Sarah Palin’s performance tonight during the Vice – Presidential debate had no substance. She sidestepped responding to questions on critical issues facing our nation and speaking about how McCain and Palin are mavericks.
One of the reasons Governor Palin sidestepped many of the specific questions asked during the debate was because the McCain/Palin policies are so similar to the Bush/Chaney policies. For example, cutting taxes for the executive fat cats on Wall Street who work for the financial institutions and oil companies. Another reason why she refused to answer specific questions was due to her lack of knowledge of the critical issues facing of country. If this was an exam on reciting information without thinking, she gets a B-. America needs a thinker not one who can recite information.
How can McCain and Palin run on being a maverick while advocating deregulation of our health care system and neglecting the millions of American voters and taxpayers who are currently out of work. The only thing Sarah did tonight was reinforce what many American voters and taxpayers already know, the McCain/Palin ticket do not have an economic plan to create jobs, nor do they have an exit plan to leave Iraq. McCain and Palin might be mavericks, but are mavericks on the wrong issues. Such as, cutting spending, lowering taxes for corporations, and asking American taxpayers to fend for themselves when buying health insurance without talking about how they would create jobs for the millions who are unemployed.
The McCain and Palin ticket offer the same Bush/McCain tax policies with no specific plans to create jobs, offer affordable health insurance, nor an exit plan to leave Iraq. The smoke and mirrors campaign of McCain/Palin ticket is about telling American voters they will do this and that, but after the smoke and mirror show is done will have nothing to offer the American voters who are craving something different. Enough is Enough. You both do not get it.
Please take time to write into your local and national media outlets about the leadership Obama is demonstrating in his detailed plan for our Economy... This Wall Street meltdown this week represents our chance to rise above lipstick, celebrity nonsense and lies. We need to show America that Barack Obama has the leadership, vision, inteligence and empathy to make all of our lives better and get the Country on the right track. Here's what I sent out today:
TO: Ediotrial Board
The McCain Campaign in the past month or so has tried to sweep real issues and real problems we Americans face by trying to focus us on celebrities, lipstick and blatant falsification of facts. They've sacrificed the substance and experience of their own party for publicity stunts and the creation of their own celebrity. Well, this week, they found out it won't work. The economy and the ruinous policies of the Republican Party have caused the largest wake-up call America has had since 9/11. Rather than pretend our "economic fundamentals" are sound, as John "Maverick" McCain said yesterday, Barack Obama delivered a clear, detailed plan to provide new leadership and action to actually fix the problems we face as a nation. I urge you as a member of the media to help get this Presidential Campaign back on track and discuss the substance of Obama's plans, the consistent vision and leadership he has offered throughout the past 18 months and his laser focus on the needs of ALL Americans: restoring our middle class, reducing taxes for 95% of Americans and rebuilding our standing in the world. The nonsense of attack ads, the theatrics of a dangerously under-qualified Vice Presidential candidate, and the out-of-touch, inconsistent declarations from McCain are not going to help Americans make an informed choice in this election, nor are they going to help us get out of this mess that the Republicans and the Bush Administration have put us in.Sincerely Yours,Clifford Sharples
People, people, people...
16 years ago, there was a campaign taking the exact direction as this one...and the answer to it was "It's the economy STUPID"....fool me once as they say. The Clinton's knew better than and we know better now. ...don't get caught up in Palinmania...it's not about her. It's not about him, it's about the issues that face this country and world and where we want to go with it.
It's about our civil rights
It's about our standing in the world
It's about war or peace
It's about the economy
though I didn't like the "stupid" ending to that exortation years ago and I don't like it now any better, we certainly would be "stupid" if we fell for this old trick bag from the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and McCain.
I urge you to keep it substantitive and force anyone who engages you to do the same.
People who make the claim that Obama is all style, no substance fail to think about the issue in terms of the famous Marshall McLuhan quote, "the medium is the message." Wikipedia provides us with a good interpretation of the quote saying that, "the form of a medium imbeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived, creating subtle change over time."
The notion of style vs. substance creates something a false dichotomy when talking about politics in general, and presidential elections in particular. How a politician approaches and engages with the electorate says as much about their prowess and fitness for office, as does what is said. Certainly no one is going to argue that style is more important than substance, but part of governance is one's ability to bring people to some kind of working consensus on moving forward and in this regard style plays a not insubstantial role.
Case in point: Barack Obama. Part of what is so engaging and is propelling Obama's journey to the White House is the impact he has on people. One is hard pressed to ignore the fact that Obama has managed to capture the hearts and minds of large proportion of the electorate that have traditionally been very resistant to engagement, and those that have been resistant to engagement by a Democrat. A large part of how he has done so has to do with the style of his campaign, everything from his cool (meant in the positive sense of the term) demenour, to the contemporary references thatare littered throughout his campaign, to the campaign's strong online presence as typified by mybarackobama.com's Facebook structure. Those engaged voters are bouyed by the sense that they are interacting with a different kind of campaig, precisely because they are interacting with a different kind of campaign. This investment in style is paying off dividends that Exxon's shareholders would wax envious over.
But, apart from the different stylistic elements of Obama's campaign apparatus, the style that Obama utilizes in presenting himself also plays a large role in his success to date. Underneath the cynicism and skepticism, much of which is entirely healthy, people do really want to believe in something. Belief is, in many ways, the bedrock of both our everyday lives and the meta-trajectory we envision for our lives. Most people do what they do, day in and day out, because they believe doing so is meaningful and that, further out, their actions can have an impact on their lives and the world around them. Whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, we are driven by the notion that the decisions we make matter and that we ought to think about them in terms of how we wish to live our lives and impact the lives of those around us. The very nature of Barack Obama's campaign reifnorces this foundation and then challenges us to push the boundaries we impose for ourselves about the parameters and limits of our decisions. Obama does most of this stylistically in the body of his rhetoric, his delivery, the images of his campaign, and the way that campaign makes its supporters feel.
Extraordinary things are only possible when people are provided the possibility to believe that they are, when they feel the possibilities in their gut, are moved to get involved because they can't sit still for the excitement that is coursing through their bodies and souls. This is the process of winning hearts and minds, and it is, contra the style vs. substance argument, inherently a part of our politics. It is not just the politics of hope, it is the politics of possibilities, and without it we don't go much of anywhere.
So the next time someone tells you that Barack Obama is all style, no substance, you should feel free to tell them, "style is to politics, as oil is to an engine... and baby, I like Barack's style."
A little something here for all you dedicated Obama'ites out there to re-generate.
It's kind of fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA
YES WE CAN!!
Enough's enough!!
I became so angry as the 1st 45 minutes dragged on that nothing, and I mean nothing but tabloid questions and jabs from those two ABC 'news' people teamed up with Hillary to allow NO substantive discussion of issues from these candidates.
It's the classic distraction politics of separation, polarization and tabloid one-liner's to 'lift' the election from issues of merit and the hope for a better future. It is, and was, the classic politics of the Republican guru, Carl Rove. He was a master of this tactic and now I’m ashamed to say it's our own Hillary Clinton, a democrat, who is using it to divide and conquer the nomination and separate the electorate from the fundamental issues.
As was so well stated in an earlier blog, if you're tired of a slash and burn politics that trades distraction for real debate, you don't have to sit idly and watch anymore. You can speak out, you can organize, make calls, knock doors, donate, and vote. Together, we can change politics in America.
Speak out! Here's our group blog (this was from our local group but all are welcome): http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/newsmyrnaforobama/
Organize! Here's our group, please join (or search out the Obama group in your area): http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/newsmyrnaforobama
Make calls! Here's where you can make calls from your home: http://my.barackobama.com/page/contact/splash/callpennsylvania
DONATE! DONATE! DONATE! This is our best way to respond to the tabloid attacks last night! Please help our group fundraiser for Barack here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/newsmyrnaforobama
Let's make a difference and stop this divisive attack politics that leave people's needs behind!
How's this for a response to all the attack ad's from our competetors:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1489847735
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that there is one correct way to provide affordable health care in this county. I could be kidding myself, but I don’t think that the cosmic goddess of insurance will reach her hand down to zap those who choose outside of her plan. I do think that it’s absurd that my company pays $500 per employee and still the employees have to pay hundreds out of pocket each month to have the privilege of paying more money if and when they are really ill. Something somewhere went wrong and it seems as though affordable health care is something that each of us should be willing to work on.
I may be naïve, but I’m also not convinced that anyone really likes our trade deficit. It doesn’t feel good to have manufacturing disappear with only retail services popping up. I’m not sure, but it seems as though a service based economy might not be helpful to those trying to raise a family on more than minimum wage.
I’m convinced that immigration is something we should control. We shouldn’t let our sovereign nation status be diluted with permeable boarders. However, it also seems as though we, a country of immigrants, might also make way for other immigrants. But, heck, what do I know.
I do know that my principles should guide me more than any handbook or political thought. And so when I hear folks talk about “specific policies” or “day one” I can’t help but think that these folks believe in a deity ready to zap you if he or she strays from the policy manual.
But if there is no definitive answer, if this is really more about principles and less about absolutes…then maybe we should care more about process and less about specifics. Not that specifics aren't good, but they shouldn't be held as an absolute truth.
Maybe, if folks can agree in principle, then the small decisions along the way will guide them to the goal. Maybe if those folks who agree in principle can be allowed to disagree on implementation, specific policy provisions, timeline, etc. we would have genuine discussion that will sharpen ideas. And maybe these tested discussions will moves forward towards thoughtful decisions, laws, etc.
And so far there is only one candidate that appears to be putting principles and process ahead of specifics. That’s right, I’m writing about Obama. And I’m not sure why the media can’t see that Obama’s “style” or “approach” is substantively better. Sure he has specifics, but he doesn't appear to hang his hat on them. And sure he uses words, but he has also uses structure. His words and the basic structure of his campaign has revamped politics as we know it. He brings people to vote, campaign and give who have never voted, campaigned or given to a single candidate before. Maybe we have failed to stop to ponder how impressive it is that marshaled the will of people and created a structure that gives them ownership in his campaign’s success or failure.
How interesting it is to think of what our society would look like if we have a President who gives inspiration and creates structures for its citizens to either succeed or fail.
It really does give me hope.
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill is developing an interactive website to represent her constituents.
http://mccaskill.senate.gov/
This website is a model of democracy in action.
To establish substance in our intent, the Obama campaign needs to implement Senator McCaskill's initiative in campaign operations. People are drawn to words but actions command our support.
If the interviewer hoped for an other "Kirk Watson" moment he was sorely disappointed!
Watch this and get a chuckle!
by hilzoy
I, too, endorse Obama for President, to no one's surprise. Since Katherine has already written a lot of what I would have wanted to say about his rhetoric, and since I've already talked about one of my most important reasons for supporting him, namely the fact that he got Iraq right from the outset, I'll say something about the peculiar idea that Barack Obama is all style and no substance.
I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote:
"Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work. But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington. After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give."
But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.
After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give."
Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard people saying that Obama wasn't "substantive". It was exactly like my experience in 2004 when, after hearing Wes Clark for the first time, I went and looked up his positions on a whole host of issues of concern to me, and only then started reading media accounts of him in which I "learned" that no one knew what his positions were.
As some of my students would say: I was like, wtf?
I was also surprised ...
... by the number of people who said: well, all this bipartisanship stuff sounds very nice, but how do we know it actually works? Isn't this just happy talk that will evaporate in the face of reality? Or, alternately: doesn't this sort of thing involve selling our souls to our supposed partners in compromise? Curiously, Obama has an actual legislative record, and so it is possible for us to see both how he approaches bipartisan cooperation and what results it yields. And it turns out that Obama does achieve results by working with Republicans, and doesn't tend to compromise on core principles.
Last year, I considered some of his bipartisan initiatives in the Senate -- notably on nonproliferation and ethics reform -- and concluded that what Obama actually does has nothing to do with the sort of bipartisanship that people rightly object to:
"According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side. This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)"
This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)"
Consider a different example:
"Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it. Obama had his work cut out for him. He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics." The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping. By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many. Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping."
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.
By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping."
Getting legislation like this passed is a real achievement. Getting it passed unanimously is nothing short of astonishing. Mark Kleiman, who knows this stuff extremely well, put it best:
"1. Obama was completely right, and on an issue directly relevant to the more recent debates about torture. Taping interrogations is an issue that really only has one legitimate side, since there's no reason to think it prevents any true confessions, while it certainly prevents false confessions (over and above the legal and moral reasons for disapproving of police use of "enhanced interrogation methods"). 2. Pursuing it had very little political payoff, as evidenced by the fact that Obama has not (as far as I know) so much as mentioned this on the campaign. Standing up for the rights of accused criminals in a contemporary American legislature requires brass balls. 3. Getting it through required both courage and skill. The notion that Obama is "too nice" to get things done can hardly survive this story: he won't face tougher or less scrupulous political opponents than the self-proclaimed forces of law and order. Yes, in this case the change was helpful to the cause of crime control, since every innocent person imprisoned displaces a guilty person. But that didn't make the politics of it any easier."
2. Pursuing it had very little political payoff, as evidenced by the fact that Obama has not (as far as I know) so much as mentioned this on the campaign. Standing up for the rights of accused criminals in a contemporary American legislature requires brass balls.
3. Getting it through required both courage and skill. The notion that Obama is "too nice" to get things done can hardly survive this story: he won't face tougher or less scrupulous political opponents than the self-proclaimed forces of law and order. Yes, in this case the change was helpful to the cause of crime control, since every innocent person imprisoned displaces a guilty person. But that didn't make the politics of it any easier."
***
Similarly, people often wonder whether Obama's call for a new kind of politics is just empty words. Here again, I think he has a real record to point to. He has consistently worked for ethics reform. In Illinois, where he helped pass what the WaPo called "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure." In the US Senate, he was the Democrats' point man on ethics, and was deeply involved in the ethics legislation passed this year. He didn't get all he wanted -- for instance, he and Russ Feingold couldn't get a bill establishing an Office of Public Integrity to deal with Congressional scandals. But he accomplished a lot, and wants to accomplish more.
Moreover, he is very interested in open government. The searchable database of government grant and contract recipients that I mentioned above is part of that. But Obama's proposals (pdf) go further. For instance, consider these proposals:
* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format. * Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. * Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format. * End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded. * Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. * Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. * Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.
* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.
These are all proposals designed to allow public scrutiny of the business of government. As I read it, one of Obama's goals in introducing them is to permanently alter the incentives politicians have. As long as legislators did not have to disclose their earmarks, there was no way of finding out that the person who stuck a favor for an obscure casino in one state into an appropriations bill was from another state entirely. There was therefore no way for that person's constituents to wonder why s/he was expending political capital on people outside the district, and no way for reporters to see just who was doing that casino favors. Once legislators have to own up to their earmarks, however, that changes. It won't make abuse go away, of course, but it does make it a lot easier for people to notice and object to the fact that their representatives are doing inexplicable favors for people they have no obvious reason for caring about.
Likewise, if all bills had to be posted to the internet five days before they were voted on signed (oops), it would be much, much more difficult for Congress to sneak some appalling provision through in the dead of night. If all contracts over $25,000 had to be competitively bid, certain sorts of corruption would be a lot more difficult to carry out. And if there were a database of tax breaks and tax earmarks, not to mention a database of lobbyists, it would, again, be much, much easier to track who was doing favors for whom, and why. (And I haven't even started on Obama's proposals (pdf, p. 5) to strengthen FOIA: "Barack Obama would restore the tradition of free information by issuing an Executive Order that information should be released unless an agency reasonably foresees harm to a protected interest.")
I think of these proposals, collectively, as a means of empowering journalists, bloggers, and random citizens to discover corruption and the abuse of power, and to bring the power of shame to bear on politicians who practice it. This clearly isn't all that Obama means when he talks about changing the way politics is practiced in this country. But it's part of it. And I think it's pretty powerful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello All!
You may or may not have seen this article circulated, but I found it very informative and a testament to how much Obama has done during his time in the US Senate, versus HRC.
It's also a testament to the 'grassroots mom' who took the time (as we should all be doing) to go out and do actual research, rather than just listen to the soundbytes and talking points the media injects to further their narrative. So, thank you for doing the legwork "Grassroots Mom".
If you know someone who is on-the-fence, or you yourself are undecided, please read/blog/pass along this article because it ends the argument for all those naysayers who claim Obama to be "all rhetoric, no substance".
It's lengthy, but well worth the time to read, so please, take the time to educate yourselves if you want to brush up on his legislative work. The Chris Matthew's interview with Sen. Watson (yikes) put the campaign in damage control, but the more we as supporters can learn about his accomplishments and how he's managed to reach across the aisle, the better informed we can be to discuss intelligently with HRC supporters and those claiming we're drinking the koolaid!
Thanks for reading and enjoy!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
Hi everyone,
My name is Sue, and I live in West Clarksville, NY. I am 54 yrs old. This is totally out of the norm for me, writing about my political stands, but this time is different, and I can't hold back my enthusiasm for Barack Obama. When I first heard about him running for President, I didn't know a thing about him. But over time I've become very familiar with him, and I know if we don't stand for the kind of change we need now, our country may not get another chance. Most of what is portrayed as a problem with Barack is his lack of "experience." However, if you read the info below, it's quite clear that he has a multitude of experience, in addition to an unwavering strength of integrity like I have never seen in a politician. I've never felt that I was voting for someone I really believed in, just voting for the lesser of several evils. It's so refreshing to be "for" a politician!During the first -8- eight years of his elected service Senator Obama has written 890 bills andco-sponsored another 1096. See some below listed by category.Obama introduced:233 bills for healthcare reform125 bills on poverty and public assistance112 crime fighting bills97 economic bills60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills21 ethics reform bills15 gun control bills6 veteran’s affairs billsetc... etc....During Obama's first year in the U.S. Senate, he was author to 152 bills and co-sponsored another427. These included:Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - signed into lawThe Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act - signedinto lawComprehensive Immigration Reform Act - passed the SenateThe 2007 Government Ethics Bill - signed into lawProtection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill - Currently in committeeSo, in addition to his ability to bring people together, his determination to stand up for what hebelieves in without giving in to what looks like it will give political gain, his record ofgetting down to the nitty gritty of actually helping people at the bottom of the totem pole, hisefforts in civil rights, his ability to orate, his accomplishment in running an awesome campaignwith small contributors and grass roots organization, and his multitude of plans on the issuesthat face us, I guess he's not so inexperienced after all.I actually used to be a supporter of Hillary. She is from my state! But over time I've seen so much about her that is against what I believe in. She doesn't have integrity. There have been so many times that she has done things behind closed doors, worked the system in an unethical manner, used unkind language and shaded truths about others, catered to lobbyists and special interests, created divisiveness not only within congress, but within her own democratic party, and just plain old turns me off so much of the time now. I know she can create a sense that she is so caring about everyday people, but how can she claim this with all of the crooked and shady things that are part of what she calls "experience?" Perhaps she does care, but it's the way she goes about things that just isn't right. Hillary is right about one thing, actions do speak louder than words, but many of her actions are so against what I believe in. Barack's integrity is the kind of substance we need, along with the numerous plans he has for changing how our government operates, and building on inclusion of those of us at the bottom of the totem pole. As for the republicans, what have they done for us here, whilst spending our tax dollars, $13 billion per month in Iraq, and neglecting the threat of terrorists who have increased in strength in Afghanistan? For the most part, republicans have in the past couple of decades, been foreign relations minded, and have not been interested in domestic issues, unless it involves big business. There are a few who do support domestic issues, but they get way-laid by the rest of their party. I know that Barack Obama is the one who can bring everyone together and have the wisdom to make decisions that will move us forward instead of backward.Even my partner, who has been a staunch republican, has found that Barack would be our best bet this time. That blew me away! He even agrees that Iraq needs to take control of their country and decide what is best for them, and end the waste of lives and tax dollars from us. He still thinks we needed to go to war there, but at least he realizes it's time to get out of there. Anyways, like I said, I just can't help it, I'm too anxious to have someone in charge who can save our nation from the downturn, and I keep thinking about my kids and grandkids, who are struggling in this messed up country. It truly is the URGENCY OF NOW!! Why don't the pundits and many news makers and Hillary ever wake up to THAT "reality?"
I could go on and on and on, but I guess this I'll stop for now.Thanks for listening,
Sue
Excellent article. Her conclusion after ALL of the research she did: "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." I urge anyone who still thinks Obama is all talk and no substance to go read this article. The author of this article did a LOT of research on the US Senate activity of both Senators Obama and Clinton.
Here is why Obama has substance. He has propelled me, a white, 52- year old Republican woman, to sit up and take notice. I did not make this switch lightly. Sen. Obama has substance in us. By gaining increasing support from all factions, shapes, sizes, race, faith and sex, Sen. Obama's coalition provides him with a mandate to make sweeping change. Does anybody think Congress is not watching? That the American people are not watching? Geesh, this is the first time we have collectively been engaged! Apathy during national elections has historically been growing with every election cycle. I believe 50% of elegible voters stayed home in 2004. That's terrible. That's not true Democracy in practice.
There is power in our enthusiam, in our call to action.That is power to get things done. This is the extraordinary opportunity Sen. Obama is talking about. I don't want to return to Hill and Bill, nor do I want to return to Repulican deal making - the way things are being done the way "solutions" have been arrived at in the past. That kind of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine has seen its time come. Obama's greatest source of substance is us. Our involvement. Our ideas. Our solutions. Only a great leader can do that - and that is the kind of "substance" and "solution" I am looking for in a president.
There is substance in freshness. Solutions have been buried in new ideas for years with no one to scratch them out for airing. It's time new ideas and energy emerge. Sen. Obama is asking for a partnership with us. I like having that kind of respect. It encourages me to do my part. And just look around. The crowds, the youth, people dropping their long-held stereotypes and prejudices in the name of American progress. If that aint substance, I don't know what is.
Sen. Obama's opponents on both sides are going to try and paint supporters like me, a proud Obamacan, as hysterical, celebrity-follwing, groupie-type kooks. I resent that portrayal. I am proud of my education and used it to consider all my choices. I don't jump on bandwagons (okay, maybe Beatlemania in the 60s). I know what I am doing and I am proud I am doing it. Sen. Obama is the right choice for president in 2009.
