I normally would put this in the community blog, but I don't want to revive a comatose subject that is hurting our candidate.
Almost two weeks ago, Bill Moyers interviewed Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This was Rev. Wright's first interview in his publicity tour for a book that's scheduled to release in October (yea, five months from now). In the interview, Rev. Wright does a good job at defending himself and his comments. Of course, since then, we all know that he went on to make more offensive comments and suggest that Barack is just another politician saying what he has to say to win.
But before Rev. Wright finished up his Throw Barack Under the Bus Tour, Bill Moyers commented on Rev. Wright's comments. Very interesting analysis. I'm glad that Bill Moyers attemps to rationally understand a very emotionally complex situation. This makes me hopeful that we can all reach a common understanding - between the races, ages, socioeconomic classes, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqCyMU3mfo
Lately, I have been having conversations (by phone and through email) with quite a few family members about Barack. Many of them are already supporters of Barack so these conversations are quite lovely. But I also have a couple relatives who are either on the fence about voting at all or they are just extremely doubtful about Barack's chances of winning the Dem nomination/general election. Still. Even though Barack is leading Hillary in every category that matters.
Below is a recent email exchange between my Uncle and I. Even though I get very frustrated with people whose opinions completely ignore the facts (e.g., my smart relatives), at least defending Barack in regular conversation helps prepare me for phonebanking. (There's always a silver lining if we look hard enough.)
fromJara
to Uncle Jeff* (*name has been changed to protect privacy)dateThu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:13 PM
subjectHillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan
So...Hillary claims Barack should reject and denounce Minister Farrakhan - or anyone who is remotely associated with Farrakhan? Well, how come she hasn't rejected and denounced PA's governor for openly praising Farrakhan and the N.O.I.? I guess she forgave Gov. Rendell for this lack of judgment in exchange for his promise to deliver PA to her.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
_________________________________________________________
from Uncle Jeff
toJara
dateThu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:03 PM
subjectRE: Hillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan
Jara, Unfortunately, Senator Obama has lost the Democratic nomination for President. The writing is on the wall...he and his campaign have been throughly beaten the last two months by Senator Clinton. Additionally, he can't continue his passive response to the neo-conservative talk radio, minor/major network news outlets and 527 splinter groups who will smash in his head with an effective misinformation campaign. Lately, he looks like he is in-over-his-head...his inability to squash the "association" attacks, patriotism challenges, and generalization of small town voters has been too damaging to him. I know you - so it is a given you will disagree. Politics was my major in college and my independence status allows for an objective opinion. And, it is only my opinion... Please don't get too mad, Uncle Jeff
_____________________________________________________________________________
to Uncle Jeff
dateFri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:18 AM
subjectRe: Hillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan
Uncle Jeff,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
to Jara
dateFri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:56 AM
ok, you win because your analysis is better than mine. And, the facts/numbers are on your side. However, I am speaking from 40+ years of experience in seeing the destruction of highly qualified minority candidates. You ain't seen nothing yet..."certain people or forces" are going to destroy him... I don't want it to happen - but it is coming for sure.
I received this in my inbox today. I don't know if it's real, but it sounds like it. If it is, let's spread around and show how the MSM is distorting the truth about Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 11, 2007 Jodi Kantor The New York Times 9 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036-3959 Dear Jodi: Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met. For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, "Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?" I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed. I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed. Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that. As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy. I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office. Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years. The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth. Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie! Sincerely and respectfully yours, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. , Senior Pastor Trinity United Church of Christ
Redemption Along the High Road
Why Obama Should Not Match Clinton’s Tricks
By Melissa Harris-Lacewell
TheRoot.com
Updated: 7:28 AM ET Mar 5, 2008
Barack Obama is often compared to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because of his soaring rhetoric and charismatic grace. But on Tuesday I night I realized that Obama is more like King in another way: He is leading a 21st Century non-violent, political campaign.
Over the past week the kitchen sink came flying at Obama, the political equivalent of Selma tear gas and vicious Birmingham dogs. The Clinton campaign tried painting Obama with the “scary Muslim” label by releasing a photo of him in Somali dress. Hillary whined that she was being treated unfairly during the debates, even as she piled on in a ruthless and unwarranted exchange that floated the suggestion that Barack was an anti-Semite.She ignored her decades of political entanglements with dozens of indicted and convicted felons while charging Obama with having secret negotiations with Canada to assuage fears about his stance on NAFTA. She declared that because she was a woman, her Presidency would represent change, even though her current fighting tactics and those she would resort to in a battle against McCain are recycled tricks from her eight years of living in the White House.
Many Obama supporters are angry and desperately want Barack to fight back. Time to pick up the mud and get to slingin’! But Barack is asking us to do something different. He is asking us to trust that he is tough enough to absorb the blows and remain firmly planted on the political high road he is trying to blaze for the country. Sound familiar? Dr. King understood the natural human instinct to defend oneself against attack. But he believed that only by not reciprocating with viciousness can people reveal their attackers for what they are and create a more just world.
When Obama made the choice to run for President, he did something that Hillary Clinton lacked the courage to do in 2004. He decided to seek the Presidency even though it was not yet “his turn.” Four years ago Hillary Clinton stayed safely ensconced in the Senate even though Americans were suffering from worsening educational outcomes, accelerating environmental degradation and the deepening failure of our war efforts under W’s administration.Rather than challenge an incumbent President, Hillary bided her time and waited for an open seat race. When she announced her candidacy it was because she felt nearly assured of an easy path to victory.
Obama could have followed Clinton’s lead and simply waited until he had a less formidable opponent. His fierce urgency was not driven solely by a desire to change policy, but also by the need to change our politics. He saw a demobilized and demoralized electorate that no longer believes their voices matter. By getting into the race he called cynical voters to their higher and better selves. For six weeks this movement of a new American politics has swept up voters of every demographic and in every region. And over the past week it has been severely tested.
On Monday night I had dinner with my friend and colleague James Cone, the father of black liberation theology. I expressed to him my fears that the smear machine would defeat Barack and that it might be time to fight back with every dirty secret and low tactic possible.
Cone put down his fork, looked at me unblinking and said, “Melissa, you must remember that undeserved suffering is redemptive.”
We cannot abandon the high road just because it is rocky. We must peer even harder into our unknowable future to try to see a beloved community that is outlined there. Nobody promised us a crystal stair, but it is time to keep climbing.
http://melissaharrislacewell.com/Blog/?p=46
---------------------------------------
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies Princeton University
034 Corwin Hall Princeton, NJ 08544
Tel: 609.258.9171
www.melissaharrislacewell.com
I just read a NYT article by Maureen Dowd, who has written articles that I've greatly enjoyed in the past. The article discusses how this race is quickly shaping up to be the "Duel of the Historical Guilts", as in who has it worse - women or blacks?Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/opinion/05dowd.html?em&ex=1204952400&en=b939969e7f0792da&ei=5087%0AAlthough I know Maureen is reporting "just the facts" without inserting much of her personal opinion here, reading the article still managed to irritate me - mostly because I know the situation has come down to this in many voters' minds. I'm growing very tired of Hillary supporters acting like not voting for her or bringing her past record up are crimes against women. They are doing a big disservice to the "women are equal" cause with their constant whining, complaining, and bitching that Hillary is being attacked whenever her opponents point out a flaw in her arguments. I wish those Hillary-supporters who are always crying sexism would look up the definition of "sexism". It's not sexist to disagree with a woman. It's not sexist to think a woman isn't right for a job when there are plenty of non-gender-related reasons that demonstrate her unworthiness. It's not sexist to dislike a woman's combative personality. It's not sexist to ask that a woman be consistent in her campaign message and her policy positions. It's not sexist to ask that a woman be held accountable for her past and present actions. It's not sexist for us to use a woman's past as an indicator of what she will do in the future. It is, however, sexist to assume a woman is the best candidate simply because she has a vagina. It is sexist to imply a woman will be a better president because she's inherently more sympathetic and nurturing than a man. It is sexist to always assume that if someone doesn't like a particular woman, it must be because she's a woman (maybe it's just that the particular woman is unlikeable). It is sexist to assume that a woman is qualified to do her husband's job because they bounced ideas off of each other (isn't that what most married couples do?). It is sexist to force the media to go softer on a woman because she's a woman. It is sexist to insist on double standards under the pretext that you're fighting to erase double standards. It is sexist to vote for a candidate because she shares your gender/sex. It is sexist to expect others to vote for a candidate because they share the same gender/sex. And finally, it is *extremely* sexist to constantly refer to your gender as a qualification for why you SHOULD be president, HILLARY.If Barack were a woman, I'd still vote for him (well, her) because I'd be voting for the better *person*.Hillary's "feminist" supporters keep trying to make this race about a white woman vs. a black man for president. This is becoming feminist movement vs. civil rights movement 2.0. This is obviously a diversionary tactic meant to keep us off the scent of Hillary's inferior candidacy. This race isn't about sex vs. race. It's about old politics vs. new politics, misrepresentation vs. transparency, bullying tactics vs. diplomacy, mistaken judgment vs. sound judgment, lying vs. honesty. I hope Obama addresses this soon and doesn't continue to allow Hillary to establish the parameters of this race on her (sexist) terms.
Here's an excellent debate between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris Lacewell that explores the topics of the historical context of gender vs. race in America and how gender and race are factoring into this presidential race. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this topic.
Debate part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQkzgr8kXDcDebate part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4MnThZ1lT0&feature=related Debate part 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S2-Ba7P8n4&feature=related
Debate part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJuuHrKcrSg&feature=related
2025 # of delegates needed to win Democratic nomination
1202 # of Barack's pledged delegates to date
823 # of delegates Barack needs to get nomination
Please donate $8.23 (in honor of the 823 delegates Barack needs to win the nomination) to my fundraising campaign for Barack.
Contribute your spare CHANGE in exCHANGE for real CHANGE we can believe in '08!
Thanks!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/Jaradan
This interview with Tavis Smiley was on October 18, 2007. In it, he describes his campaign strategy and the difficulties that he faces as a presidential candidate. As you'll notice, this interview was just five short months ago. What happened between then and now to have Tavis hating so hard on Barack? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but me thinks someone has been paid off by Hillary Clinton. (I just found out that Tavis has a deal with Exxon...
Regardless of Tavis' recent hateration, he did conduct a wonderful interview with Barack. Check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXNGg38UcxU&feature=related
Here's a comprehensive comparison of Barack's and Hillary's senatorial records:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges. I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.
I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.
I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.
Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators.
I started with Sen. Clinton.
I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.
Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.
I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.
For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."
Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.
In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.
The difference is in the scope and the approach.
Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.
Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?
How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.
Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.
A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).
Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.
In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.
Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.
Four bills on energy including • S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil; •S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.
Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.
Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.
On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).
Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:
S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes. S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day". S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon. S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes, and for other purposes. S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research. S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes. S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes. S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes. S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.
and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.
Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.
Now let's look more closely at Obama.
I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education. On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008 S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.
On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;
On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)
On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.
As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.
Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.
In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year.
Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.
It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.
Yes, We Can!
Clinton's Successes: S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill) Passed in the Senate: S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day". S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah. S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany. S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts. S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies. S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur. S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes. S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel. S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace. S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama's Success: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting. S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder. S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness. S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs. S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan. S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. Senate Resolutions Passed: S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
I had a dream last night about a pro-Obama TV commercial. At the beginning of the ad, there's Bill and Hillary circa '92 giving their victory speech, looking fresh and young and riding the wave of CHANGE. Juxtapose that with present-day Hillary and Bill, looking older (but not wiser) and grandparentish. Then there's a relay race with a team of runners wearing red, white, and blue track suits (with stars over the heart, of course). Runner after runner advances the baton until it gets to one runner who's reluctant to pass the torch....to Obama. Who's the runner reluctantly passing the baton? Why, it's a Hillary look-a-like. :-) After a brief inner struggle, the Hillary look-a-like runner passes the baton to Obama who brings it on home to cross the finish line.
"OBAMA '08 Change Means Progress" flashes across the screen.
I woke up smiling.
I'm not sure if someone has posted this yet, but I saw this video on Youtube.com:
A little boy singing the song he wrote "Hey There Obama"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YculW_s7-Sw&feature=related
Obama, please sign this little boy's detention slip!
Jan. 9, 2008
Dear Obama,I'm extremely proud of your accomplishments in your presidential campaign thus far. The recent New Hampshire primary had me worried for you, though.I'd like to offer you some thoughts/suggestions/key strategy points on your current campaign and campaign message:1. Hillary is stealing your words. Yes, the same words she claimed mean "no action". This message is persuading people. Please address this directly either by releasing a public comment or in your next debate with her.2. Make it very clear (but diplomatically) that Hillary is using your campaign for ideas (copying your website, your message, etc.).3. Point out to the American public that Hillary has a stronger history of "flip-flopping" in her senatorial voting record than you do. It's very urgent that you point this out early. Be specific with your examples of her voting Yes to support Bush going into Iraq, but voting No after the November 2006 elections (after public opinion showed her we're mostly against it).4. Please, please, please address her point that you lack "experience". Challenge her assertion that she's been a "change agent for 37 years". Where? What changes has she implemented? Her 8 years as a First Lady do not count as presidential experience. She's trying to attach her resume to Bill's. It's all very subtle but it's convincing older people who are only voting for Hillary because of Bill's glory days in the White House.5. Stress that a candidate is supposed to broadcast their own personal beliefs/values and the people will come if that message appeals to them. Meanwhile, Hillary is obviously chasing votes by changing (flip-flopping alert!) her campaign message every 2 days (after she notices which message is most popular), even if that means copying you - the very candidate she's accusing of stirring up "dangerous hope".Evidence that she's chasing popularity:"Over the last week, I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," Clinton said to a crowd of young supporters."http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/09/primary.main/She shouldn't be "(finding) her own voice" this late in the game. She's listening to YOUR voice and finding a way to imitate you. Don't let her get away with this.6. How does a person who's trailing you by 9 points in pre-primary polls all of a sudden win a 3% majority of the votes over 2nd place? The Bradley effect should've been weaker in New Hampshire than in Iowa.I believe she's stealing votes - the same way Bush did in the 2000 and 2004 elections. It's very important that you not underestimate what she's willing to do in order to win the Democratic nomination. Please safeguard your campaign against this. The American public will not react favorably if we find out yet another election has been rigged. It will crush our hope/belief in the fairness of our democratic system. Find out if (or how) she's doing this. Howard Dean is aware of how this can happen. (I have a family member in politics who has met with him several times.)7. If you haven't already, please purchase and view a copy of the excellent documentary "Hacking Democracy" to get a better idea of what happened in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections (in Florida and Ohio). Have all of your closest campaign advisers watch the documentary, as well.8. Lastly, continue to use Michelle on the campaign trail. She's a very persuasive Obama supporter. People respond to her message/speeches. She's a great orator, is very easy to relate to, and excellent at making digs against Hillary that are oh so subtle. Please, please take all of these suggestions into consideration. My mom is a HUGE supporter of you and I really wouldn't be able to stand it if she were let down. She really believes you can win. I hope for your win, but am not expecting it. I want to be wrong.Sincerely,Jaradan
