wing media exploits. Obama has NOTHING to stand on except the fact that he is "the popular, hip-hop, flavor of the day." So was your Homecoming Queen. If Obama was female, he wouldn't even be where he is. He would have gone the way of Carolyn Mosley-Braun, Patsy Mink, and Shirley Chisholm.

    2) This election for me is more than just the war that we were all lied to about. It’s about the environment, health care, jobs & the economy. It’s about social issues and it’s about the “bread & butter” economic issues. I want someone who has the savvy, the know-how and the guts to punch back.

    If you don’t want someone in the White House who’s going to punch back, well, fine. It just gives you more reason to hate progressive democrats who fight for you and your interests.

    I’ve had it with the Obama-mainia. It’s totally turned me off to him. There is so much more on Obama that is going to come to light. No wonder Louis Farrakhan endorsed him. And all you Obama folks can do is focus on Hillary's tax returns. Wait until you see some of the documents that currently are under "lock & key" at his and his wife Michelle's request.

    Obama packages himself one way, but he’s no messiah that you all are making him out to be.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lots of good, progressive democrats took the "wrong" vote on the war, but the information given to them, and to us, the American people was a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration. Overwhelmingly, American's first supported the war because of the lie of "weapons of mass destruction.

    No matter how often this bullshit is shot down someone like a weed will pop up and try to foist it off on anyone they hope will be dumb enough to buy into it.

    The real progressive democrats voted against the war. Those posing as progressives though they were anything but progressive voted for the war. About 75 percent of Americans first supported the war because they were gullible, ill-informed and didn't have enough sense to see through the lies. Unlike the 25 percent who made a point of being well-informed, could see through the lies and had enough sense to oppose the war.

    One thing the polls seem to have gotten right, Hillary gets the less well educated voters.

  • lonnie G. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, right.

    And Obama, gets the wealthy, well-educated limousine liberals who are voting for him out of "white guilt." Also, you insinuate with that statement that African-American's are better educated. Tell that to school districts across this country.

    Hate to break it to ya pal, but I'm a college-educated woman who knows the difference between facts and superfluous hyperbole. The accusation that only the "real progressive democrats voted against the war" is BS and you know it.

    People base their opinions on facts or what appears to be facts. That is why 75% of American's supported the war, because they were fed BS by the Bush administration. That is why his numbers now are so low, he lied and got caught and now people are dying because of his lies. But hey, 20-20 hindsight is something that seems to only be in the jurisdiction of Obama supporters.

    I like how you see the world through your own set of self-serving definitions. As if you've never made a decision, or anyone else for that matter, that was based on what you thought were facts.

    And you folks wonder why I’m so turned off by Obama and don’t trust him.

  • lonnie G. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And one more thing, Bill Boden, you state:

    About 75 percent of Americans first supported the war because they were gullible, ill-informed and didn't have enough sense to see through the lies. Unlike the 25 percent who made a point of being well-informed, could see through the lies and had enough sense to oppose the war.

    I'll just bet that every single Obama supporter, in all their self-rightous glory now proclaim that they were part of that 25% who were well-informed and none of them ever supported, even reluctantly, the idea that Saddam Hussain had WMD and that US interferrence was justified. None of those Obama supporters were duped or considered themselves in the 75% camp. No. Their hands are lily white with no blood on them. Political perfection personified. And why not? They get to re-write history.

    Obama supporters were just as duped as the other members of the progressive D's who voted for the war and supported the war.

    Obama supporters who claim they support him because of his 20-20 hindsight vision on the war issue alone are the biggest hypocrites of all. It isn't his position, or rather his "non-position" or his "non-vote" on the war that puts them into the Obama camp.

    Rather, it's just that the war justifies why they support Obama when in actually, they don't have squat as far as issues are concerned to base their opinion on. How many times, just on this blog for instance, do you hear Obama supporters clearly state, "Hillary does have more experience, she's in a better spot to lead, doesn't have a learning curve, etc. etc. But none of that seems to matter. Why? Not because she's Hillary. But because she's not Obama. She's not their messiah who talks pretty.

    Rather, it's just a "keeping up with the Jones" mentality. It's "fashionable" to hate Hillary in the Obama camp. To threaten that they'll vote for McCain, or not vote at all if they don't "get their way." Waaaah-waaah-waaah.

    So, I'll throw you a pacifier.

    You are a progressive-poser: You strike a rhetorical pose claiming to hate right-wing demagoguery, but you sure seem to buy into it. Go complain to someone else about how you hate the right wing corporate media. I for one don't buy it.

    You've bought into the right-wing arguments al la Karl Rove, Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielley, Robert Murdoch and all of the rest of them. Bottom line: You have more in common with those guys than you do with progressives.

    But oooooooo. and aaaaaaaaah. It's sooooo socially fashionable for you to be above all that. So. Instead. You just make stuff up.

    Obama is not to be trusted. He doesn't have the experience. I DON'T want his brand of so called "change." I want "results." I want health care. I want living wage jobs. I want a woman's right to choose protected. I want a green based economy. I want a sound international policy. I want a first class education system.

    You know. Fluff, as you would call it. And it's "fluff" because Obama can't deliver squat. Just pretty words and speeches.

  • Liam Tshou (unverified)
    (Show?)
    1. Obama is only good at glamorous talking, painting NO more than a beautiful dream. There's no real content, virtually none, if those glamorous words are removed. We're not electing a spiritual leader who can only talk, inspire people and make people content and hopeful SPIRITUALLY. We need someone can do and deliver and he has NOTHING to offer in this regard.

    2. Politics are not like a house which we can demolish all at once and then restart from scratch, as claimed by Obama. While we all understand Washington needs changes and big changes, but it doesn't justify all existing Washington politics and politicians can be totally wiped out without trace, which would be great for a BRAND NEW start otherwise. However there's no way he can ever do that and indeed no one could(politics are complicated matters involving all aspects of the society, economy, history and lots more. How can anyone believe any individual could on earth possibly make a COMPLETE change?? Wake up people especially those who have been so 'inspired' and 'hopeful' by Obama's speeches!). It's nothing more than a daydream. So there's absolutely NO feasibility in whatever he states he would do to make such a TOTAL change, which is totally impossible. The only way out is to steady and well-thought reform and to make REALISTIC changes to the existing political regime and model.

    3 Based on the above 2, Obama is no more than another typical and disgusting politician and liar, even worsened by his motives, potential damages he has been causing(soo many 'innocent' people have really believed him!!!!), viciousness(look at his own dirty record, e.g. his house and his former fundraiser scandal).

    To voters - Grow up, open your eyes and see through who Obama really is and vote wisely!!

  • ate (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>To voters - Grow up, open your eyes and see through who Obama really is and vote wisely!!</h2>

    Cant agree with you more. Just look at his double-talk on NAFTA and Iraq war.

    His claim of his judgement on Iraq war is also hugely exaggerated. Just check here: http://search.huffingtonpost.com/search/?sp_a=sp100395aa&sp_k=&sp_p=all&sp_f=ISO-8859-1&sp_q=obama%2Bhollow

  • Paul B. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ate: That is a remarkable post, with quotes right from Obama and sources cited. Pretty much sums it up:

    He'll say anything to get elected and perhaps more importantly, CAN say anything to get elected because he doesn't have a record. He has nothing on other issues either than he can stand on as a candidate. Nothing on health care, environment, immigration, etc. etc. etc.

  • Aidan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Judgment? That is code for decision making. Decision making is not always based on facts, but on ideology. Obama's ideology paints him as the most liberal senator of 2007. How will he unite? The ONLY argument he has against Clinton is her vote to authorize the president to use force in Iraq, which if anyone here (Or Obama) bothers to read the actual bill, states very clearly that it first required the president to use every diplomatic means possible before going to war. Sorry, but as someone recently wrote, you'd think that Senator Clinton was the ONLY person who voted on that bill! Judgment --decision making--requires experience and know -how and an ideology formed by not just intuition but empirically based understanding. Knowing how to utilize all your channels and bases to get things done. That is by far Hillary Clinton's advantage over Barack Obama--the most ambitious, power hungry person to run for president in the history of this country with his "years" of experience--his 7 on the state level and 2+ in the senate. If we vote Obama into office we are voting in another person who will need more on the job training than Bush, with the only "change" being it's a democrat in the office who knows nothing, not a republican.

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    1995 Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session

    delivered 5 September 1995, Beijing, China

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...jingspeech.htm

    In September, 1995, Obama was trying to run for the Illinois Senate.

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let me give that again.. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tina Turner sings, HRC is "SIMPLY THE BEST" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCG5Tp4ZwZI

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Drug use... "The Audacity of Smoke and Dope" (as I called it)... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us...in&oref=slogin

    And, he shouts and yells angrily.. at reporters who want to post the truth about him on anything: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-...med-at-me/full

    A sad symptom of the desparate thirst for hope of the people.. Are we looking beyond such fatal flaws...

    A serious symptom of the exhausted times that we are too tired to dig deep and look for meaning behind his words..

    The nation is crying out for help from the informed, like us. US is us folks.. It is "WE THE PEOPLE..." INFORMED CHOICE.. BE SURE TO DIG DEEP AND GET TO KNOW THE CHOICES..

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [linked are complete in this] THESE ARE MUST READ LINKS FOR ALL DEMOCRACY-LOVERS WHO WANT TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS....

    Drug use... "The Audacity of Smoke and Dope" (as I called it)... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=Obama%27s+drug+use&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    And, he shouts and yells angrily.. at reporters who want to post the truth about him on anything: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

    A sad symptom of the desparate thirst for hope of the people.. that they look beyond such fatal flaws...

    A serious symptom of the exhausted times that they are too tired to dig deep and look for meaning behind his words..

    Test your knowledge of Obamaa http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-quiz,0,5371912.triviaquiz

    The nation is crying out for help from the informed, like us. US is us folks.. It is "WE THE PEOPLE..." Let's get the word out, everywhere..:

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "How The Media Is Shaping The Minds Of The Masses Of People Concerning Barak Obama" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dTXPQb1z0 From the perspective of an African American man - asking the questions the Media refuses to ask.

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rezko news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

  • Curtis Taylor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I AGREE 100%!!!!!!!!!!

    After seven years of George W. Bush, we need a president with the strength, experience, and vision to make change a reality. I'm supporting Hillary for the White House because I know that her 35 years of experience means she can end the war in Iraq, make the economy work for the middle class, and achieve truly universal health care.

    That is why I'm picking HILLARY for President on my ballot in May!

    --EUGENE, OR

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AMERICA's CHOICE.. A video by high school students http://www.veoh.com/videos/v63071152kYyn52r?searchId=4102782833789440270

    Thank you dear High School students. You already played a major role in helping preserve democracy in our country.

    EVERYONE, Wake up.. Democracy is about INFORMED CHOICE!! Let us BE INFORMED, THINK, THINK HARD and ENSURE THAT OTHERS AROUND US ARE WELL-INFORMED along WHAT IS AT STAKE in this election.

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    America's Choice: Hillary vs. Barack http://www.veoh.com/videos/v63071152kYyn52r?searchId=4102782833789440270

    This video was made by two high school students and PLEASE PASS IT ON!! Barack Obama has consistently attacked Senator Clinton about her vote to enter war with Iraq six years ago, even though the majority of the senate voted in a similar fashion. This is the only attack he can make on her, even with her open regret at casting the vote. Barack Obama is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he's been a consistent no-show. In the senate, he has passed on over a 100 votes. "That's not yes, that's not no, that's maybe." Do we want a president who already shows such dereliction of duty? A president needs to be able to take strong stances, even though it's not the wisest move politically. Barack Obama uses the past as his weapon and he is clearly change for the past. Senator Clinton, however, is change for the present and future, because she looks to apply her political prowess to solve problems now and in the future, accompanied by an extensive arsenal of experience.

  • skm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    They high schoolers' voice deserves to be heard. Pls send the above clip to everyone you can possibly think of, regardless of their primary/caucus is already behind us!

    This work by the highschoolers is grassroots democracy, at its finest! Thank you folks.

  • Zanna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you for speaking up for Hillary Clinton, Josh Kardon. I admire you for making yourself heard. GO Hillary GO!

  • Jeremy Clark (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Both candidates are human, despite attempts here to dehumanize and/or demonize these two candidates by the political opposition. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I would also argue that both share virtually the same values.

    I will vote for Mrs. Clinton in the Oregon primary.

    I agree (and feel incensed) that Hillary-bashers have bought into right wing talking points. There is a difference between a valid critique of a candidate's record and pure vitrol, but too often zealous support of one candidate becomes hostility toward the opposition. I've seen it from both sides on this blog, and on other sites as well, but in general, Mrs. Clinton attracts more, and that is one reason I decided to post, to add my voice to the noise and explain why she has my support.

    For several months during the Democratic primary, Mrs. Clinton ignored all of the political barbs thrown her way, many of them from Senator Obama, many of them misleading. It's part of the game, I suppose, but every candidate is guilty of distorting another's record to score political points. Mrs. Clinton often fights back more aggressively and more effectively, yet she is excoriated for it. I still like Mr. Obama, but have become frustrated with the arrogance and hypocrisy of many of his supporters and surrogates.

    Senator Clinton understands and has survived the political pressure cooker of living and working in the White House. Her unique "experience" as First Lady provides an insight no previous candidate has ever brought to a presidential campaign. Her career accomplishments outside of politics are impressive. She is tenacious, competent and hard-working. Every time the pundits and the opposition count her out, she comes back from the brink, victorious. And despite attempts to characterize her otherwise, her voting record demonstrates her slightly centrist though predominantly progressive values.

    For me it comes down to issues...

    I prefer her health care plan to Mr. Obama's. I think mandated coverage with subsidies for those who cannot afford it is the best approach and should be a core progressive value. Her health care "failure" in 1993 was a courageous one. I don't think it's wise to so easily dismiss this "experience" from her overall qualifications. Everyone learns from their mistakes, yet for some reason we don't allow our politicians to fail. We hold them to a different standard. We could argue endlessly about why universal health care failed in 1993; there are many factors involved, but it is completely ludicrous to blame it all on Mrs. Clinton and use it as a reason to dismiss her candidacy.

    Another apparent difference concerning environmental issues: I'm wary of Mr. Obama's interest in nuclear power.

    For those who begrudge Mrs. Clinton's Iraq war vote, I think about the political climate: I think she felt sensitive to her constituents concerns; she represents New York, after all, a state devastated by terrorist attacks. She voted for alternative measures that failed under the GOP majority. Effective candidates should compromise to pass a bill. Rather than setting a precedent that would tie the hands of our President, after voting for alternate approaches that failed, she voted for the authorization bill that passed. If not the optimum result, it is still reasoned judgment. And as one other post mentioned specifically, the bill specifically mentioned using all diplomatic means necessary. We all know Bush didn't wait for the U.N. Bush abused the authority. Traditionally, in most cases, both parties have acted on a united front when it comes to foreign policy. For all of Mr. Obama's rhetoric about working with Republicans, he has no ground to stand on against Mrs. Clinton concerning her Iraq war vote. Also, the media reported that Mr. Obama admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted. And during his time in the Senate his and Mrs. Clinton's voting records have been identical.

    I could go on and on, I suppose, trying to refute every mischaracterization about Senator Clinton, but I just wanted to add my voice to the ongoing debate, to try and explain why I support Hillary Clinton despite all the accusations and conspiracy theories and misleading criticisms about her record. That's all for now. :)

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Jeremy Clark is not far off the mark on Sen. Clinton's Iraq vote. Taken in the context of the times, her state, the language of the resolution, and the mis-information being spread by people with access to classified information, it seems pretty silly to base a campaign against her on the basis of one vote. Would any Obama supporter dare to suggest that President Hillary Clinton would have led the U.S. into that war?

  • EngCindy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I came to look at the Oregon voice; as I am a former Oregonian, now Washingtonian. I will help in the Oregon for Hillary campaign. I appreciate the positive comments and would like to say Thank You to Renee for the 100 reasons.

    Go Hillary !

    Boycott Randy Rhodes !!!! Unity, indeed. Only if you vote for Obama.

  • Josh Kardon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As the technologically-challenged author of this original post, I am confused -- and pleased as hell -- that it continues to attract comments long after appearing as the "lead story" on BlueOregon. Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how or why this is occurring? How the heck are you - my fellow Clinton fans - finding this buried post?

    For the record, my original post has now attracted more comments than any other guest column on BlueOregon, ever! That cinches it -- Hillary is #1!

  • MAX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    wake up, we can't just support hillary online, we need to MOBILIZE, she must win VERY BIG IN PA AND NORTH CAROLINA AND oregon. GET everyone you know registered democrat ASAP. Even if you have to take your grandmom and her friends to the polls, visit retirement homes.

    Here is a great clip on TINA FEY ON SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SUPPORTING THE BIONIC CANDIDATE (hillary).

    http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/index.shtml#mea=221773

    WWW.HILLARYSPEAKSFORME.COM

  • Tim Davenport (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hurray for Hillary!

    Unprincipled centrism is just what this country needs... Run over all obstacles with a steam roller! No accusation too coarse, just THROW THE KITCHEN SINK at your opponents and shed a little tear for the cameras if anyone picks on you. That's the kinda stuff that made America great...

    Bring Dick Morris back to the White House for a second run! Bring in Fox News' own Gerrie Ferraro, too!!! And Lieberman to make a picnic of it. That's the kind of solid DLC leadership so sorely lacking in America today.

    Yaay for PERSONAL POWER!

    Yaay for a THIRD CLINTON TERM (and to hell with the Constitution!).

    t

  • Jeremy Clark (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The previous post is telling. Nothing constructive--just sarcasm, personal attacks, distortion and unveiled hatred. Just another reason why we need a fighter rather than a talker in the White House--someone who has, time and again, withstood such vitriol and succeeded in spite of it. With all due respect to Mr. Obama, electing him will not change the tone in Washington.

  • Eddy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama's Pastor racist and ridiculous views need to be broadcasted but more importantly it needs to be known that he is de facto supporting those views by not protesting.

    It is not fair that he keeps getting a pass in the media. Between Rezko and the pastor, Obama doesnt even deserve to be a senator let along president.

    By the way, Digg that story so maybe the youth vote will see it if it gets to the top. All they ever read is what is on Digg. They know nothing of Hillary since she cannot penetrate their world.

    Go Hillary!!!!!!!!

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Barack is TOAST after the scandals that have come out.. He knows it.. He has so many strikes against him.

    Disloyal to supporters (Alice Parker, Hillary Clinton), Shady deals (Rezko), Poor circle of friends (Ayers, Wright), continued endorsement of extremism and anti-American talk (Wright), his own anti-American talk (wont ever wear lapel pin), difficulty to say simple yes to American song (CNN-AC360 interview), integrity issues and conflict of interest in healthcare (Michelle’s part-time job with big pay doing the work of channeling uninsured away from a good hospital).. the money trails, the winking on NAFTA to Canada (and taking 5 tries to come clean), the “forgetfulness” on money dealings with Rezko (and later now, just beginning to come out with it), the unravelling of Rezko (and it is still in the beginning of the story), difficulty explaining his platform (beyond slogans and catchy phrases), lack of clear and cohesive plans to support plan (and lack of fluency and consistency around own platform), indiscreminately co-sponsoring 400+ bills in the year he is running for office to be able to say “look what I am doing” (has he even read them?) and being one of the top people not at the voting station.. (his voting record is awful — next only to McCain’s and the other Republican guy with amnesia/health problem), voting “present” too many times, and to top it all off, taking up the committee chair role on Afghanistan and not holding a single substantial hearing for 15+ months… [and saying they are important!.. oh really!!]

    Any person without significant accomplishmnets cannot aspire to leadership. There are three prior stages before leadership: Learning, Proving expertise and garnering credibility, Becoming a coach and multiplying one’s impact. These are stages that he has not completed.

    Instead, he tried to get on the coat-tails of other leaders with their words. It was impactful… because of all the historic implications..

    If he got there it would have been incredibly difficult because he has no support system developed from the earlier stages.

    Instead now he has to figure out how to use words to keep the momentum when his shady/unholy/unpatriotic support system has been both questioned and can no longer openly support him.

    Barack may not recognize what is the honorable thing to do.. His party leadership is going to have to help him get there.

    There is no need for him to continue his quest anymore. He is DONE! ENOUGH!!

    DNC Leaders, take note.. You can no longer put forth Barack Obama regardless of his middlename! He cannot recover from this utter failure to demonstrate a principals and core.. America can see thru this one!

    AMERICA WILL NOT BE HOODWINKED!!

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BREAKING NEWS ALERT http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hate_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html

    “Obama Attended Hate America Sermon Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14 PM By: Ronald Kessler

    Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the ‘white arrogance’ of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. . . . In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the ‘United States of White America’ and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright’s attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement. “

    <hr/>

    BREAKING NEWS ALERT - UPDATE

    The Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin for July 22, 2007, service attended by U.S. Senator Barack Obama included a letter from a Hamas leader, an organization the U.S. has declared to be a sponsor of state terrorism. This is just one quote from the church bulletin "The sticking point of 'recognition' has been used as a litmus test to judge Palestinians. Yet as I have said before, a state may have a right to exist, but not absolutely at the expense of other states, or more important, at the expense of millions of human individuals and their rights to justice. Why should anyone concede Israel’s 'right' to exist, when it has never even acknowledged the foundational crimes of murder and ethnic cleansing by means of which Israel took our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation of refugees? NewsMax is not backing down. Here is the NewsMax update: http://www.newsmax.com/

    <h1>"The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time (with weekly praise/prayers starting 15 minutes previous to those times). While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment." (emphasis added)</h1>

    I repeat: Barack may not recognize what is the honorable thing to do.. His party leadership is going to have to help him get there.

    There is no need for him to continue his quest anymore. He is DONE! ENOUGH!!

    DNC Leaders, take note.. You can no longer put forth Barack Obama regardless of his middlename! He cannot recover from this utter failure to demonstrate a principals and core.. America can see thru this one!

    AMERICA WILL NOT BE HOODWINKED!!

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris C said: "The algorithm is explained clearly on the site...when a vote splits the most conservative with the most progressive members of the Senate, how does a candidate vote?"

    The problem with this analysis, Chris, is in the definition of "progressive", which in this case is "voting with the progressives", a very circular argument. By this logic, if I define "democratic" as "voting with the Republicans", then agreeing with Bush is "democratic".

    Some Democrats voted for non-binding resolutions for beginning withdrawal of some troops from Iraq. This was not a "progressive" vote, and progressives like Kucinich and Nader said so at the time. Defining it as a progressive vote therefore violates the spirit of progressive politics, and is a regressive tactic.

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The unveiling of the REAL BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

    BE SURE TO WATCH THESE VIDEOS!!

    Hannity speaks up with investigative report.

    The Real Barrack Hussein Obama 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUAPej5-vF4&feature=related

    Volume 2 - The Real Barrack Hussein Obama 2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7UJWj2r-8s&feature=related

    and Press (Lou Dobbs) with some candor. Obama, you CHOSE your racist pastor & church! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EciymhWjHbI&feature=related

    and the truth in that ending statement there "what he says now is pretty much irrelevant."

    Obama is unfit to be Senator much less President http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wMN81rCws&feature=related

    No amount of speech giving can recover from this. But he tried. And in doing so...

    He did the SINGLE WORST THING anyone could have done.. Defend his continued association with Rev.Wright. And proceeds to FURTHER drive the wedge deeper into society.. not just with blacks, now with american indians, whites..

    He did not own his owrds. He needed a teleprompter and papers.. after 4 days+ (since Fall 2007 since the issue first started) to create his position. He has not done anything to earn THIS PODIUM to even read to this issue. He has never spoken on this before.. except use Bamboozle, hoodwink and brother to get votes.

    Particularly Barack.. who led a well-privileged life.. he could have used the same podium to heal the people... NO! He used his grandparents who doted on him to justify his endearment to Rev. Wright.

    DONT FORGET: He did not help turn the heat on for the poor suffering people in the 11 buildings in his own district, even though he had total influence both thru his state senate office and thru his friend Rezko who owned the building.

    HE HAS ZERO CREDIBILITY.

    Any religion Only goes to reinforce what is already inside.. The pulpit is a powerful podium to reinforce the negative or the positive... You can let the positive win out.. but a pulpit that reinforces the negative is NOT one to be associated with.

    Barack stayed there.. stayed silent for 20 years...

    IF YOU ARE MIRED IN THE PROBLEM AND DO NOTHING TOWARDS THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM....

    TOO LATE!

    BARACK is UNFIT for Presidency. Furthermore, if he is going to run for any political office, he NEEDS TO EARN IT BY REPAIRING THE DAMAGE HE HAS CAUSED TO CIVIL REFORM!!!!!

    Here is a starting point: Turn on the heat for the tenants!!!!! Then, he can start owning the words a bit and do some work withe ALL COMMUNITIES.. Go start the Afghanisthan committee you signed up to 15 years ago.. and then come around and start begging for Vote.. MAY BE.. for the state senate.

    HE IS TOAST!!! AMERICA WILL NOT BE HOODWINKED!!

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He did the SINGLE WORST THING anyone could have done.. Defend his continued association with Rev.Wright. And proceeds to FURTHER drive the wedge deeper into society.. not just with blacks, now with american indians, whites..

    He did not own his owrds. He needed a teleprompter and papers.. after 4 days+ (since Fall 2007 since the issue first started) to create his position. He has not done anything to earn THIS PODIUM to even read to this issue. He has never spoken on this before.. except use Bamboozle, hoodwink and brother to get votes.

    Particularly Barack.. who led a well-privileged life.. he could have used the same podium to heal the people... NO! He used his grandparents who doted on him to justify his endearment to Rev. Wright.

    DONT FORGET: He did not help turn the heat on for the poor suffering people in the 11 buildings in his own district, even though he had total influence both thru his state senate office and thru his friend Rezko who owned the building.

    HE HAS ZERO CREDIBILITY.

    Any religion Only goes to reinforce what is already inside.. The pulpit is a powerful podium to reinforce the negative or the positive... You can let the positive win out.. but a pulpit that reinforces the negative is NOT one to be associated with.

    Barack stayed there.. stayed silent for 20 years...

    IF YOU ARE MIRED IN THE PROBLEM AND DO NOTHING TOWARDS THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM....

    TOO LATE!

    BARACK is UNFIT for Presidency. Furthermore, if he is going to run for any political office, he NEEDS TO EARN IT BY REPAIRING THE DAMAGE HE HAS CAUSED TO CIVIL REFORM!!!!!

    Here is a starting point: Turn on the heat for the tenants!!!!! Then, he can start owning the words a bit and do some work with ALL COMMUNITIES regardless of color.. Go start the Afghanisthan committee you signed up to 15 months ago.. and then come around and start begging for Vote.. MAY BE.. for the state senate.

    HE IS TOAST!!! AMERICA WILL NOT BE HOODWINKED!!

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The unveiling of the REAL BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

    BE SURE TO WATCH THESE VIDEOS!!

    Hannity speaks up with investigative report.

    The Real Barrack Hussein Obama 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUAPej5-vF4&feature=related

    Volume 2 - The Real Barrack Hussein Obama 2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7UJWj2r-8s&feature=related

    and Press (Lou Dobbs) with some candor. Obama, you CHOSE your racist pastor & church! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EciymhWjHbI&feature=related

    and the truth in that ending statement there "what he says now is pretty much irrelevant."

    Obama is unfit to be Senator much less President http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wMN81rCws&feature=related

    No amount of speech giving can recover from this

  • Corrie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK, are you proud running a campaign for Hillary with supporters like skmckinny? Should you denounce and reject skmckinny or resign from your public post of our great state?

  • Corrie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK, are you proud running a campaign for Hillary with supporters like skmckinny? Should you denounce and reject skmckinny or resign from your public post of our great state?

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Obama Is Too Little Too Late" (Chatanoogan) http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_124414.asp

    Quote: Your recent message on race relations resounds as a way to “guilt” America into voting for you. Your message was clear, Sen. Obama - be ashamed white America for what you have done to the African Americans. Feel guilty white America for what you have done to African Americans and vote for me.

    Quote: Unfortunately, it was a speech given much too late and for the wrong reasons. And what a crying shame that is for all of America.

    A well written well thought out article. http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_124414.asp

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "it was a speech given much too late and for the wrong reasons."

    This is a sentiment which has been expressed elsewhere in other years.

    Often people hearing/reading such a sentiment recoil at the idea that they couldn't possibly make their own decisions because someone they never met (often not someone even in their own state) is telling them how to think about a speech, an idea, a candidate, a ballot measure.

    Individual voters make individual decisions. They did that about Bill Clinton in 1992 and some of the same people criticizing Obama now were very upset then also.

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Sunday Times // Times Online

    Great article today

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Sunday Times // Times Online

    Great article today

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Newt Gingrich interview on news media. (w/clips from Oregon)

    Video: Obama's New Denial of Reverend Wright Comments Gets Torn Apart 3/21/08

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYYYv8NiPig

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    MSNBC Hardball Video: YouTube - Barack Obama Race Judgement Pastor and Grandmother http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC3Kv6w6dg&feature=user

    Conclusion.. This should be very offensive to... to all americans..... A good summary editorial.

    Sums up on the Judgment question…by including the context of the statements of all players...

    Shows how unworthy Obama is…

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    MSNBC Hardball Video: YouTube - Barack Obama Race Judgement Pastor and Grandmother http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC3Kv6w6dg&feature=user

    Conclusion.. This should be very offensive to... to all americans..... A good summary editorial.

    Sums up on the Judgment question…by including the context of the statements of all players...

    Shows how unworthy Obama is…

  • Hawthorne (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://voteforhillaryonline.blogspot.com/2007/11/get-paid-to-post-positive-comments.html

    So is the above commentator one of Hillary's paid bloggers?

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kenya Connection; Barack & Odinga

    The story of Obama and his Communist, Islamic extremist 1st Cousin, Odinga leader of Kenya's opposition party. Along with the other terrorist connections of Obama. Pretty Self Explanatory Video: YouTube - Obama-Odinga-Rezko-Ayers-Auchi-Saddam Hussein http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIe4d9Nmg9k

    YouTube - Obama's Pal Odinga uses 'Rape as a Weapon' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkmh-vhzv0w

    The New York Sun Article (March 21-23 '08 edition): The Kenya Connection (article dt: 1/10-08) http://www.nysun.com/article/69273?page_no=1

  • Hawthorne (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll take that as a yes.

  • skmckinny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hawthorne, check the time of both our submissions; I was editing my blog and bringing in the links when you wrote your blog item. So, take it however you want, I guess but before you jump to such conclusions would be wise to look at the timestamp.. I am an independent and a supporter of Hillary based on her solutions and the courage she has demonstrated over the 35 tears of service.

    Be sure to check out the links I referenced though. They migh give you some insight.

guest column

connect with blueoregon