Great article detailing Obama vs Clinton Senate activity - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 02-21-2008, 11:56 AM

(Warning, I'm about to go hostal on you.)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20.../807/36/458633

Quote:

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)
by Grassroots Mom
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.

I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.

Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators.

I started with Sen. Clinton.

I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.

Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.

For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."

Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.

In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.

The difference is in the scope and the approach.

Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.

Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?

How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.

Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).

Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.

In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.

Four bills on energy including
• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil;
•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.

On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).

Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:

S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon.
S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes.
S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.

and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.

Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.

As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.

Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.

In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year.

Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.

It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.

Yes, We Can!

Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.

Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

I highlighted areas AROUND where you should focus your attention. This article goes over the facts, not just the crap that gets thrown around on the podium and talk shows. If you check out the original article, there are links to the source of the research. I'm interested in hearing what people think about it.

I'm not sure you can corner Obama supporters into a dumb bandwagon. There is something to his campaign. I like what I see.

ratbastid · 02-21-2008, 12:44 PM

Indeed.

Here's a somewhat more readable blog post that lays out Obama's record and successes, including a great description of his bi-partisan approach:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...-actually.html

Quote:

Obama: Actually, I Think We Can

by hilzoy

I, too, endorse Obama for President, to no one's surprise. Since Katherine has already written a lot of what I would have wanted to say about his rhetoric, and since I've already talked about one of my most important reasons for supporting him, namely the fact that he got Iraq right from the outset, I'll say something about the peculiar idea that Barack Obama is all style and no substance.

I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote:

"Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give."

Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard people saying that Obama wasn't "substantive". It was exactly like my experience in 2004 when, after hearing Wes Clark for the first time, I went and looked up his positions on a whole host of issues of concern to me, and only then started reading media accounts of him in which I "learned" that no one knew what his positions were.

As some of my students would say: I was like, wtf?

I was also surprised ...

... by the number of people who said: well, all this bipartisanship stuff sounds very nice, but how do we know it actually works? Isn't this just happy talk that will evaporate in the face of reality? Or, alternately: doesn't this sort of thing involve selling our souls to our supposed partners in compromise? Curiously, Obama has an actual legislative record, and so it is possible for us to see both how he approaches bipartisan cooperation and what results it yields. And it turns out that Obama does achieve results by working with Republicans, and doesn't tend to compromise on core principles.

Last year, I considered some of his bipartisan initiatives in the Senate -- notably on nonproliferation and ethics reform -- and concluded that what Obama actually does has nothing to do with the sort of bipartisanship that people rightly object to:

"According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)"

Consider a different example:

"Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping."

Getting legislation like this passed is a real achievement. Getting it passed unanimously is nothing short of astonishing. Mark Kleiman, who knows this stuff extremely well, put it best:

"1. Obama was completely right, and on an issue directly relevant to the more recent debates about torture. Taping interrogations is an issue that really only has one legitimate side, since there's no reason to think it prevents any true confessions, while it certainly prevents false confessions (over and above the legal and moral reasons for disapproving of police use of "enhanced interrogation methods").

2. Pursuing it had very little political payoff, as evidenced by the fact that Obama has not (as far as I know) so much as mentioned this on the campaign. Standing up for the rights of accused criminals in a contemporary American legislature requires brass balls.

3. Getting it through required both courage and skill. The notion that Obama is "too nice" to get things done can hardly survive this story: he won't face tougher or less scrupulous political opponents than the self-proclaimed forces of law and order. Yes, in this case the change was helpful to the cause of crime control, since every innocent person imprisoned displaces a guilty person. But that didn't make the politics of it any easier."

***

Similarly, people often wonder whether Obama's call for a new kind of politics is just empty words. Here again, I think he has a real record to point to. He has consistently worked for ethics reform. In Illinois, where he helped pass what the WaPo called "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure." In the US Senate, he was the Democrats' point man on ethics, and was deeply involved in the ethics legislation passed this year. He didn't get all he wanted -- for instance, he and Russ Feingold couldn't get a bill establishing an Office of Public Integrity to deal with Congressional scandals. But he accomplished a lot, and wants to accomplish more.

Moreover, he is very interested in open government. The searchable database of government grant and contract recipients that I mentioned above is part of that. But Obama's proposals (pdf) go further. For instance, consider these proposals:

* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

These are all proposals designed to allow public scrutiny of the business of government. As I read it, one of Obama's goals in introducing them is to permanently alter the incentives politicians have. As long as legislators did not have to disclose their earmarks, there was no way of finding out that the person who stuck a favor for an obscure casino in one state into an appropriations bill was from another state entirely. There was therefore no way for that person's constituents to wonder why s/he was expending political capital on people outside the district, and no way for reporters to see just who was doing that casino favors. Once legislators have to own up to their earmarks, however, that changes. It won't make abuse go away, of course, but it does make it a lot easier for people to notice and object to the fact that their representatives are doing inexplicable favors for people they have no obvious reason for caring about.

Likewise, if all bills had to be posted to the internet five days before they were voted on signed (oops), it would be much, much more difficult for Congress to sneak some appalling provision through in the dead of night. If all contracts over $25,000 had to be competitively bid, certain sorts of corruption would be a lot more difficult to carry out. And if there were a database of tax breaks and tax earmarks, not to mention a database of lobbyists, it would, again, be much, much easier to track who was doing favors for whom, and why. (And I haven't even started on Obama's proposals (pdf, p. 5) to strengthen FOIA: "Barack Obama would restore the tradition of free information by issuing an Executive Order that information should be released unless an agency reasonably foresees harm to a protected interest.")

I think of these proposals, collectively, as a means of empowering journalists, bloggers, and random citizens to discover corruption and the abuse of power, and to bring the power of shame to bear on politicians who practice it. This clearly isn't all that Obama means when he talks about changing the way politics is practiced in this country. But it's part of it. And I think it's pretty powerful.

***

I sometimes wonder why, exactly, people go on saying all this stuff about Obama lacking substance. Sometimes, I suspect it's just laziness, as in the case of this dKos story in which mcjoan, who is usually much better than this, lists a whole lot of questions she wishes the candidates would answer, apparently unaware that Obama (and, for all I know, Clinton), has already answered most of them. I suspect, though, that part of it might be the assumption that idealism is necessarily woolly and misty-eyed and all about singing Kumbaya, while realism is necessarily cynical and disillusioned.

I have never believed this. There are certainly hard-bitten, cynical people who don't think particularly clearly about the world (Dick Cheney leaps to mind.) More to the point, I can't see any reason why there shouldn't also be people who are both genuinely idealistic and hardheaded at the same time. I suspect Obama is one of them. I do not for a moment imagine that he is perfect. (Cough, clean coal technology, cough cough.) But I do think that he's one of the best candidates I can remember, and that's good enough for me.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 02:34 PM

Obama made a great speech at a anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002, when Bush was beating to drums to invade Iraq.

This was 2 years before Obama ran for the Senate and certainly before he had any realistic dreams of presidential ambitions:

Quote:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/0..._state_sen.php

Elphaba · 02-21-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

(Warning, I'm about to go hostal on you.)

"I object to these huge article posts. There is a "hide" function specifically offered to prevent tedious scrolling for those that don't wish to read."

This Obama fan loves it when you go hostile on me.

ouch

something red · 02-21-2008, 07:22 PM

OMG, my poor mouse wheel. I can hear it coming: a total dismissal of everything posted here, refuted with a few one liners including the words: socialists, liberals, empty suit, and all of that..ad nauseum.

Obama is going to make a great president, and fill the White House with the type of respect it has lacked for a long time.

Tully Mars · 02-28-2008, 02:19 AM

I usually have an ill reaction to long cut and paste posts. But there's a lot of good stuff here. Been turned off by a couple posters who fill several screens with little more then C&P.

I'm supporting Obama and have been for some time now. I'm not liking the side of Hillary, and for that matter Bill, I'm seeing in this race. From my point of view Hillary seems to have some MPD thing going on. One day she's gracious the next completely unhooked. If she can't hand her campaign any better then this I want her no where near the Oval Office.

And I see McCain a nothing more then a continuation of failed policies of Bush/Cheney.

So, I support Obama. But I have no doubt this will be a long hard slog. I figure by the time the GOP slim machine is done with him 40% of red state voters will believe he's the number four guy at Al Qaeda... who in his spare time enjoys killing puppies... especially the cute ones.

Strange Famous · 02-29-2008, 04:49 PM

Facts dont matter much and voting records matter even less: Hillary is unelectable and if the Democrats select her they are voting for 4 more years of republicanism - its as simple as that. Clinton cannot win a general election. I have no doubt she is brighter than Obama, and is probably closer to my ideology and closer to doing (what I would judge) the right things... but she isnt likeable, and people dont respect her. You can be one or the other, but if you are neither there is no hope.

SecretMethod70 · 02-29-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Facts dont matter much and voting records matter even less: Hillary is unelectable and if the Democrats select her they are voting for 4 more years of republicanism - its as simple as that. Clinton cannot win a general election. I have no doubt she is brighter than Obama, and is probably closer to my ideology and closer to doing (what I would judge) the right things... but she isnt likeable, and people dont respect her. You can be one or the other, but if you are neither there is no hope.

Did you read Halx's post?

robot_parade · 02-29-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

(Warning, I'm about to go hostal on you.)

Dude, I want to have your babies after that line.

WRT the actual article - I still support Obama. I don't think he's the second coming, but for my money, he's the best shot we've got. This article isn't huge for me, but it certainly does reinforce my support for him.

Shauk · 02-29-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Did you read Halx's post?

i was wondering that too.

Strange Famous · 03-01-2008, 09:32 AM

I browsed through it, his post has nothing to do with how I feel about the election though - other than the topic is similar.

My comment was that there IS no debate between Clinton and Obama. It is Obama or the Republicans.

SecretMethod70 · 03-01-2008, 09:46 AM

If you had read his post you would have also seen that, aside for the likability issue (which it doesn't address), it basically argues against everything else you said. From what I've seen of your politics, Halx's post shows that Obama is clearly more invested in doing what you consider to be the right things than Clinton.

Also, you already created an entire thread dedicated to your opinion that Clinton is unelectable. Why make that comment in other threads that, for the most part, have nothing to do with that, and then not even bother to discuss what the thread is actually about?

Please, read the post, then respond to that. (I recommend reading through ratbastid's as well.)

Strange Famous · 03-01-2008, 10:47 AM

My politics, in truth, are not very close to either of them.

Quoting that Obama wants to spend a few million researching carbon reduction technology proves nothing to me than that he is a shameless popularist.

is it supposed to be admirable that he thinks torture isnt that a great of a thing for the world's only superpower to indulge in? I would kind of expect that as a prerequisite of any morally conscious human being.

If you want to address climate change, the immediate state control of all heavy production and severe limitation of transportation is required immediately: as well as massive aid packages to China and India and Brazil in the form of technology and equipment to reduce their carbon output (which can be done much more cheaply than you can reduce America's carbon output - which is already working with very efficient technology)

if you want to do something about torture that give Camp Delta back to Cuba and free the prisoners held illegally there

Neither candidate proposes real solutions: it is just a case of someone who is charismatic against someone who is not. I have, as I said in the last post, browsed through the original post - and nothing in it strikes me as politically important. in the records of either candidate - they both are ultimtaley capitalists and directly opposed to the aims of the working class and the general will of the people.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that Clinton is more guided by morality and more left wing - that she will hold her centre left ground, where as Obama will go wherever media lead popularity calls him. But Clinton will never be president.

The_Jazz · 03-01-2008, 11:07 AM

Thank you, Strange Famous, for finally proving to me, without any shadow of a doubt, that I can now tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with no repercussions. Because you have now proved it 100%.

Quote:

Quoting that Obama wants to spend a few million researching carbon reduction technology proves nothing to me than that he is a shameless popularist.

My best friend, who was the best man in my wedding, is an environmental lobbiest in the Midwest. He has been for many years. One of his biggest allies in Springfield and the person that introduced legislation that my friend helped write is Barack Obama. He introduced me to Obama before there was a senatorial campaign. He introduced me to him when Obama was one of several Democrats running for Senate. He introduced me to him when Jack Ryan was in the race and when Alan Keyes was in the race. He introduced me again late last year and again this year.

Obama had a very strong environmental record in the Illinois legislature. He fought against the ComEd rate hike in Illinois. He introduced legislation forcing the utilities to use renewable sources.

If you think he's a shameless populist, you're not paying attention. Why don't you try that for a change?

Strange Famous · 03-01-2008, 11:15 AM

I think you should keep in mind that I support Obama.

But you talk of "forcing the utilities to use renewable resources"

I speak of the immediate nationalism of all utility companies, with no compensation for any shareholder.

If Obama said the second thing, he would win a general election... I guess he made his choice, and people like me make our's. He might be the most powerful man in the world, and I will always be able to say exactly what I believe in.

In 30 years time, the instution of "president" will not exist.

Some people argue that it is preferable to have people like Bush in power because it hastens the destruction of the world capitalistic system: I personally prefer people like Blair and Obama - an iron hand in a silk glove being better in regards to the present conditions suffered by the working class than an iron fist in an iron glove.

SecretMethod70 · 03-01-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

If Obama said the second thing, he would win a general election...

First, you make no sense. You say Obama is a "popularist" yet claim that if he had a different view he would "win a general election." Second....

I realize you're not from the US, but it doesn't take much reading to know that if Obama expressed those views (regardless of whether or not they're good views to have) he would absolutely tank in the general election - if he even made it that far. And yet you think Clinton - by far, the more cautious of the two candidates in choosing and expressing her political views - is less electable?

Strange Famous · 03-01-2008, 11:40 AM

I mis-typed. I meant to say that if he said things like that he wouldNT win, and he had chosen a path of making do with the way the world is and trying to make the best of it; and people like me reject the way the world is.

It does look illogical with the typo though.

SecretMethod70 · 03-01-2008, 11:48 AM

OK, that is more consistent, but how can anything change without taking steps toward that direction? And you understand that, because as you said you prefer people like Obama to George Bush.

So, this goes back to you thinking that Clinton would create more change in the direction you'd like than Obama, if only she were electable. To which I say, again, read Halx's and ratbastid's posts. It's simply not (likely to be) true.

ratbastid · 03-02-2008, 07:42 PM

All this "Obama Inexperience" nonsense is SO easy to deflect. Look: no President in the history of the country has EVER presided alone. That's why they call it an "administration", and why there are jobs like Cabinet positions and advisors. To expect the President to be an expert on everything is just ludicrous.

The President sets the tone of the administration and, in principle, the nation. The advisors give him the lay of the land and suggest plans of action. The Cabinet Secretaries set and carry out specific policy consistent with the administration's positions. That's how it works.

John McCain says--and it's almost a point of pride with the guy--that he's no economic expert. And that's okay! That's why, if he were President, he'd surround himself with smart people who could supply him with expertise in that area. Obama will do the same, with smart people from every area of Presidential focus. That's why it's not important that Obama be some sort of foreign policy jedi. He doesn't have to be--he sets the tone and overall policy, and his administration will do the work from there.

His statements today about the possibility of bringing some prominent Republicans into his Cabinet, possibly as Secretary of Defense, is perfect timing for this kind of response. If you trust the President, you implicitly trust his (or, unlikely though it may be, her) trust in the people he appoints to surround himself with.

02-28-2008, 02:19 AM	#6 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I usually have an ill reaction to long cut and paste posts. But there's a lot of good stuff here. Been turned off by a couple posters who fill several screens with little more then C&P. I'm supporting Obama and have been for some time now. I'm not liking the side of Hillary, and for that matter Bill, I'm seeing in this race. From my point of view Hillary seems to have some MPD thing going on. One day she's gracious the next completely unhooked. If she can't hand her campaign any better then this I want her no where near the Oval Office. And I see McCain a nothing more then a continuation of failed policies of Bush/Cheney. So, I support Obama. But I have no doubt this will be a long hard slog. I figure by the time the GOP slim machine is done with him 40% of red state voters will believe he's the number four guy at Al Qaeda... who in his spare time enjoys killing puppies... especially the cute ones. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

02-29-2008, 04:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Facts dont matter much and voting records matter even less: Hillary is unelectable and if the Democrats select her they are voting for 4 more years of republicanism - its as simple as that. Clinton cannot win a general election. I have no doubt she is brighter than Obama, and is probably closer to my ideology and closer to doing (what I would judge) the right things... but she isnt likeable, and people dont respect her. You can be one or the other, but if you are neither there is no hope. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-01-2008, 09:32 AM	#11 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I browsed through it, his post has nothing to do with how I feel about the election though - other than the topic is similar. My comment was that there IS no debate between Clinton and Obama. It is Obama or the Republicans. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-01-2008, 09:46 AM	#12 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	If you had read his post you would have also seen that, aside for the likability issue (which it doesn't address), it basically argues against everything else you said. From what I've seen of your politics, Halx's post shows that Obama is clearly more invested in doing what you consider to be the right things than Clinton. Also, you already created an entire thread dedicated to your opinion that Clinton is unelectable. Why make that comment in other threads that, for the most part, have nothing to do with that, and then not even bother to discuss what the thread is actually about? Please, read the post, then respond to that. (I recommend reading through ratbastid's as well.) __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-01-2008, 10:47 AM	#13 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	My politics, in truth, are not very close to either of them. Quoting that Obama wants to spend a few million researching carbon reduction technology proves nothing to me than that he is a shameless popularist. is it supposed to be admirable that he thinks torture isnt that a great of a thing for the world's only superpower to indulge in? I would kind of expect that as a prerequisite of any morally conscious human being. If you want to address climate change, the immediate state control of all heavy production and severe limitation of transportation is required immediately: as well as massive aid packages to China and India and Brazil in the form of technology and equipment to reduce their carbon output (which can be done much more cheaply than you can reduce America's carbon output - which is already working with very efficient technology) if you want to do something about torture that give Camp Delta back to Cuba and free the prisoners held illegally there Neither candidate proposes real solutions: it is just a case of someone who is charismatic against someone who is not. I have, as I said in the last post, browsed through the original post - and nothing in it strikes me as politically important. in the records of either candidate - they both are ultimtaley capitalists and directly opposed to the aims of the working class and the general will of the people. Nevertheless, my opinion is that Clinton is more guided by morality and more left wing - that she will hold her centre left ground, where as Obama will go wherever media lead popularity calls him. But Clinton will never be president. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-21-2008, 07:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
something red Upright	OMG, my poor mouse wheel. I can hear it coming: a total dismissal of everything posted here, refuted with a few one liners including the words: socialists, liberals, empty suit, and all of that..ad nauseum. Obama is going to make a great president, and fill the White House with the type of respect it has lacked for a long time.

03-01-2008, 11:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I think you should keep in mind that I support Obama. But you talk of "forcing the utilities to use renewable resources" I speak of the immediate nationalism of all utility companies, with no compensation for any shareholder. If Obama said the second thing, he would win a general election... I guess he made his choice, and people like me make our's. He might be the most powerful man in the world, and I will always be able to say exactly what I believe in. In 30 years time, the instution of "president" will not exist. Some people argue that it is preferable to have people like Bush in power because it hastens the destruction of the world capitalistic system: I personally prefer people like Blair and Obama - an iron hand in a silk glove being better in regards to the present conditions suffered by the working class than an iron fist in an iron glove. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-01-2008, 11:40 AM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I mis-typed. I meant to say that if he said things like that he wouldNT win, and he had chosen a path of making do with the way the world is and trying to make the best of it; and people like me reject the way the world is. It does look illogical with the typo though. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-01-2008, 11:48 AM	#18 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	OK, that is more consistent, but how can anything change without taking steps toward that direction? And you understand that, because as you said you prefer people like Obama to George Bush. So, this goes back to you thinking that Clinton would create more change in the direction you'd like than Obama, if only she were electable. To which I say, again, read Halx's and ratbastid's posts. It's simply not (likely to be) true. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-02-2008, 07:42 PM	#19 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	All this "Obama Inexperience" nonsense is SO easy to deflect. Look: no President in the history of the country has EVER presided alone. That's why they call it an "administration", and why there are jobs like Cabinet positions and advisors. To expect the President to be an expert on everything is just ludicrous. The President sets the tone of the administration and, in principle, the nation. The advisors give him the lay of the land and suggest plans of action. The Cabinet Secretaries set and carry out specific policy consistent with the administration's positions. That's how it works. John McCain says--and it's almost a point of pride with the guy--that he's no economic expert. And that's okay! That's why, if he were President, he'd surround himself with smart people who could supply him with expertise in that area. Obama will do the same, with smart people from every area of Presidential focus. That's why it's not important that Obama be some sort of foreign policy jedi. He doesn't have to be--he sets the tone and overall policy, and his administration will do the work from there. His statements today about the possibility of bringing some prominent Republicans into his Cabinet, possibly as Secretary of Defense, is perfect timing for this kind of response. If you trust the President, you implicitly trust his (or, unlikely though it may be, her) trust in the people he appoints to surround himself with.