washingtonpost.com > Columns
>
> Archive | Biography | RSS Feed | Opinions Home
> Hillary's Diminishing Returns
>
> Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17
>
> There is dissension in the Hillary Clinton camp. Top aides have been
> in arguments, shouting back and forth about differences in strategy.
> Should Clinton come on strong? Should she go negative? Should she be
> upbeat and positive? Here's my answer: Stop campaigning.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming that since Super Tuesday, the minute
> that Clinton steps foot in a state, her numbers start to plummet. Of
> course, Barack Obama has something to do with it. He's a phenomenon, a
> political version of Roy Hobbs, "The Natural" of Bernard Malamud's
> wonderful novel, whose physical repose is TV perfect and who will,
> when the time comes, provide a jarring visual contrast to the much
> older John McCain. Obama is nearly as good as he thinks he is.
>
> So it could be that Clinton would lose the Democratic nomination even
> if she were a gifted politician. But she has no such gift. Her smile
> is strained. She is contained. She seems unknowable, and there is that
> melancholy Billie Holiday air about her -- all those songs about a
> suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop
> (Thinking About Tomorrow)," the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton's first
> presidential campaign.
>
> It might seem surprising that Clinton has turned out to be something
> other than a brilliant campaigner. But consider her record. Back in
> 1999, she entered the New York Senate race in the manner of Marie
> Antoinette entering France -- to be ultimately crowned queen. When
> Clinton announced an interest in running, every other potential
> Democratic candidate -- Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, even Al
> Sharpton -- took it as an order to vanish. The strongest of these,
> Rep. Nita Lowey, graciously stepped aside, as if Clinton was the real
> McCoy and a six-term member of Congress was an undeserving interloper.
>
> Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was
> happening. Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No
> matter. She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter.
> She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. She was first
> and foremost the wife of Bill, and for party leaders and hypocritical
> feminists -- Lowey was a woman, too, for crying out loud -- she just
> had to be The One.
>
> With the Democratic senatorial nomination in hand, Clinton was set to
> go up against Rudy Giuliani. This would have been the great matchup
> between two suits inflated with little but name recognition, but it
> never came to pass. Giuliani withdrew on account of prostate cancer,
> and Clinton wound up facing . . . can you remember? It was Rick Lazio.
> Even so, Clinton did not win really big -- 55.3 percent of the vote.
> Not a landslide.
>
> Six years later, Clinton ran for reelection. Once again, she had no
> Democratic opponent, and in the general, she faced a Republican named
> John Spencer. He was little known before the election, hardly known
> during it and so forgotten afterward that I expect a segment of the
> show "Lost" to be devoted to him. Clinton won in a landslide, 67
> percent of the vote. But just two years earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer
> (D) had gotten 71 percent of the vote -- and no one ever mentions him
> as a presidential candidate. In many ways Clinton is a remarkable
> woman, but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician.
>
> Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late, and their
> conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of
> these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to
> go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of
> Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and
> now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose --
> and will take the Democratic Party down with them.
>
> Politics can be ugly, not to mention sad. Broken dreams are strewn
> across the American landscape. Fred Thompson resigned from "Law &
> Order." Chris Dodd moved his family from Connecticut to Iowa just for
> the caucuses. Mitt Romney blew through a fortune. John Edwards
> campaigned through personal pain. The difference between a
> presidential candidate and a fool in love is only a matter of Secret
> Service protection.
>
> For Hillary Clinton, a loss has to be particularly tough. The
> presidency is not just the ultimate honor for her. It is, as others
> have suggested, a justification for all she has put up with.
>
> My cards are already on the table. I don't think that Clinton can win
> the nomination, but even if she does, I don't think she will win the
> general election. That would become apparent as she starts to campaign
> in states that have yet to see her. The harder she works, the worse
> she does.=
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
From Beth:
Community Blogs Login | Register | Search Blogs
Post from Beth Gersh-Nesic's Blog:
Senator Obama and the Raft of the Medusa
By Beth Gersh-Nesic - Feb 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm EST
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
On Senator Obama and Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa
Given Senator Barack Obama mounting lead in the Democratic primaries, I often think of Théodore Géricault’s masterpiece, Raft of the Medusa, 1818-1819, a gigantic painting, where a bare-chested black sailor reaches up above the horizon line, lifted by his crewmates, to signal for help from a ship that is barely perceptible in the far distance. His task is to save himself and his fellow survivors, who have been set adrift on an enormous jerry-built raft after their frigate, the Medusa, had run aground off the coast of West Africa in July 1816
The disasterous journey of the French ship Medusa became a symbol of the dysfunctional Bourbon regime, restored in 1815 under Louis XVIII after Napolean’s defeat at Waterloo. Its story parallels the Bush administration, too, as demonstrated in Joel-Peter Witkin’s Raft of the George W. Bush (2006) and Kara Walker’s Post-Katrina Adrift (2007).
At the heart of the Medusa’s misfortune were three incompetent political-appointees, Frigate-Captain Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, Lieutenant-Colonel Julien-Désíré Schmaltz (governor for St. Louis and Senegal), and a M. Richefort (port master for St. Louis), who decided to speed up their trip from France to Senegal by sailing along the treacherous coast of West Africa. The crew protested, but these overconfident men with little seafaring experience (the captain had spend the previous twenty-five years as a customs officer) took none of their advice.
On July 2, 1816, the Medusa got stuck on shoals in the Arguin Bank. Of the 400 passengers, most of the well-to-do escaped in the six life-boats. The crew, about 150, settled for a 65 by 23 foot raft. Mayhem ensued –murder, mutiny and cannibalism. About two weeks later, just four miles from shore, fifteen survivors were picked up by the Argus (the Medusa’s sister ship)—ten made it home to tell their stories to the press.
The black sailor who energetically waves his shirt toward the Argus may represent the military conscripts brought along to patrol France’s territory in Senegal. More likely, he serves to remind the viewer of France’s slave trade, which Géricault actively opposed and Leutenant-Colonel Schmaltz meant to profit from in Africa. Therefore, Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa is more than a dramatic record of this event and a symbol of hope in the face adversity, it questions the body politic when its practice leads to corruption and human degradation. The artist’s choice of a black man leading the fight for survival called attention to those who had been abandoned by society, like the Medusa sailors left to fend for themselves on the open sea.
Géricault’s great painting received mixed reviews. Some critics found the work too vulgar in its realism, too unbeautiful for teaching a moral lesson. These critics were speaking in code. It was the African hero that set their teeth on edge.
Today in America, many voters might feel the same. They cannot imagine an African-American at the helm of our ship the USA. The code for their doubts is “lack of experience.” However, after eleven consecutive victories, it seems clear that Senator Obama’s grass-roots campaign has demonstrated authentic leadership skills. Those who work in the trenches know this best through their tireless phone-banking, numerous emails to each other, meetings, fund-raising events, rallies and door-to-door conversations. They see that tiny Argus though the eyes of this optimistic leader, who has been lifted up by his crew and has already set a new course for this country.
Images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_of_the_Medusa Raft of the Medusa
http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin33.htm Raft of George W. Bush
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2007/08/27/toc_20070820 Post Katrina Adrift
Sources:
Alexander McKee, Death Raft: The Human Drama of the Medusa Shipwreck, Charles Scribners, 1975.
Albert Boime, The Art of Exclusion: Representing Blacks in the Nineteenth Century, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990.
Albert Alhadeff, The Raft of the Medusa: Gericault, Art and Race, Prestel, 2002.
Beth Gersh-Nesic, Ph.D., is an art historian, who reviews exhibitions for About.com: Art History (an affiliate of the New York Times) and teaches at Purchase College and other colleges in the Westchester/Rockland area. Her most recent book is André Salmon on French Modern Art (Cambridge University Press, 2005). See website: www.andresalmon.org.
She is the director of the New York Arts Exchange: www.nyarts-exchange.com.
Post from Beth Gersh-Nesic's Blog:
Senator Obama and the Raft of the Medusa
By Beth Gersh-Nesic - Feb 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm EST
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
On Senator Obama and Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa
Given Senator Barack Obama mounting lead in the Democratic primaries, I often think of Théodore Géricault’s masterpiece, Raft of the Medusa, 1818-1819, a gigantic painting, where a bare-chested black sailor reaches up above the horizon line, lifted by his crewmates, to signal for help from a ship that is barely perceptible in the far distance. His task is to save himself and his fellow survivors, who have been set adrift on an enormous jerry-built raft after their frigate, the Medusa, had run aground off the coast of West Africa in July 1816
The disasterous journey of the French ship Medusa became a symbol of the dysfunctional Bourbon regime, restored in 1815 under Louis XVIII after Napolean’s defeat at Waterloo. Its story parallels the Bush administration, too, as demonstrated in Joel-Peter Witkin’s Raft of the George W. Bush (2006) and Kara Walker’s Post-Katrina Adrift (2007).
At the heart of the Medusa’s misfortune were three incompetent political-appointees, Frigate-Captain Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, Lieutenant-Colonel Julien-Désíré Schmaltz (governor for St. Louis and Senegal), and a M. Richefort (port master for St. Louis), who decided to speed up their trip from France to Senegal by sailing along the treacherous coast of West Africa. The crew protested, but these overconfident men with little seafaring experience (the captain had spend the previous twenty-five years as a customs officer) took none of their advice.
On July 2, 1816, the Medusa got stuck on shoals in the Arguin Bank. Of the 400 passengers, most of the well-to-do escaped in the six life-boats. The crew, about 150, settled for a 65 by 23 foot raft. Mayhem ensued –murder, mutiny and cannibalism. About two weeks later, just four miles from shore, fifteen survivors were picked up by the Argus (the Medusa’s sister ship)—ten made it home to tell their stories to the press.
The black sailor who energetically waves his shirt toward the Argus may represent the military conscripts brought along to patrol France’s territory in Senegal. More likely, he serves to remind the viewer of France’s slave trade, which Géricault actively opposed and Leutenant-Colonel Schmaltz meant to profit from in Africa. Therefore, Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa is more than a dramatic record of this event and a symbol of hope in the face adversity, it questions the body politic when its practice leads to corruption and human degradation. The artist’s choice of a black man leading the fight for survival called attention to those who had been abandoned by society, like the Medusa sailors left to fend for themselves on the open sea.
Géricault’s great painting received mixed reviews. Some critics found the work too vulgar in its realism, too unbeautiful for teaching a moral lesson. These critics were speaking in code. It was the African hero that set their teeth on edge.
Today in America, many voters might feel the same. They cannot imagine an African-American at the helm of our ship the USA. The code for their doubts is “lack of experience.” However, after eleven consecutive victories, it seems clear that Senator Obama’s grass-roots campaign has demonstrated authentic leadership skills. Those who work in the trenches know this best through their tireless phone-banking, numerous emails to each other, meetings, fund-raising events, rallies and door-to-door conversations. They see that tiny Argus though the eyes of this optimistic leader, who has been lifted up by his crew and has already set a new course for this country.
Images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_of_the_Medusa Raft of the Medusa
http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin33.htm Raft of George W. Bush
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2007/08/27/toc_20070820 Post Katrina Adrift
Sources:
Alexander McKee, Death Raft: The Human Drama of the Medusa Shipwreck, Charles Scribners, 1975.
Albert Boime, The Art of Exclusion: Representing Blacks in the Nineteenth Century, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990.
Albert Alhadeff, The Raft of the Medusa: Gericault, Art and Race, Prestel, 2002.
Beth Gersh-Nesic, Ph.D., is an art historian, who reviews exhibitions for About.com: Art History (an affiliate of the New York Times) and teaches at Purchase College and other colleges in the Westchester/Rockland area. Her most recent book is André Salmon on French Modern Art (Cambridge University Press, 2005). See website: www.andresalmon.org.
She is the director of the New York Arts Exchange: www.nyarts-exchange.com.
From Kathy in MO:
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
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.
Grassroots Mom's diary :: ::
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".
Added:I realize, of course that several of these amendments are exactly the same. They were added to spending bills. My only reason for including them is for completeness. They are not here to pad out Obama's record. Furthermore, I want to make clear that I only looked at one single year, 2007. This is not meant as a comprehensive review of either candidate's entire Senate record. If you are interested in doing your own research, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look it up.
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.
Grassroots Mom's diary :: ::
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".
Added:I realize, of course that several of these amendments are exactly the same. They were added to spending bills. My only reason for including them is for completeness. They are not here to pad out Obama's record. Furthermore, I want to make clear that I only looked at one single year, 2007. This is not meant as a comprehensive review of either candidate's entire Senate record. If you are interested in doing your own research, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look it up.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
From Anne:
February 26, 2008
Hillary's Diminishing Returns
By Richard Cohen
There is dissension in the Hillary Clinton camp. Top aides have been in arguments, shouting back and forth about differences in strategy. Should Clinton come on strong? Should she go negative? Should she be upbeat and positive? Here's my answer: Stop campaigning.
The evidence is overwhelming that since Super Tuesday, the minute Clinton steps foot in a state, her numbers start to plummet. Of course, Barack Obama has something to do with it. He's a phenomenon, a political version of Roy Hobbs, "The Natural" of Bernard Malamud's wonderful novel, whose physical repose is TV perfect and who will, when the time comes, provide a jarring visual contrast to the much older John McCain. Obama is nearly as good as he thinks he is.
So it could be that Clinton would have lost the Democrat nomination even if she was a gifted politician. But she has no such gift. Her smile is strained. She is contained. She seems unknowable and for all but women like herself, there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her -- all those songs about a suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign.
It might seem surprising that Clinton has turned out to be something other than a brilliant campaigner. But consider her record. Back in 1999, she entered the New York Senate race in the manner of Marie Antoinette entering France -- to be ultimately crowned queen. When Clinton announced an interest in running, every other Democratic candidate -- Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, even Al Sharpton -- took it as an order to vanish. The strongest of these, Rep. Nita Lowey, graciously stepped aside, as if Clinton was the real McCoy and a six-term member of Congress was an undeserving interloper.
Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was happening. Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No matter. She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter. She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. She was first and foremost the wife of Bill and for party leaders and hypocritical feminists -- Lowey was a woman, too, for crying out loud -- she just had to be The One.
With the Democratic senatorial nomination in hand, Clinton was set to go up against Rudy Giuliani. This would have been the great matchup between two suits inflated with little but name recognition, but it never came to pass. Giuliani withdrew on account of prostate cancer and Clinton wound up facing ... can you remember? It was Rick Lazio. Even so, Clinton did not win really big -- 55.3 percent of the vote. Not a landslide.
Six years later, Clinton ran for re-election. Once again, she had no Democratic opponent and in the general, she faced a Republican named John Spencer. He was little known before the election, hardly known during it and so forgotten afterward that I expect a segment of the show "Lost" to be devoted to him. Clinton won in a landslide, 67 percent of the vote. But just two years earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer (D) had gotten 71 percent of the vote -- and no one ever mentions him as a presidential candidate. In many ways, Clinton's a remarkable woman but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician.
Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late and their conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose -- and take the Democratic Party down with them.
Politics can be ugly, not to mention sad. Broken dreams are strewn across the American landscape. Fred Thompson resigned from "Law & Order." Chris Dodd moved his family from Connecticut to Iowa just for the caucuses. Mitt Romney blew through a fortune. John Edwards campaigned through personal pain. The difference between a presidential candidate and a fool in love is only a matter of Secret Service protection.
For Hillary Clinton, a loss has to be particularly tough. The presidency is not just the ultimate honor for her. It is, as others have suggested, a justification for all she has put up with.
My cards are already on the table. I don't think that Clinton can win the nomination but even if she does, I don't think she will win the general election. That would become apparent as she starts to campaign in states that have yet to see her. The harder she works, the worse she does.
cohenr@washpost.com
Hillary's Diminishing Returns
By Richard Cohen
There is dissension in the Hillary Clinton camp. Top aides have been in arguments, shouting back and forth about differences in strategy. Should Clinton come on strong? Should she go negative? Should she be upbeat and positive? Here's my answer: Stop campaigning.
The evidence is overwhelming that since Super Tuesday, the minute Clinton steps foot in a state, her numbers start to plummet. Of course, Barack Obama has something to do with it. He's a phenomenon, a political version of Roy Hobbs, "The Natural" of Bernard Malamud's wonderful novel, whose physical repose is TV perfect and who will, when the time comes, provide a jarring visual contrast to the much older John McCain. Obama is nearly as good as he thinks he is.
So it could be that Clinton would have lost the Democrat nomination even if she was a gifted politician. But she has no such gift. Her smile is strained. She is contained. She seems unknowable and for all but women like herself, there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her -- all those songs about a suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign.
It might seem surprising that Clinton has turned out to be something other than a brilliant campaigner. But consider her record. Back in 1999, she entered the New York Senate race in the manner of Marie Antoinette entering France -- to be ultimately crowned queen. When Clinton announced an interest in running, every other Democratic candidate -- Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, even Al Sharpton -- took it as an order to vanish. The strongest of these, Rep. Nita Lowey, graciously stepped aside, as if Clinton was the real McCoy and a six-term member of Congress was an undeserving interloper.
Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was happening. Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No matter. She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter. She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. She was first and foremost the wife of Bill and for party leaders and hypocritical feminists -- Lowey was a woman, too, for crying out loud -- she just had to be The One.
With the Democratic senatorial nomination in hand, Clinton was set to go up against Rudy Giuliani. This would have been the great matchup between two suits inflated with little but name recognition, but it never came to pass. Giuliani withdrew on account of prostate cancer and Clinton wound up facing ... can you remember? It was Rick Lazio. Even so, Clinton did not win really big -- 55.3 percent of the vote. Not a landslide.
Six years later, Clinton ran for re-election. Once again, she had no Democratic opponent and in the general, she faced a Republican named John Spencer. He was little known before the election, hardly known during it and so forgotten afterward that I expect a segment of the show "Lost" to be devoted to him. Clinton won in a landslide, 67 percent of the vote. But just two years earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer (D) had gotten 71 percent of the vote -- and no one ever mentions him as a presidential candidate. In many ways, Clinton's a remarkable woman but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician.
Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late and their conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose -- and take the Democratic Party down with them.
Politics can be ugly, not to mention sad. Broken dreams are strewn across the American landscape. Fred Thompson resigned from "Law & Order." Chris Dodd moved his family from Connecticut to Iowa just for the caucuses. Mitt Romney blew through a fortune. John Edwards campaigned through personal pain. The difference between a presidential candidate and a fool in love is only a matter of Secret Service protection.
For Hillary Clinton, a loss has to be particularly tough. The presidency is not just the ultimate honor for her. It is, as others have suggested, a justification for all she has put up with.
My cards are already on the table. I don't think that Clinton can win the nomination but even if she does, I don't think she will win the general election. That would become apparent as she starts to campaign in states that have yet to see her. The harder she works, the worse she does.
cohenr@washpost.com
From Kathy in MO:
Hi Sunny,
I am so nervous about the debate tonight. No one knows which Hillary we are going to see. Will it be the one that said she was honored to be sitting up there with Barack, or will it be crazy, wild-eyed Hillary who compared him to Karl Rove and George Bush and then went on to mock him and his followers??? She is acting desperate and bipolar. Hopefully, it is another sign that her campaign is in its last throes. I just hope that Obama can stay above the fray as he has done in the past. It doesn't make either one of them look presidential to be shouting insults as she as done. She has also attacked his millions of supporters like we are all just idiots following a dream. If she should happen to be the candidate, that is not a very good strategy for uniting the party and getting all these people to follow her. What she has done is exactly what we have said about her all along, she is a divisive figure. None of the states Obama has won, according to her, are important ones. She has won the only ones that will count in the general election!!! All of his followers are crazy cultists. If she is the nominee, I know alot of us will probably hold our noses and vote for her just to keep another Republican out of the White House, but I am convinced that the youth vote will not follow her. They are not loyal Democrats. They are a whole generation inspired by this man. If he is not the candidate, they do not automatically jump enthusiastically to Hillary's camp. They will probably stay home. Hopefully, Ohio and Texas will end her run, and next Tuesday, Obama will be our candidate. Hopefully, she will have the sense to make a graceful exit and begin uniting the party!
Thanks for all you do. Keep inspiring us all!
I am so nervous about the debate tonight. No one knows which Hillary we are going to see. Will it be the one that said she was honored to be sitting up there with Barack, or will it be crazy, wild-eyed Hillary who compared him to Karl Rove and George Bush and then went on to mock him and his followers??? She is acting desperate and bipolar. Hopefully, it is another sign that her campaign is in its last throes. I just hope that Obama can stay above the fray as he has done in the past. It doesn't make either one of them look presidential to be shouting insults as she as done. She has also attacked his millions of supporters like we are all just idiots following a dream. If she should happen to be the candidate, that is not a very good strategy for uniting the party and getting all these people to follow her. What she has done is exactly what we have said about her all along, she is a divisive figure. None of the states Obama has won, according to her, are important ones. She has won the only ones that will count in the general election!!! All of his followers are crazy cultists. If she is the nominee, I know alot of us will probably hold our noses and vote for her just to keep another Republican out of the White House, but I am convinced that the youth vote will not follow her. They are not loyal Democrats. They are a whole generation inspired by this man. If he is not the candidate, they do not automatically jump enthusiastically to Hillary's camp. They will probably stay home. Hopefully, Ohio and Texas will end her run, and next Tuesday, Obama will be our candidate. Hopefully, she will have the sense to make a graceful exit and begin uniting the party!
Thanks for all you do. Keep inspiring us all!
From Elizabeth:
Paul Burka of Texas Monthly, no Obamaniac himself, thinks that
at the current fever pitch of Obamania the Republicans could
lose Texas.
Texas?
February 25, 2008
Et tu, Texas?
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Paul Burka of Texas Monthly is not, or at least has not been, an Obama fan. That makes his take on early voting in Texas that much more interesting. He reports on the tidal wave of early voting, and concludes:
Barack Obama's personality and his message are dominating politics nationwide. The last candidate to stir this kind of feeling was Ronald Reagan in 1980 and before him Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Veteran political observers like me can roll our eyes over someone running for president on a platform of "Hope" and "Change," but nothing is so powerful as an idea, even a vague one, whose time has come. Obama is riding the whirlwind, and if he can make the moment last until November, it is going to sweep out the Republicans, even in Texas.
These numbers are so overwhelming, and the fifteen counties have such a large fraction of the state's registered voters -- 7,815,906 of 12,607,466, or 62% -- that what happens in other 239 counties is unlikely to alter the trend. These numbers have made me a believer. Rick Noriega could defeat John Cornyn. The Democrats can win a majority in the Texas House of Representatives. The consummate irony is that George W. Bush, who made Texas a Republican state on his way in to the presidency, may make it a Democratic state on his way out.
Rasmussen Reports shows HRC still with a one-point lead in Texas. But it also reports that 29% (!) of the people likely to vote in the primary have already done so, and that Obama is winning that group "handily." Recall that HRC won in California entirely on the basis of early voting; among those who voted on Election Day, Obama probably had a small edge. If Obama is winning the early voters an tied overall with a week to go, there's good reason for confidence.
at the current fever pitch of Obamania the Republicans could
lose Texas.
Texas?
February 25, 2008
Et tu, Texas?
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Paul Burka of Texas Monthly is not, or at least has not been, an Obama fan. That makes his take on early voting in Texas that much more interesting. He reports on the tidal wave of early voting, and concludes:
Barack Obama's personality and his message are dominating politics nationwide. The last candidate to stir this kind of feeling was Ronald Reagan in 1980 and before him Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Veteran political observers like me can roll our eyes over someone running for president on a platform of "Hope" and "Change," but nothing is so powerful as an idea, even a vague one, whose time has come. Obama is riding the whirlwind, and if he can make the moment last until November, it is going to sweep out the Republicans, even in Texas.
These numbers are so overwhelming, and the fifteen counties have such a large fraction of the state's registered voters -- 7,815,906 of 12,607,466, or 62% -- that what happens in other 239 counties is unlikely to alter the trend. These numbers have made me a believer. Rick Noriega could defeat John Cornyn. The Democrats can win a majority in the Texas House of Representatives. The consummate irony is that George W. Bush, who made Texas a Republican state on his way in to the presidency, may make it a Democratic state on his way out.
Rasmussen Reports shows HRC still with a one-point lead in Texas. But it also reports that 29% (!) of the people likely to vote in the primary have already done so, and that Obama is winning that group "handily." Recall that HRC won in California entirely on the basis of early voting; among those who voted on Election Day, Obama probably had a small edge. If Obama is winning the early voters an tied overall with a week to go, there's good reason for confidence.
From Hank in NY:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:45 AM
To: 'oped@washpost.com'
Subject: To The Editor
“Lest We Forget”
With all the euphoria and excitement being generated by the 2008 presidential campaigns, it is far too easy to forget that the White House is, and will be occupied by a very dangerous man for the next eleven months. Mr. Bush is already up to his ears in attempting to tie the next President’s hands by making deals with the inept Iraqi government that bypass Congressional oversight and keep American troops in Iraq, and in harms way for decades to come. Bush is at odds with the nation’s Governor’s who want to initiate public work projects in their states to stimulate the economy. The President has shown his contempt for any domestic or international programs that would make cuts in carbon emissions mandatory, which spells disaster for generations of American’s yet unborn. Mr. Bush has continuously vetoed the Child Healthcare Bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and there has not been enough gumption in that body to put the President in his place and override his contemptuous action.
While it is encouraging to see young people turning out in record numbers to support their candidates in the primaries, these new voters, their parents and grand parents, need to take up the clarion call to their elected officials and demand that Bush be stopped from doing any more harm. The next President will face a monumental task cleaning up eight years of George W. Bush’s mess. He or she will also face the issue of restoring America to the high moral ground we need to unite the rest of the world and bring an end to starvation, genocide, pandemics like AIDS and malaria, and reversing the potentially horrifying effects of Global Warming. Mr. Bush has alienated our friends and emboldened our enemies. It is high time we all banded together to make him irrelevant.
To: 'oped@washpost.com'
Subject: To The Editor
“Lest We Forget”
With all the euphoria and excitement being generated by the 2008 presidential campaigns, it is far too easy to forget that the White House is, and will be occupied by a very dangerous man for the next eleven months. Mr. Bush is already up to his ears in attempting to tie the next President’s hands by making deals with the inept Iraqi government that bypass Congressional oversight and keep American troops in Iraq, and in harms way for decades to come. Bush is at odds with the nation’s Governor’s who want to initiate public work projects in their states to stimulate the economy. The President has shown his contempt for any domestic or international programs that would make cuts in carbon emissions mandatory, which spells disaster for generations of American’s yet unborn. Mr. Bush has continuously vetoed the Child Healthcare Bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and there has not been enough gumption in that body to put the President in his place and override his contemptuous action.
While it is encouraging to see young people turning out in record numbers to support their candidates in the primaries, these new voters, their parents and grand parents, need to take up the clarion call to their elected officials and demand that Bush be stopped from doing any more harm. The next President will face a monumental task cleaning up eight years of George W. Bush’s mess. He or she will also face the issue of restoring America to the high moral ground we need to unite the rest of the world and bring an end to starvation, genocide, pandemics like AIDS and malaria, and reversing the potentially horrifying effects of Global Warming. Mr. Bush has alienated our friends and emboldened our enemies. It is high time we all banded together to make him irrelevant.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
From Judy in Westchester:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
¿Quién Es Less Macho?
By MAUREEN DOWD
If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.
How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?
And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.
The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.
Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.
Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.
Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.
Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.
At the University of Texas on Thursday morning, Obama proved that he was not a cowboy in overdrive like W. when he demurred at throwing a spiral because his pass might not be as good as the Longhorn stars’.
After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation.
At first in Austin, Hillary did not channel Jane Austen. She tried once more to cast Obama as a weak sister on his willingness to talk to Raúl Castro.
Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek. To cheers, he said, “I think that it’s important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.”
Hillary tried to rough up Obama on copying his pal’s language even as she copied her husband’s line from 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people in this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration.”
While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side. Getting New Hampshire misty, she said she was “absolutely honored” to be there with him and that “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” (Her campaign defended the originality of the John Edwardsian sentiment, saying it had even been expressed by the likes of Lindsay Lohan). The press hailed the moment as heartfelt, but it was simply Hillary’s calculated attempt to woo women and protect her future in the party — by seeming more collegial. She’s furious that the Chicago kid got in the picture.
Her “My sister, my daughter” flip from muscular to tremulous left everyone confused. Many characterized her emulation of empathy as elegiac and submissive.
But she dispelled that Friday morning when she told Evan Smith, the editor of Texas Monthly, that she will push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, despite her promise. Not for herself, mind you, but for them. “It’s in large measure because both the voters and the elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this,” she said.
Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.
Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.
But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard.
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
¿Quién Es Less Macho?
By MAUREEN DOWD
If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.
How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?
And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.
The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.
Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.
Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.
Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.
Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.
At the University of Texas on Thursday morning, Obama proved that he was not a cowboy in overdrive like W. when he demurred at throwing a spiral because his pass might not be as good as the Longhorn stars’.
After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation.
At first in Austin, Hillary did not channel Jane Austen. She tried once more to cast Obama as a weak sister on his willingness to talk to Raúl Castro.
Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek. To cheers, he said, “I think that it’s important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.”
Hillary tried to rough up Obama on copying his pal’s language even as she copied her husband’s line from 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people in this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration.”
While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side. Getting New Hampshire misty, she said she was “absolutely honored” to be there with him and that “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” (Her campaign defended the originality of the John Edwardsian sentiment, saying it had even been expressed by the likes of Lindsay Lohan). The press hailed the moment as heartfelt, but it was simply Hillary’s calculated attempt to woo women and protect her future in the party — by seeming more collegial. She’s furious that the Chicago kid got in the picture.
Her “My sister, my daughter” flip from muscular to tremulous left everyone confused. Many characterized her emulation of empathy as elegiac and submissive.
But she dispelled that Friday morning when she told Evan Smith, the editor of Texas Monthly, that she will push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, despite her promise. Not for herself, mind you, but for them. “It’s in large measure because both the voters and the elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this,” she said.
Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.
Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.
But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard.
From Judy in Westchester:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
¿Quién Es Less Macho?
By MAUREEN DOWD
If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.
How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?
And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.
The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.
Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.
Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.
Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.
Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.
At the University of Texas on Thursday morning, Obama proved that he was not a cowboy in overdrive like W. when he demurred at throwing a spiral because his pass might not be as good as the Longhorn stars’.
After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation.
At first in Austin, Hillary did not channel Jane Austen. She tried once more to cast Obama as a weak sister on his willingness to talk to Raúl Castro.
Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek. To cheers, he said, “I think that it’s important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.”
Hillary tried to rough up Obama on copying his pal’s language even as she copied her husband’s line from 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people in this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration.”
While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side. Getting New Hampshire misty, she said she was “absolutely honored” to be there with him and that “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” (Her campaign defended the originality of the John Edwardsian sentiment, saying it had even been expressed by the likes of Lindsay Lohan). The press hailed the moment as heartfelt, but it was simply Hillary’s calculated attempt to woo women and protect her future in the party — by seeming more collegial. She’s furious that the Chicago kid got in the picture.
Her “My sister, my daughter” flip from muscular to tremulous left everyone confused. Many characterized her emulation of empathy as elegiac and submissive.
But she dispelled that Friday morning when she told Evan Smith, the editor of Texas Monthly, that she will push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, despite her promise. Not for herself, mind you, but for them. “It’s in large measure because both the voters and the elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this,” she said.
Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.
Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.
But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard.
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
¿Quién Es Less Macho?
By MAUREEN DOWD
If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.
How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?
And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.
The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.
Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.
Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.
Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.
Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.
At the University of Texas on Thursday morning, Obama proved that he was not a cowboy in overdrive like W. when he demurred at throwing a spiral because his pass might not be as good as the Longhorn stars’.
After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation.
At first in Austin, Hillary did not channel Jane Austen. She tried once more to cast Obama as a weak sister on his willingness to talk to Raúl Castro.
Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek. To cheers, he said, “I think that it’s important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.”
Hillary tried to rough up Obama on copying his pal’s language even as she copied her husband’s line from 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people in this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration.”
While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side. Getting New Hampshire misty, she said she was “absolutely honored” to be there with him and that “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” (Her campaign defended the originality of the John Edwardsian sentiment, saying it had even been expressed by the likes of Lindsay Lohan). The press hailed the moment as heartfelt, but it was simply Hillary’s calculated attempt to woo women and protect her future in the party — by seeming more collegial. She’s furious that the Chicago kid got in the picture.
Her “My sister, my daughter” flip from muscular to tremulous left everyone confused. Many characterized her emulation of empathy as elegiac and submissive.
But she dispelled that Friday morning when she told Evan Smith, the editor of Texas Monthly, that she will push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, despite her promise. Not for herself, mind you, but for them. “It’s in large measure because both the voters and the elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this,” she said.
Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.
Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.
But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard.
From Judy in Westchester:
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Audacity of Hopelessness
By FRANK RICH
WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.
It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.
The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.
Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.
But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.
In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.
Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.
As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.
The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.
If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.
The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.
There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.
In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.
What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.
Op-Ed Columnist
The Audacity of Hopelessness
By FRANK RICH
WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.
It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.
The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.
Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.
But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.
In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.
Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.
As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.
The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.
If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.
The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.
There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.
In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.
What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.
Friday, February 22, 2008
From Judy in Westchester:
Op-Ed Columnist
Where’s the Big Idea?
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 9, 2008
Berkeley, Calif.
Skip to next paragraph
Go to Columnist Page » There is plenty for Democrats to admire in the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
They are smart, appealing and politically gifted. High fives are in order. Their success to date represents advances in American society that many would have seen as unthinkable just a few years ago.
There’s actually a lot for Americans of all political persuasions to admire this election season. This is how we change regimes in the U.S. — peacefully. I had a long conversation the other day with a writer from Kenya, Edwin Okong’o, who is visiting the University of California campus here.
He found it difficult to hide his grief as he spoke of the murderous violence that has followed a disputed election in his country. Then he managed a smile. “It’s all about corruption,” he said. “I am always amazed when people say they are leaving the American government because they have to make more money. In my country, you go into the government to make the money.”
But for all its upside, there is something important missing from this year’s presidential campaign. In an era that cries out for real change, John McCain, the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, is selling himself to voters not as the maverick he may once have been, but as a faithful follower of policies the country should be eager to discard.
With the Democrats, we seem obsessed with whether Senator Obama can get his new voters to the polls, and whether Senator Clinton can keep enough cash coming in, and whether there’s an inch or an inch-and-a-half’s worth of difference between their positions on health insurance and the war in Iraq.
Where, in this alleged season of change, is the big idea?
What’s missing in this campaign is a bold vision of where the United States should be heading in these crucially important early years of the 21st century. In their different ways, Senators Clinton and Obama have shown themselves to be inspirational and at times even heroic figures. But neither has offered the vision that this moment in history demands.
We’re excited more by who they are than by what they’ve promised to do.
All the candidates have detailed policy proposals — masterpieces of minutiae.
But do we have any real sense of what Senator Obama will do to stop the stagnation of the middle class and resuscitate the American dream? Do we have any reason to believe that during a Clinton presidency we’ll see a transformation of the nation’s decaying infrastructure? Does John McCain have the stuff to lead us from a long debilitating period of dependence on foreign oil to a new and exciting world of energy efficiency and innovation?
The essential question the candidates should be trying to answer — but that is not even being asked very often — is how to create good jobs in the 21st century. Thirty-seven million Americans are poor, and roughly 60 million others are near-poor. (These are people struggling to make it on incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year for a family of four.)
The middle class is hardly flourishing. In testimony before a House subcommittee last year, Harley Shaiken, a Berkeley professor who is an expert on labor and employment, remarked: “During a period of robust economic growth, record profits and the fastest sustained productivity increases since the 1950s, only a thin slice at the top of the economic heap is enjoying higher living standards.”
Now the country is faced with a possible recession and the likelihood of moving further backward rather than forward on employment.
“We’re building exit ramps from the middle class,” said Mr. Shaiken during an interview. “But what is the path to the middle class for most Americans now? We need to figure out how to resume building entrance ramps.”
The most direct route to the middle class has always been a good job. An obvious potential source of new jobs would be a broad campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — its roads, bridges, schools, levees, water treatment facilities and so forth.
Another area with big job creation potential is the absolutely vital quest to develop alternative sources of energy. That effort should carry the same high national priority that was accorded the Manhattan Project during World War II. I’d even call it Manhattan II.
There are moments in history that demand not just talent in a nation’s leadership, but greatness — men or women with the courage to dream bigger and the ability to convince others that those dreams can be realized.
The presidential candidates don’t seem to be rising to the nation’s many crucial challenges with the sense of urgency and the creative vision that is called for. Not yet, at least.
More Articles in Opinion »
Where’s the Big Idea?
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 9, 2008
Berkeley, Calif.
Skip to next paragraph
Go to Columnist Page » There is plenty for Democrats to admire in the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
They are smart, appealing and politically gifted. High fives are in order. Their success to date represents advances in American society that many would have seen as unthinkable just a few years ago.
There’s actually a lot for Americans of all political persuasions to admire this election season. This is how we change regimes in the U.S. — peacefully. I had a long conversation the other day with a writer from Kenya, Edwin Okong’o, who is visiting the University of California campus here.
He found it difficult to hide his grief as he spoke of the murderous violence that has followed a disputed election in his country. Then he managed a smile. “It’s all about corruption,” he said. “I am always amazed when people say they are leaving the American government because they have to make more money. In my country, you go into the government to make the money.”
But for all its upside, there is something important missing from this year’s presidential campaign. In an era that cries out for real change, John McCain, the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, is selling himself to voters not as the maverick he may once have been, but as a faithful follower of policies the country should be eager to discard.
With the Democrats, we seem obsessed with whether Senator Obama can get his new voters to the polls, and whether Senator Clinton can keep enough cash coming in, and whether there’s an inch or an inch-and-a-half’s worth of difference between their positions on health insurance and the war in Iraq.
Where, in this alleged season of change, is the big idea?
What’s missing in this campaign is a bold vision of where the United States should be heading in these crucially important early years of the 21st century. In their different ways, Senators Clinton and Obama have shown themselves to be inspirational and at times even heroic figures. But neither has offered the vision that this moment in history demands.
We’re excited more by who they are than by what they’ve promised to do.
All the candidates have detailed policy proposals — masterpieces of minutiae.
But do we have any real sense of what Senator Obama will do to stop the stagnation of the middle class and resuscitate the American dream? Do we have any reason to believe that during a Clinton presidency we’ll see a transformation of the nation’s decaying infrastructure? Does John McCain have the stuff to lead us from a long debilitating period of dependence on foreign oil to a new and exciting world of energy efficiency and innovation?
The essential question the candidates should be trying to answer — but that is not even being asked very often — is how to create good jobs in the 21st century. Thirty-seven million Americans are poor, and roughly 60 million others are near-poor. (These are people struggling to make it on incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year for a family of four.)
The middle class is hardly flourishing. In testimony before a House subcommittee last year, Harley Shaiken, a Berkeley professor who is an expert on labor and employment, remarked: “During a period of robust economic growth, record profits and the fastest sustained productivity increases since the 1950s, only a thin slice at the top of the economic heap is enjoying higher living standards.”
Now the country is faced with a possible recession and the likelihood of moving further backward rather than forward on employment.
“We’re building exit ramps from the middle class,” said Mr. Shaiken during an interview. “But what is the path to the middle class for most Americans now? We need to figure out how to resume building entrance ramps.”
The most direct route to the middle class has always been a good job. An obvious potential source of new jobs would be a broad campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — its roads, bridges, schools, levees, water treatment facilities and so forth.
Another area with big job creation potential is the absolutely vital quest to develop alternative sources of energy. That effort should carry the same high national priority that was accorded the Manhattan Project during World War II. I’d even call it Manhattan II.
There are moments in history that demand not just talent in a nation’s leadership, but greatness — men or women with the courage to dream bigger and the ability to convince others that those dreams can be realized.
The presidential candidates don’t seem to be rising to the nation’s many crucial challenges with the sense of urgency and the creative vision that is called for. Not yet, at least.
More Articles in Opinion »
Thursday, February 21, 2008
From Tony in Chicago!
(I rarely forward on any political rants, but this one isn't bad...er)
Liberals believe in clean air, diplomacy, stem cells, living wages, body armor for our troops, government accountability, and that exercising the right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Liberals believe in reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate, and doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse.
Liberals believe in civil rights, the right to privacy, and that evolution and global warming aren’t just theories but incontrovertible scientific facts.
Liberals believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment that (1) prohibits another Bush from ever occupying the White House, and (2) prevents George W. Bush from ever becoming baseball commissioner before he does to our national pastime what he did for America.
Liberals believe in rescuing people from flooded streets and rooftops, even if they’re too poor to vote Republican.
Liberals believe that supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are, and not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals under the outsourced management of incompetent cronies who think they’re running a Taco Bell franchise.
Liberals believe in pheromones, sex ed, solar panels, voting paper trails, the common good, and that, no matter how fascinating a story it may be, a president should never sit around in a state of total paralysis reading "My Pet Goat" while America is under attack.
And above all, liberals believe that it’s time to come together as a country and put a collective boot in the ass of shameless conservative fearmongers, hate merchants, and scapegoaters who are sucking the freedom out of all our souls.
Liberals believe in clean air, diplomacy, stem cells, living wages, body armor for our troops, government accountability, and that exercising the right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Liberals believe in reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate, and doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse.
Liberals believe in civil rights, the right to privacy, and that evolution and global warming aren’t just theories but incontrovertible scientific facts.
Liberals believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment that (1) prohibits another Bush from ever occupying the White House, and (2) prevents George W. Bush from ever becoming baseball commissioner before he does to our national pastime what he did for America.
Liberals believe in rescuing people from flooded streets and rooftops, even if they’re too poor to vote Republican.
Liberals believe that supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are, and not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals under the outsourced management of incompetent cronies who think they’re running a Taco Bell franchise.
Liberals believe in pheromones, sex ed, solar panels, voting paper trails, the common good, and that, no matter how fascinating a story it may be, a president should never sit around in a state of total paralysis reading "My Pet Goat" while America is under attack.
And above all, liberals believe that it’s time to come together as a country and put a collective boot in the ass of shameless conservative fearmongers, hate merchants, and scapegoaters who are sucking the freedom out of all our souls.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
From Judy:
From Judy:
A Badger! We have a son in law who is a Badger - great school! How are you doing on our fund raiser on March 2nd - we should be able to get some new recruits.****Reminder about event!
Fundraiser in Bedford on 3/2 with Ted Sorenson
Judy & Gordon Aydelott * Doni & Robert Belau * Cynthia Brill
Deenie & Frank Brosens * Wendy & Doug Kreeger
Cynthia & James Odell * Sarah & Robert Preston
Renee Smith * Rebecca Riley & David Carden
Invite you to join them for an afternoon discussion featuring
Ted Sorensen
Former special counsel to President Kennedy
benefiting Obama for America
Sunday, March 2, 2008
1:30PM – 3:00PM
The Home of Deenie & Frank Brosens
63 E. Field Drive
Bedford, NY
I'm off to Ohio on Friday for a week - with Wisconsin's win, and a win in Texas and Ohio Obama should be able to wrap this up.
A Badger! We have a son in law who is a Badger - great school! How are you doing on our fund raiser on March 2nd - we should be able to get some new recruits.****Reminder about event!
Fundraiser in Bedford on 3/2 with Ted Sorenson
Judy & Gordon Aydelott * Doni & Robert Belau * Cynthia Brill
Deenie & Frank Brosens * Wendy & Doug Kreeger
Cynthia & James Odell * Sarah & Robert Preston
Renee Smith * Rebecca Riley & David Carden
Invite you to join them for an afternoon discussion featuring
Ted Sorensen
Former special counsel to President Kennedy
benefiting Obama for America
Sunday, March 2, 2008
1:30PM – 3:00PM
The Home of Deenie & Frank Brosens
63 E. Field Drive
Bedford, NY
I'm off to Ohio on Friday for a week - with Wisconsin's win, and a win in Texas and Ohio Obama should be able to wrap this up.
FromERic in Obama Campaign:
Senator Barack Obama’s positions and statements on the Middle East and his strong support of Israel speak loudly for themselves. You should forward his attached positions and statements to all who have raised questions about his support or his advisors and let them judge for themselves. Here are the facts in response to the most common false attacks about Senator Obama’s advisors.
Regarding Zbigniew Brzezinski, it is important to know that he is not an Advisor. We do not call him an advisor and he does not call himself an advisor. He is a supporter and endorser of Senator Obama and they have spoken about the Iraq war once several months ago, a war which they both opposed from the beginning. Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod made very clear in a public phone call that Brzezinski had not and would not ever be advising Senator Obama on Israel and the Palestinians. The only people who call Brzezinski an advisor are the Clinton campaign – in an attempt to attack Barack Obama because they have nothing negative to say about his 100% pro-Israel policy and statements.
George Soros has made a contribution to the campaign, as have 500,000 other people. He is not advising the campaign.
Rob Malley has no official advisory role in the Obama campaign. He is among many people who has given his advice to the campaign via email, including some ideas that Senator Obama disagrees with. He has also given his ideas to other campaigns, hardly qualifying him as an Obama Advisor (corrected recently by Newsweek after being misreported). See Marty Peretz’s piece below stating the same thing.
Please note that Senator Obama’s advisors on Israel and the Middle East are:
Dennis Ross (Clinton Administration Chief Middle East Envoy)
Tony Lake (Former Clinton National Security Advisor)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Denis McDonough (Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle)
Dan Shapiro (Former Aide to Sen. Bill Nelson and Clinton NSC)
Eric Lynn (Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Rep. Peter Deutsch)
Trust Obama on Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN PERETZ , THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 3, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida, of course, was a different story, but back in Iowa there was no need for Barack Obama or any other candidate to worry about the Jewish vote. There are 7,000 Jews in the entire state, including 100 hassidim, who work a kosher meat-packing plant in Pottsville.
Yet speaking in Des Moines on December 18, Obama cut to the essence of the Middle East problem at a level of sophistication that ought to be a relief, if not a rebuke, to those who fret about his lack of foreign policy "experience." Obama raised three questions and answered them in a way that no other Democratic aspirant for the nomination has done.
First: Is Israel truly ready to make the concessions necessary to guarantee that a Palestinian state will be more than a "Potemkin village" - a facade without depth or substance?
"I'm confident," Obama said, "that Israel is ready and willing to make some of these concessions if they have the confidence that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement."
This is exactly right. And it is a sign that President Obama would not pressure only one side (Israel) because the other side (the Palestinians) are immune to American pressure.
On his way out the door in 2000, President Clinton actually had a map color-coding the Old City of Jerusalem: Israeli sovereignty on this street, Palestinian sovereignty on that, like the delirious maps drawn in London and Paris back in the early 20th century that burden the Middle East and Africa to this day. Clinton coerced Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, to accept his map and make other concessions. He got nothing out of the Palestinians.
Yet even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won't work.
THE SECOND question is whether any agreement negotiated with Palestinian leaders can be enforced on the Palestinian people. Most Israelis are ready to make a deal and abide by it. There is no such disposition among Palestinians. Hamas, the party that won the most recent Palestinian elections and that already rules in Gaza, explicitly rejects any deal with Israel.
So what do you do?
Obama's answer, and the right one: You deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure it to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We "have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic, and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with."
Third, is this an opportunity to watch democracy flower in the Middle East, as George W. Bush has dreamed? Well maybe, in 1,000 years or so. Meanwhile, Obama grasps that any accord will require strong leadership and even some "dictating" to the moderates. This is not callous. It is realistic. But only if the Palestinian leadership realizes that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long."
The Israelis have stepped out of their own blind alley of small settlements and lonely outposts planted in densely populated Palestinian areas. Everyone knows how very much actual land Israel will give up so that Palestine can be Palestine. No one yet knows whether the Palestinians are ready to let Israel be Israel.
OBAMA'S POINTS, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by emails saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it were true?), that he took the oath of office as a senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?).
All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that Obama has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.
Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley advises Obama on the Middle East. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the Web, like the ads for Viagra.
Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in the New York Review of Books, is anti-Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro.
Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.
The writer is editor-in-chief of The New Republic.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1202064572983&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Regarding Zbigniew Brzezinski, it is important to know that he is not an Advisor. We do not call him an advisor and he does not call himself an advisor. He is a supporter and endorser of Senator Obama and they have spoken about the Iraq war once several months ago, a war which they both opposed from the beginning. Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod made very clear in a public phone call that Brzezinski had not and would not ever be advising Senator Obama on Israel and the Palestinians. The only people who call Brzezinski an advisor are the Clinton campaign – in an attempt to attack Barack Obama because they have nothing negative to say about his 100% pro-Israel policy and statements.
George Soros has made a contribution to the campaign, as have 500,000 other people. He is not advising the campaign.
Rob Malley has no official advisory role in the Obama campaign. He is among many people who has given his advice to the campaign via email, including some ideas that Senator Obama disagrees with. He has also given his ideas to other campaigns, hardly qualifying him as an Obama Advisor (corrected recently by Newsweek after being misreported). See Marty Peretz’s piece below stating the same thing.
Please note that Senator Obama’s advisors on Israel and the Middle East are:
Dennis Ross (Clinton Administration Chief Middle East Envoy)
Tony Lake (Former Clinton National Security Advisor)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Denis McDonough (Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle)
Dan Shapiro (Former Aide to Sen. Bill Nelson and Clinton NSC)
Eric Lynn (Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Rep. Peter Deutsch)
Trust Obama on Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN PERETZ , THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 3, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida, of course, was a different story, but back in Iowa there was no need for Barack Obama or any other candidate to worry about the Jewish vote. There are 7,000 Jews in the entire state, including 100 hassidim, who work a kosher meat-packing plant in Pottsville.
Yet speaking in Des Moines on December 18, Obama cut to the essence of the Middle East problem at a level of sophistication that ought to be a relief, if not a rebuke, to those who fret about his lack of foreign policy "experience." Obama raised three questions and answered them in a way that no other Democratic aspirant for the nomination has done.
First: Is Israel truly ready to make the concessions necessary to guarantee that a Palestinian state will be more than a "Potemkin village" - a facade without depth or substance?
"I'm confident," Obama said, "that Israel is ready and willing to make some of these concessions if they have the confidence that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement."
This is exactly right. And it is a sign that President Obama would not pressure only one side (Israel) because the other side (the Palestinians) are immune to American pressure.
On his way out the door in 2000, President Clinton actually had a map color-coding the Old City of Jerusalem: Israeli sovereignty on this street, Palestinian sovereignty on that, like the delirious maps drawn in London and Paris back in the early 20th century that burden the Middle East and Africa to this day. Clinton coerced Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, to accept his map and make other concessions. He got nothing out of the Palestinians.
Yet even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won't work.
THE SECOND question is whether any agreement negotiated with Palestinian leaders can be enforced on the Palestinian people. Most Israelis are ready to make a deal and abide by it. There is no such disposition among Palestinians. Hamas, the party that won the most recent Palestinian elections and that already rules in Gaza, explicitly rejects any deal with Israel.
So what do you do?
Obama's answer, and the right one: You deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure it to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We "have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic, and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with."
Third, is this an opportunity to watch democracy flower in the Middle East, as George W. Bush has dreamed? Well maybe, in 1,000 years or so. Meanwhile, Obama grasps that any accord will require strong leadership and even some "dictating" to the moderates. This is not callous. It is realistic. But only if the Palestinian leadership realizes that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long."
The Israelis have stepped out of their own blind alley of small settlements and lonely outposts planted in densely populated Palestinian areas. Everyone knows how very much actual land Israel will give up so that Palestine can be Palestine. No one yet knows whether the Palestinians are ready to let Israel be Israel.
OBAMA'S POINTS, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by emails saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it were true?), that he took the oath of office as a senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?).
All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that Obama has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.
Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley advises Obama on the Middle East. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the Web, like the ads for Viagra.
Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in the New York Review of Books, is anti-Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro.
Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.
The writer is editor-in-chief of The New Republic.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1202064572983&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
From Elizabeth:
Sent: 2/19/2008 10:31:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: The RBC Update: The "faithless delegate" strategy
((((((((((( The RBC Update: The "faithless delegate" strategy )))))))))))
2008.02.19 07:31:19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A senior Clinton campaign official tells Roger Simon that, if
the delegate count is close in the run-up to the convention,
the campaign plans to offer some of Obama's pledged delegates
"the sun, the moon, and the stars" to get them to switch sides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/02/the_faithless_delegate_strategy.php
Subj: The RBC Update: The "faithless delegate" strategy
((((((((((( The RBC Update: The "faithless delegate" strategy )))))))))))
2008.02.19 07:31:19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A senior Clinton campaign official tells Roger Simon that, if
the delegate count is close in the run-up to the convention,
the campaign plans to offer some of Obama's pledged delegates
"the sun, the moon, and the stars" to get them to switch sides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/02/the_faithless_delegate_strategy.php
Monday, February 18, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
From Susan:
OPINION
Subscribe to
The Print Journal
Hillary Agonistes
By ELIZABETH WURTZEL
February 15, 2008; Page A15
I've been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally -- preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in -- will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy -- and possibly even thin thighs -- will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me.
Meanwhile, back in Hillaryland, all I'm promised is Hillarycare.
Of course, that's not fair. Like most Democrats this time around, I feel embarrassed with the richness of both presidential candidates. The first flush of Obamarama, this latest blush of Clintonism -- either would suit me fine. But it's obvious where the real heat is: If candidates were reading material, Barack Obama would be pornography -- he's got everybody aroused, fired up and ready to go. He's turned on the body politic as no one else has in my lifetime. And it's great fun. It's good for politics, it's good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for messianism. Young people are excited, old people are nostalgic, middle-aged people are invigorated. People are so enthralled with Mr. Obama just because it's so easy to be enthralled with him.
Which is to say, there's no accounting for charisma. Some people are simply gifted, and the only way to respond is to clear the way and let them do their magic. But this collective cathexis that created Obamamania is obviously a deep desire for authenticity, and he is the natural repository of our hidden hopes.
Mr. Obama is what the future looks like: a biracial child of divorce, schlepped halfway around the world by a conscientious but confounded single mother, abandoned by a wayward but winning Kenyan father, international but somehow still all-American, a party-hardy Harvard Law graduate. That is, an ordinary extraordinary guy, the dreamiest of all our dreams. If only every kid from a broken home could turn out to be such a fine gentleman! How can we not love him? With a million other things he could be doing, Mr. Obama actually wants to lead us. Us? What did we do to deserve him?
That's how lucky Barack Obama makes us feel.
And then there's the whole Hillary Rodham Clinton situation. What can I say? She's been called the anti-Christ, but her problem right now is that she's the anti-Obama.
There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.
A young woman I respect in northern California describes Hillary as "grotesque." A middle-aged successful artist I know -- herself a bit of a virago -- thinks she's "evil." And my mother, who is admittedly a Republican, is capable of going on and on about how Hillary is in it all for herself, that she'll do anything to win, that she'll kill to push her agenda through, that she's just a disgusting human being, that the sound of Hillary's voice is enough to send her racing for the remote control to turn off her beloved Fox News. The New Republic points out that many Democrats describe Hillary Clinton as "mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power." And they're on her side.
This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody.
Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.
Might she have played it differently? Of course, it's possible. No one can quite explain how it is that a woman who now campaigns on the virtues of electronic health records and streamlined financial-aid forms once gave the 1969 graduation address at Wellesley College that fantasized about "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living." Once upon a lifetime ago, Hillary Clinton could have been Barack Obama! When did she become a technocrat? How is it that Mr. Obama beat her at her own game?
Obviously, Hillary gave something up by marrying Bill. In their particular partnership, Bill is inspiration, Hillary is perspiration, that's the way it goes. She lost her voice, and no, she did not get it back in Manchester, N.H. on Jan. 10. She's been in the business of enabling charismatic men for so long, Hillary Clinton doesn't quite know how to facilitate anything but power itself.
Still, Hillary has won big states like New York, California, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy's native Massachusetts -- and by large margins. Because, finally, the ladies turn out for her, as they did for that surprise win in the New Hampshire primary.
Pollsters say that women are the most important element of the electorate, and hate her though we do, in the end, we can't help ourselves. We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.
And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don't care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.
Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she'll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she'll do that too. She may even cry.
Never underestimate Hillary Clinton.
Miss Wurtzel, a student at Yale Law School, is the author of "Prozac Nation" (Houghton Mifflin, 1994).
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Hillary Agonistes
By ELIZABETH WURTZEL
February 15, 2008; Page A15
I've been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally -- preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in -- will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy -- and possibly even thin thighs -- will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me.
Meanwhile, back in Hillaryland, all I'm promised is Hillarycare.
Of course, that's not fair. Like most Democrats this time around, I feel embarrassed with the richness of both presidential candidates. The first flush of Obamarama, this latest blush of Clintonism -- either would suit me fine. But it's obvious where the real heat is: If candidates were reading material, Barack Obama would be pornography -- he's got everybody aroused, fired up and ready to go. He's turned on the body politic as no one else has in my lifetime. And it's great fun. It's good for politics, it's good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for messianism. Young people are excited, old people are nostalgic, middle-aged people are invigorated. People are so enthralled with Mr. Obama just because it's so easy to be enthralled with him.
Which is to say, there's no accounting for charisma. Some people are simply gifted, and the only way to respond is to clear the way and let them do their magic. But this collective cathexis that created Obamamania is obviously a deep desire for authenticity, and he is the natural repository of our hidden hopes.
Mr. Obama is what the future looks like: a biracial child of divorce, schlepped halfway around the world by a conscientious but confounded single mother, abandoned by a wayward but winning Kenyan father, international but somehow still all-American, a party-hardy Harvard Law graduate. That is, an ordinary extraordinary guy, the dreamiest of all our dreams. If only every kid from a broken home could turn out to be such a fine gentleman! How can we not love him? With a million other things he could be doing, Mr. Obama actually wants to lead us. Us? What did we do to deserve him?
That's how lucky Barack Obama makes us feel.
And then there's the whole Hillary Rodham Clinton situation. What can I say? She's been called the anti-Christ, but her problem right now is that she's the anti-Obama.
There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.
A young woman I respect in northern California describes Hillary as "grotesque." A middle-aged successful artist I know -- herself a bit of a virago -- thinks she's "evil." And my mother, who is admittedly a Republican, is capable of going on and on about how Hillary is in it all for herself, that she'll do anything to win, that she'll kill to push her agenda through, that she's just a disgusting human being, that the sound of Hillary's voice is enough to send her racing for the remote control to turn off her beloved Fox News. The New Republic points out that many Democrats describe Hillary Clinton as "mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power." And they're on her side.
This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody.
Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.
Might she have played it differently? Of course, it's possible. No one can quite explain how it is that a woman who now campaigns on the virtues of electronic health records and streamlined financial-aid forms once gave the 1969 graduation address at Wellesley College that fantasized about "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living." Once upon a lifetime ago, Hillary Clinton could have been Barack Obama! When did she become a technocrat? How is it that Mr. Obama beat her at her own game?
Obviously, Hillary gave something up by marrying Bill. In their particular partnership, Bill is inspiration, Hillary is perspiration, that's the way it goes. She lost her voice, and no, she did not get it back in Manchester, N.H. on Jan. 10. She's been in the business of enabling charismatic men for so long, Hillary Clinton doesn't quite know how to facilitate anything but power itself.
Still, Hillary has won big states like New York, California, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy's native Massachusetts -- and by large margins. Because, finally, the ladies turn out for her, as they did for that surprise win in the New Hampshire primary.
Pollsters say that women are the most important element of the electorate, and hate her though we do, in the end, we can't help ourselves. We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.
And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don't care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.
Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she'll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she'll do that too. She may even cry.
Never underestimate Hillary Clinton.
Miss Wurtzel, a student at Yale Law School, is the author of "Prozac Nation" (Houghton Mifflin, 1994
Subscribe to
The Print Journal
Hillary Agonistes
By ELIZABETH WURTZEL
February 15, 2008; Page A15
I've been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally -- preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in -- will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy -- and possibly even thin thighs -- will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me.
Meanwhile, back in Hillaryland, all I'm promised is Hillarycare.
Of course, that's not fair. Like most Democrats this time around, I feel embarrassed with the richness of both presidential candidates. The first flush of Obamarama, this latest blush of Clintonism -- either would suit me fine. But it's obvious where the real heat is: If candidates were reading material, Barack Obama would be pornography -- he's got everybody aroused, fired up and ready to go. He's turned on the body politic as no one else has in my lifetime. And it's great fun. It's good for politics, it's good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for messianism. Young people are excited, old people are nostalgic, middle-aged people are invigorated. People are so enthralled with Mr. Obama just because it's so easy to be enthralled with him.
Which is to say, there's no accounting for charisma. Some people are simply gifted, and the only way to respond is to clear the way and let them do their magic. But this collective cathexis that created Obamamania is obviously a deep desire for authenticity, and he is the natural repository of our hidden hopes.
Mr. Obama is what the future looks like: a biracial child of divorce, schlepped halfway around the world by a conscientious but confounded single mother, abandoned by a wayward but winning Kenyan father, international but somehow still all-American, a party-hardy Harvard Law graduate. That is, an ordinary extraordinary guy, the dreamiest of all our dreams. If only every kid from a broken home could turn out to be such a fine gentleman! How can we not love him? With a million other things he could be doing, Mr. Obama actually wants to lead us. Us? What did we do to deserve him?
That's how lucky Barack Obama makes us feel.
And then there's the whole Hillary Rodham Clinton situation. What can I say? She's been called the anti-Christ, but her problem right now is that she's the anti-Obama.
There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.
A young woman I respect in northern California describes Hillary as "grotesque." A middle-aged successful artist I know -- herself a bit of a virago -- thinks she's "evil." And my mother, who is admittedly a Republican, is capable of going on and on about how Hillary is in it all for herself, that she'll do anything to win, that she'll kill to push her agenda through, that she's just a disgusting human being, that the sound of Hillary's voice is enough to send her racing for the remote control to turn off her beloved Fox News. The New Republic points out that many Democrats describe Hillary Clinton as "mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power." And they're on her side.
This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody.
Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.
Might she have played it differently? Of course, it's possible. No one can quite explain how it is that a woman who now campaigns on the virtues of electronic health records and streamlined financial-aid forms once gave the 1969 graduation address at Wellesley College that fantasized about "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living." Once upon a lifetime ago, Hillary Clinton could have been Barack Obama! When did she become a technocrat? How is it that Mr. Obama beat her at her own game?
Obviously, Hillary gave something up by marrying Bill. In their particular partnership, Bill is inspiration, Hillary is perspiration, that's the way it goes. She lost her voice, and no, she did not get it back in Manchester, N.H. on Jan. 10. She's been in the business of enabling charismatic men for so long, Hillary Clinton doesn't quite know how to facilitate anything but power itself.
Still, Hillary has won big states like New York, California, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy's native Massachusetts -- and by large margins. Because, finally, the ladies turn out for her, as they did for that surprise win in the New Hampshire primary.
Pollsters say that women are the most important element of the electorate, and hate her though we do, in the end, we can't help ourselves. We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.
And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don't care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.
Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she'll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she'll do that too. She may even cry.
Never underestimate Hillary Clinton.
Miss Wurtzel, a student at Yale Law School, is the author of "Prozac Nation" (Houghton Mifflin, 1994).
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Hillary Agonistes
By ELIZABETH WURTZEL
February 15, 2008; Page A15
I've been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally -- preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in -- will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy -- and possibly even thin thighs -- will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me.
Meanwhile, back in Hillaryland, all I'm promised is Hillarycare.
Of course, that's not fair. Like most Democrats this time around, I feel embarrassed with the richness of both presidential candidates. The first flush of Obamarama, this latest blush of Clintonism -- either would suit me fine. But it's obvious where the real heat is: If candidates were reading material, Barack Obama would be pornography -- he's got everybody aroused, fired up and ready to go. He's turned on the body politic as no one else has in my lifetime. And it's great fun. It's good for politics, it's good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for messianism. Young people are excited, old people are nostalgic, middle-aged people are invigorated. People are so enthralled with Mr. Obama just because it's so easy to be enthralled with him.
Which is to say, there's no accounting for charisma. Some people are simply gifted, and the only way to respond is to clear the way and let them do their magic. But this collective cathexis that created Obamamania is obviously a deep desire for authenticity, and he is the natural repository of our hidden hopes.
Mr. Obama is what the future looks like: a biracial child of divorce, schlepped halfway around the world by a conscientious but confounded single mother, abandoned by a wayward but winning Kenyan father, international but somehow still all-American, a party-hardy Harvard Law graduate. That is, an ordinary extraordinary guy, the dreamiest of all our dreams. If only every kid from a broken home could turn out to be such a fine gentleman! How can we not love him? With a million other things he could be doing, Mr. Obama actually wants to lead us. Us? What did we do to deserve him?
That's how lucky Barack Obama makes us feel.
And then there's the whole Hillary Rodham Clinton situation. What can I say? She's been called the anti-Christ, but her problem right now is that she's the anti-Obama.
There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.
A young woman I respect in northern California describes Hillary as "grotesque." A middle-aged successful artist I know -- herself a bit of a virago -- thinks she's "evil." And my mother, who is admittedly a Republican, is capable of going on and on about how Hillary is in it all for herself, that she'll do anything to win, that she'll kill to push her agenda through, that she's just a disgusting human being, that the sound of Hillary's voice is enough to send her racing for the remote control to turn off her beloved Fox News. The New Republic points out that many Democrats describe Hillary Clinton as "mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power." And they're on her side.
This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody.
Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.
Might she have played it differently? Of course, it's possible. No one can quite explain how it is that a woman who now campaigns on the virtues of electronic health records and streamlined financial-aid forms once gave the 1969 graduation address at Wellesley College that fantasized about "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living." Once upon a lifetime ago, Hillary Clinton could have been Barack Obama! When did she become a technocrat? How is it that Mr. Obama beat her at her own game?
Obviously, Hillary gave something up by marrying Bill. In their particular partnership, Bill is inspiration, Hillary is perspiration, that's the way it goes. She lost her voice, and no, she did not get it back in Manchester, N.H. on Jan. 10. She's been in the business of enabling charismatic men for so long, Hillary Clinton doesn't quite know how to facilitate anything but power itself.
Still, Hillary has won big states like New York, California, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy's native Massachusetts -- and by large margins. Because, finally, the ladies turn out for her, as they did for that surprise win in the New Hampshire primary.
Pollsters say that women are the most important element of the electorate, and hate her though we do, in the end, we can't help ourselves. We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.
And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don't care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.
Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she'll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she'll do that too. She may even cry.
Never underestimate Hillary Clinton.
Miss Wurtzel, a student at Yale Law School, is the author of "Prozac Nation" (Houghton Mifflin, 1994
Friday, February 15, 2008
From Leonore:
Dear New York Women for Obama and Men too!
Please click link below to see our fantastic NY Women for Obama Rally on Saturday, Feb 2, at Merchants Gate, Columbus Circle, featuring special guests and speakers Judine Somerville, Marsha Andrews and Marvis Martin, Leonore Blitz, Sarah Haile-Mariam, Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, Samantha Power, Kerry Butler, Frances Kissling, Heidi Crebo-Rediker, Minister Sylvia Kinard, Maddy Hyatt and produced by Margo Lion. AND SPECIAL THANKS TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND DIRECTOR, Ana Carril-Grumberg.
We had over 800 at the Rally and excellent press coverage.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VJGHht8AH-k
FIRED UP AND READY TO GO, and we need your HELP for the next primaries. If you have not signed up yet, please do, for virtual phone banking, which you can do at your home, or come to one of our phone banking parties, to dial undecided voters in Ohio and Texas AND we need more volunteers to travel to Ohio or Texas for the March 4 Primaries to Get Out the Vote, please contact Volunteer Coordinator Anna Lewis, acrlewis@mac.com.
THANKS TO ALL, FOR YOUR HELP TO ELECT BARACK OBAMA THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
YES WE CAN! Have a lovely "Presidents' Weekend."
Leonore Blitz and New York Women for Obama
Please click link below to see our fantastic NY Women for Obama Rally on Saturday, Feb 2, at Merchants Gate, Columbus Circle, featuring special guests and speakers Judine Somerville, Marsha Andrews and Marvis Martin, Leonore Blitz, Sarah Haile-Mariam, Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, Samantha Power, Kerry Butler, Frances Kissling, Heidi Crebo-Rediker, Minister Sylvia Kinard, Maddy Hyatt and produced by Margo Lion. AND SPECIAL THANKS TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND DIRECTOR, Ana Carril-Grumberg.
We had over 800 at the Rally and excellent press coverage.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VJGHht8AH-k
FIRED UP AND READY TO GO, and we need your HELP for the next primaries. If you have not signed up yet, please do, for virtual phone banking, which you can do at your home, or come to one of our phone banking parties, to dial undecided voters in Ohio and Texas AND we need more volunteers to travel to Ohio or Texas for the March 4 Primaries to Get Out the Vote, please contact Volunteer Coordinator Anna Lewis, acrlewis@mac.com.
THANKS TO ALL, FOR YOUR HELP TO ELECT BARACK OBAMA THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
YES WE CAN! Have a lovely "Presidents' Weekend."
Leonore Blitz and New York Women for Obama
Saturday, February 9, 2008
From Kathy in MO:
I do plan to continue my calling with MoveOn. It is really easy if you have a computer and phone by each other. They feed you numbers of supporters to call in various states. You can make quite a few calls in a pretty short time.
I am really worried about this delegate thing in MI and FL and the whole superdelegate junk. It is all so Un-Democratic. I am afraid it is going to make people angry and split the party. I am glad there are petitions and I am glad the media is picking up on this. This delegate problem goes totally against the will of the people The fact that we might not have a nominee until late August is also very troubling. McCain can be campaigning away for months and months with Obama and Clinton still battling it out. This could be ugly. Why do we have to make things to difficult in a year when the Dems should have an easy run at the White House???? The only consolation is the more people hear from McCain, the more they don't like him!!! Conversely, the more people meet and hear Obama, the more they like him! Obama just has to do well in the next couple of rounds!
One of my big fears is that the new, young, energized voters who are supporting Obama will stay home if Clinton is the candidate. Lifelong Dems know we have to support the candidate no matter who they are because the alternative is four more years of continuing Bush's failed policies. However, I don't think these young supporters necessarily see themselves as Dems. They are following the man who inspires them. I don't think Clinton will inspire these people to stay involved. There are so many ways this could all get screwed up in the fall.
They just cannot award those delegates to Clinton from MI and FL. They may have voted, but all of the names were not on all of the ballots. How was that a fair primary election? You just cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If they hand the nomination to Clinton, I am afraid there will be alot of angry Dems who will stay home!
I am sorry to be so negative. I have just seen the Dems blow it too many times.
Hang in there!
I am really worried about this delegate thing in MI and FL and the whole superdelegate junk. It is all so Un-Democratic. I am afraid it is going to make people angry and split the party. I am glad there are petitions and I am glad the media is picking up on this. This delegate problem goes totally against the will of the people The fact that we might not have a nominee until late August is also very troubling. McCain can be campaigning away for months and months with Obama and Clinton still battling it out. This could be ugly. Why do we have to make things to difficult in a year when the Dems should have an easy run at the White House???? The only consolation is the more people hear from McCain, the more they don't like him!!! Conversely, the more people meet and hear Obama, the more they like him! Obama just has to do well in the next couple of rounds!
One of my big fears is that the new, young, energized voters who are supporting Obama will stay home if Clinton is the candidate. Lifelong Dems know we have to support the candidate no matter who they are because the alternative is four more years of continuing Bush's failed policies. However, I don't think these young supporters necessarily see themselves as Dems. They are following the man who inspires them. I don't think Clinton will inspire these people to stay involved. There are so many ways this could all get screwed up in the fall.
They just cannot award those delegates to Clinton from MI and FL. They may have voted, but all of the names were not on all of the ballots. How was that a fair primary election? You just cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If they hand the nomination to Clinton, I am afraid there will be alot of angry Dems who will stay home!
I am sorry to be so negative. I have just seen the Dems blow it too many times.
Hang in there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)