Take one drink everytime she says, "my over 35 years of experience."

Take another drink everytime she says, "ready on Day One."

Gag and throw up everytime she refers to her husband's administration using the royal "we."

I don't know what this 35 years of expereince is all about.  All I know is that I don't want the pilot's wife flying the airplane.
-Chris Rock

I'm not sure about the "gag & throw up" part of any drinking game..kinda takes the "fun" out of it
...If that was the case, I could have never played the SOTU drinking game during these past 7 years.

1 shot=every time Bush mispronounces Nuclear
1 shot=Bush uses the words "Freedom, terror, or tax cut"
1 Beer= Every time Cheney scowls...

I could go on and on...

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

What the name of the song it comes from?

Speaking of Buffett, I've heard that he is now supporting Obama. I haven't seen it anywhere officially but just on parrothead sites. He usually does a few fundraisers for the Democratic nominee.

The lyrics are from the song of the same name. It's off of the album "One Particular Harbour" (which is probably his best album).

I love the chorus:

We are the people, they couldnt figure out
We are the people our parents warned us about

And now back to our regularly scheduled program :-)

That's the second time recently that you have given a joke that I posted an Unproductive rating when others obviously thought it was funny.

Have you had your sense of humor surgically removed or do you believe that humor is inapproriate in a politcal forum?  If the latter is the case, have you informed Jon Stewart?

Maybe we should start using this as our byline when we post.  I was thinking about giving up on the media anyway. :-) Just (half)kidding.

Somewhat seriously though, thanks.  I have been too leveled by  an intestinal virus to blog for the past four days.  I am barely "out of the woods" now.  But this quote from Chris Rock made my day.

Get well soon.

has shown leadership during this campaign in a big way, by offering a plan to drive lower class and working class voters into bankrupcy and the economic abyss, by garnishing wages of these workers to pay for her health care plan.

You go girl!

If Clinton is nominated she will drive these workers into the arms of John McCain - you can kiss the Reagan Democrats good-bye.  

And down ticket Dems will be penalized by these voters as well.

Clinton is an electoral nightmare in a general election.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...

   

If people wanted experience and an accomplished resume in this primary race, Joe Bidden and Chris Dodd would be battling it out. And the whole Solutions campaign is more than IRONIC since Hillary single handedly screwed up the health care initiative in the first Clinton Whitehouse.

People are fast to forget what a troubled first term presidency Bill Clinton had ... Even David Gergen couldn't bail them out try as he did. And this was before the whole tawdry Lewinsky affair .... which really wasn't much ... it was the LYING under oath that matter.

The facts are that Hillary Clinton has spent a lot of time and effort preparing for this race. She has copped a lot of dough from lobbyist and special interest groups. She has doled out money and retained party insiders. She's done everything a machine politician is suppose to do .... from Triangulation of policy positions to voting the polls. If you want more of that then she's your girl.

I for one REJECT such abject careerism and cronyism .... it leads to corruption (review Dubya Bush).

OBAMA is not a Saint by any means .... but he certainly is a leader who is inspiring and bringing out the best in people .... encouraging them to get and stay involved. If he is the Democratic Party's nominee in the fall .... He will WIN BY A LANDSLIDE that hasn't been seen since Reagan.

This is all about the Ability to LEAD .... not some wonkish resume.

Obama's message is about getting Americans to change this country. "Yes WE can"

Hillary's message is about herself. "[I'm] Ready on day one"

Societal change is not a top-down process. Every time that the U.S. marched forward towards greater liberty and social justice, it was with the help of strong social movements forcing those changes to happen.

Most students of the history of the Civil Rights movement know how reluctant FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK were towards doing anything significant about Civil Rights. It was the pressure of organized nonviolent action that forced the government to do the right thing.

I hadn't really notices that until now...
George Lakoff (he wrote several books on political linguistics) would have a field day with that...

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

You hit on a unifying theme between some Rugged Individualisim Republicans and Progressives

Please stick with me here

The bottom line is it's not up to the Government.  The Government is broken its mired in institutional garbage and feeds on its natural lobbying and special interest constituencies

It's people that are the real agents of change

well I guess you miseed the point that the civil rights movement from a polticial perspective was to get the enfranchisement of the minorities and then to get their political support. It was about votes, again for polticians and Parties, while it was about doing the right thing for those in real America who marched. Its a big difference in reality we face still today.
If you think it did not have a political reality behind it as a movement you only have to look at the 2007/08 immigration debate as once again the political reality seeks to entrench the growing Hispanic community much like the African American community during the CRM as a means of getting their numbers on their side or entrench those that oppose illegal immigrants on the other. Again a pure political play for voters, in my reality thats called pandering.

your command of the English language, I think we might better be able to understand your point.  

Hillary Clinton has an amazing life story behind her. She has done a lot in her lifetime, and her life story has been an inspiration for me personally, especially when I lived through a particularly hard year.

Her campaign could have crafted an inspiring message based on that. Imagined how great it would be to have two inspiring campaigns.

Instead the Hillary campaign is focusing on making attack after attack against Obama's message of hope and empowerment, running against the grain of Democratic rhetorical tradition.

If she manages to win the primary, it will be a pyrrhic victory: she needs the inspired Obama supporters to win in November. A candidate shouldn't dismiss half of the active Democratic base like this.

All of this nonsense about speeches vs. solutions, words vs. action, talking vs. doing, strikes me as a load of hooey (can I say hooey on a blog?).

Our politcal leaders don't physically lead troops into battle. They don't cure diseases. They don't build bridges and highways. They don't feed the starving masses. All they do is speak. If they're effective speakers, they marshall the support of our soldiers. If they choose the right words, they inspire our most brilliant minds to devote their lives to medical research. If they use persuasive language, they convince taxpayers that rebuilding our infrastructure is a worthy investment. If they talk to the right people, in the right way, they create economic incentives for farmers to produce needed crops.

It ain't either/or. For political leaders, speech is leadership.

is allowed in the blogosphere! :)

I'm always amazed by presidential candidates who say, "I'm going to do this," "I'll ensure such and such," and "My administration will," when what they are describing requires quite literally an act of Congress.

It is all about leadership and inspiration.  If you can't do that (and who can forget Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider.") then your policies and goals are DOA on Capitol Hill and the country stagnates or descends into chaos.

Flag burning amendment.

Yeah, she voted for it. And made a big deal about the fact.

Why does Hillary Clinton hate freedom?

One of HRC's supporters, former Sen. Bob Kerrey from the very conservative state of Nebraska, took a clear stand for individual liberties and against the ridiculous proposed flag burning amendment to the US Constitution.

Where was Sen. Hillary Clinton from the  59% (last election) Democratic  state of New York during this attack on individual rights?

She voted to desecrate our Constitution with an amendment that would have led to symbolic speech becoming a federal crime.

All her talk about leadership is just talk.

Barack Obama reformed the death penalty in Illinois.

Barack Obama expanded health care access in Illinois.

As a community activist, Barack Obama empowered people in Chicago to take direct control of their lives........

.....To name just a few things he's done during 20+ years of public service.

Barack Obama is a true leader.  He has many accomplishments, which is not to say Hillary Clinton lacks accomplishments.  She does not seem to think, however, that her accomplishments match up well with Obama.  I presume that if she did, we'd be hearing a lot more about them.  Instead, we are hearing lame attacks on Obama.

For those of you who are interested, here is a page of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments. Facts are inconvenient things:

http://www.propeller.com/views...

Let me just head off one possible avenue of attack on this: Yes, it is obviously prepared by a Hillary Clinton supporter, because it is a supporter that would put something like this together. Opponents don't go around putting together lists of the accomplishments of those they oppose.

In the end, vote for her. Don't vote for her. But the woman has worked hard for many progressive causes throughout her life, and accomplished quite a bit for the poor and for children, people in society we usually don't give a damn about, and she deserves better than the kind of trashing Obama supporters give her.

And HisRoc, if I make amend that Chris Rock line you seem to like so much, once you get past the cheap laugh aspect of it, perhaps it should really read:

I don't know what this 35 years of expereince is all about.  All I know is that I don't want the pilot's wife flying the airplane. But, you know, in an emergency, I would probably prefer the pilot's wife, since she has seen her husband fly the plane quite a bit and has even helped him in the past, to a passenger flying for the first time.

I'm not paid to edit Chris Rock and not I can see why you're not.
;-)

IN AN EMERGENCY

I guess that is the best a loyal HRC supporter could come up with.  "In an emergency" I'll take Hillary.

Even I might give her more credit than that.

Going up against a person named Barack Obama, however, I don't really see that much of a contest.

If you want to take a serious look at Obama's career, he has plenty of accomplishments to address concerns about his ability to lead the country.

I've said repeatedly he is qualified. I've said repeatedly he would make a better president than any Republican. While I think his resume is thin compared to every other president of the last century, it actually doesn't particularly concern me too much.

All I have said is that Hillary Clinton has a unique background that contains a much greater amount of direct experience for the job.

Does that mean she'll make a better president? No. It means she has more experience, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, too many Obama supporters feel a need to denigrate and minimize this experiencing by reducing the sum total of her life to being Bill Clinton's wife.

Obama's got a much more accomplished and relevant resume than any of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter -- and even arguably Ronald Reagan -- than when any of those men ran for and won the Presidency.

Clinton had spent 12 years as the Governor of a state. A small one, yes, but  a dozen years exercising executive authority.

Reagan, there you've got to be kidding. While the man was a menace, he'd spent two terms as the Governor of California, which at the time was the second most populous state in the U.S., not to mention having been the president of a union.

Carter had a four-year term of Governor of Georgia, and I have a recollection somewhere that he had achieved the rank of commander in the Navy. Not much experience, not a very effective president.

As for Bush, well, there I'm  with ya. Texas governor is a pretty weak office, so maybe you've got me there.

California, if it were a separate country, has the seventh largest economy in the world and would be a member of the G8.  Reagan was more than qualified to be POTUS.

The Texas governor is a pure figure-head with almost no power.  Every political position in Texas is elected, from Commissioner of Railroads to all judges.  By state constitution, the legislature is permitted to assemble only once every two years for 90 days.  The governor is permitted to call one 45-day emergency session every two years.  The appointment power of the govenor is limited to appointing the Board of Pardons and Parole.

Jimmy Carter?  Well, what can we say?  An Annapolis-educated nuclear power engineer who went home to be a peanut farmer.  History will consider him the Forrest Gump of the Presidency.

Fun, isn't it?

Clinton: A dozen years of exercising executive authority in a small, poor state that does not have an especially strong executive, with zero exposure to foreign or military policy

versus

Obama: 8 years in the Illinois state legislature, 3 + years in the US Senate, serving on the Foreing Relations, Homeland Security, Veterans' Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees.

To me, it's not even close -- Obama has much more relevant experience for someone aspiring to federal executive office. The proof is also in the pudding -- he has run a very smart, energetic, and focused campaign, deftly exploiting the setup and rules to overcome a very steep initial deficit to the frontrunner.

As for Reagan -- 8 years of Governor of California is indeed very strong experience as an executive that completely trumps Obama's fairly limited executive experience, but, in a world dominated by international and foreign affairs and military crises, it doesn't provide much opportunity to chew over those types of issues.

Obama has had much time to ruminate and have to deal with real world repercussions in his Senate career and his time as a constitutional law scholar at one of the top universities in the world.

It is by no means a slam dunk, but it is arguable.

And, just to ensure I don't get accused of drinking the kool-aid again, I think Hillary, based on her time in the White House and longer tenure in the Senate, can rightly claim longer and more relevant experience than Obama. [Judgment in these affairs being an entirely different matter.]

from Obama has more experience that Clinton, Carter Bush and possibly Reagan (and I agreed on the Bush) to:

Obama might have greater experience than Ronald Reagan, despite his two terms as governor of California, because Obama has had more time to ruminate? I have no response for that.

Second, you argue that 11 years in the legislative branch, 8 of them at the state level, trumps 12 years of executive experience for a job as the Chief Executive of the U.S.? Why, yes, I'm certain that David Toscano, my Delegate from Charlottessville, is gathering much more relevant experience for national office than Tim Kaine.

Perhaps you'd like to start the David Toscano as Obama VP thread?

And then, amazingly, you concede that Hillary has more experience than Obama in these matters, basically agreeing that experience-wise (as distinct from assessments of her ability to make judgments), that Hillary exceeds every President for the last 30 years, save one who had a four-year term, and you do this in a thread, the basic premise of which was to argue that Hillary had no experience whatsoever?

sounding holier than thou (ooh, David Toscano!), erecting and then dismantling straw men, and, generally, being dishonest, so I'll keep this as short as I can.

1) Length of experience does not solely determine whether someone is more experienced for a certain job. 20 years as the Governor of American Samoa (or head of the United Way) probably does not make someone more qualified to be President than someone that is a US Senator for 4 or 6 years. Not all executive experience is equal, nor involves anywhere near the same issues.

So, yes, I'm saying that 11 years of legislative experience can trump 12 years as Governor of a small state, because the issues one is likely to confront are much more congruent to the office and challenges of the Presidency than those of a Governor of such a state. Frankly, Clinton's disastrous first year performance and Bush's terrible first year are data points in my favor on that point (as HisRoc stated, Texas has about the weakest Executive in the nation, a job suited for Bush), along with Carter's general incompetence.

2) So, as to my Reagan point -- I'm saying Obama has had more experience dealing with foreign affairs and military and veterans issues as a US Senator than Ronald Reagan did as Governor of California. That is more relevant experience to the most important issues of the day, IMO, that the President will face than general executive experience. I also stated that, of course Reagan had more executive experience. California is a giant state with a strong executive. But that still may or may not properly prepare someone to be ready to confront issues related to foreign and military affairs.

3) I hope you do understand that, umm, I didn't actually write all the other responses in this thread. So, uhh, I'm actually not responsible for those arguments. Just so we're clear. So, yes, I think Hillary has more experience for the Presidency than any of Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and her husband had when they ran. Maybe even Ronald Reagan, at the time he ran for President. Sorry if that makes your head explode, but it's actually not that complicated of a point.

If you want to have an actual discussion, have at it. But I'm not going to further engage with someone that engages in these kinds of rhetorical tactics.  

more or less forces me to wonder eaxtly what kind of rhetorical tactics with which you are willing to engage.

In any event, I set out my case. This particular little debate began with your statement:

Obama's got a much more accomplished and relevant resume than any of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter -- and even arguably Ronald Reagan -- than when any of those men ran for and won the Presidency.

and it now ends, after your position has changed considerably,  with your refusal to discuss the matter further.

All because of a little bit of sarcasm?

Not because of sarcasm. Because I can't rebut logic I can't follow or understand. And say whatever you want, but the post entitled "Okay, so we went" was ridiculous and dishonest.  

My point remains unchanged from my inital post -- I mean, you even re-pointed it out in its entirety, and it's completely unchanged. I fleshed it out somewhat in between, but the basic point is exactly as it was, and yet you say that it's changed considerably? How am I supposed to argue with that?

Sorry you can't follow the logic.

You went from arguing that Obama was "much more accomplished" to arguing that Obama's three years of Senatorial experience trumps 12 years of executive experience as a Governor. Maybe that's true -- I guess it depends on one's perspective. But clearly three years in the Senate does not constitute much greater accomplishment. Same with Carter.

I really can't fathom what being a state legislator in Illinois has anything to do, experience-wise, with being president.

Obama supporter, in their zeal for the candidate, seem to make all kinds of assertions about their man that just don't stand up to scrutiny, and unfortunately the response, when confronted with this, ultimately seems to be ad hominem attacks.

No offense intended in challenging your assertion.

While I appreciate your ability to make this case, the reality of every attack so far coming from the Clinton campaign amounts to essentially nothing.

Sure Hillary has some experience, but Obama does, too.

The problem is that Hillary has chosen the losing argument, and now must fight for the nomination based on attacks.

The question of qualification is not an issue here.  Questions of leadership and judgment, however are very significant.

So, congratulations, we do have a candidate in Hillary Clinton who has been in politics and in Washington for decades.  If that's made her such a great leader, and if that's given her such fantastic effectiveness, and if that's given her such powerful judgment, then why is this contest even at issue?  If she were John McCain she'd be able to point to a series of contentious bills that reached across party lines and showed real leadership.  But she just can't do that.

All of this begs the question: how is it that such a relatively unknown candidate has been able to stand up to the most vaunted political machine in Democratic politics today?

That's a question worth asking, because it points to the reality of this moment and what the American people want and need in their political life today.

...he plagiarized, or wanted to be president when he was in kindergarten, or only wins red/caucus/unimportant states, or...something, damn, MUST THINK OF SOMETHING FAST!

He inspires people and is extremely eloquent, so he must be BAD, because inspiration and eloquence are BAD things.  BAD, I say!  Hahahahahahaha.

snap out of it!

Ha. :)

David Axelrod is media message person for both Obama and Duval Patrick.  Hillary knows this and the media knows this.  Case closed.  Axelrod cannot, technically speaking, plagiarize himself.

You argue that Hillary has not really had any accomplishments in her public life and you invite posters to provide a list.

So I provide a list.

And you respond with, "The question of qualification is not an issue here."

I will accept her competence to lead etc and work that she has done.

Her campaign, however, has poisoned and undermined her candidacy with a lot of us.  You do reap what you sow.

What is the reason for the negativity towards her?

Her campaign.

Her (and her husband's) selfishness.

You know, etc.

Anyway, it is time to play the final scenes of this drama and move on.  Here, the super delegates can play a role.  This should not drag on till August.  That would be a negative development for changing our country's leadership since McCain will not be that much of a change.

and the real world of Virginia ;)

She has experience, but who doesn't?

Does she have a record of leadership and judgment?

Can she lead this country out of the darkness of the era of Rovian politics?  

Her experience as the single most potent lightning rod for right-wing hatred would argue against it.

Also, where's her leadership?  Where is the Clinton-Feingold universal health care bill?  Where is the Clinton-Durbin ethics reform bill?  Where is the Clinton-Hegel Iraq War withdrawl bill?

They don't exist.  But Obama in much less time has been the leader in ethics reform and even managed take a chip off John McCain's shoulder along the way.

Things have gotten dirty in this race, but that's how it always gets when you are unseating incumbents.

I'm not paid to edit Chris Rock and now I can see why you're not.
;-}

Seriously, your point about Clinton is well-taken, although the resume you point us to is somewhat of a stretch.  When I was a manager in Fortune 100 companies, this is what our HR staff charitibly referred to as "inflated."  Long on job descriptions and very short on accomplishments.

But, that is beside the point.  If you line up the objective resumes of all the Democratic candidates who started this race, neither Clinton nor Obama make the short list by comparison.  I think that someone on this diary made the point that Biden and Dodd were far more experienced in terms of tangible accomplishments.  My own personal favor, which is no secret here, was Bill Richardson.

However, those guys are gone.  Why?  Well, that is one of the reasons that I am fundamentally opposed to political parties and am an Independent.  Political parties, by their very nature, tend to be undemocratic in their functioning.  They do not of necessity vet and nominate the best qualified candidates.  Instead, candidates tend to advance through a series of complex inter-relationships including, fund-raising ability, public reputation, political pay-backs, and sometimes pure cronyism.

the line out of hand when I sent it to them.

I agree with much of this. I initially supported Chris Dodd, but I got lonely.

And yes, the skills needed to get elected president, and to be a good president, are very different, and all too often seem mutually exclusive.

And lets pray that the voters have the wisdom to pick someone who can lead this great republic forward and not one who wastes another eight years.

She voted for the flag-burning amendment. Then she tried to make cheap political hay by advocating for government censorship of video games. And then she voted for the PATRIOT act for good measure.

If she were President, Hillary Clinton would become the biggest enemy of the First Amendment since G.W. Bush. She pushes for the kind of Constitutional policy that most progressives find horrifying.

Hillary Clinton's record on the Bill of Rights is shockingly poor. I cannot imagine casting a vote for someone with such obvious disdain for traditional American liberty.

Obama '08.  

into this otherwise mindless discussion. It makes me almost ashamed to be an Obama supporter.

Fortunately, I'm supporting him, not the inane drivel I'm seeing here.

For those above who think that inspiration and pretty speeches are all you need, yes, they are very important.  But, actually so is good judgment.  That's the real hallmark of a leader. I think Obama has shown some very good judgment and made some good decisions. And he's made some bad ones.  And so has Hillary.

I also think most of you need a course in logic and another one in research and examination of evidence. Please understand, it's not Obama I'm disgruntled at, it's the level or argument, or lack thereof, that I'm seeing here.

Few of you even took the trouble to actually research Hillary's many years of accomplishment as well as the few public failures.  You also seem to be bashing her for her husband's failures.  And ignoring his many accomplishments.

The truth is every one of these less than perfect people could serve us well and make us proud.

And they are all less than perfectly progressive.  

It's equally true that what Obama's pretty speechifying has hidden is just how deep his own centrist sentiments go (see here).  They include economic advisers such as Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman and David Culter. Here's a brief description of just how centrist and Clintonian they all are:

: Well, there are these three young economists: David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee. Cutler and Liebman are Harvard economists who hail from the Clinton administration. Goolsbee, who does the lion's share of the work on this issue, comes from the University of Chicago. They're all centrist market economists, I mean, what you would call them Clintonian in their politics, and that's really where they're coming from. They are oriented towards, you know, market-based solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler writes about incentivizing the healthcare industry as a way to improving care. Liebman has endorsed the partial privatization of Social Security. And Goolsbee also is one of the kind of market faithful.

In addition Obama has as an adviser on health care reform the conservative Democratic congressman, Jim Cooper, who helped the rightwing derail Hillary Clinton's health care reform in 1994. He opposes universal health care on principle.  He is also rabidly anti union.  

On true progressivism versus centrism, Obama isn't that far from Hillary on actual policy and may actually be to the right of her.  And he has some of the exact same DLC economists and policy wonks that all of you hate so much when Hillary or Bill use them.  But as Aznew points out, facts are indeed inconvenient things.

The truth is we don't have perfect choices.  But despite any individual differences we have with any of our candidates, we do have good choices.  So, stop making it the clash of cosmic Good vs Evil.

It's really, really not.  And only cultists do see it in such stark terms.  Remember, it's Bush who doesn't do nuance.  Democrats should!

Clinton's health care reform in 1994.  He was one vote out of several hundred in the House.

Cooper simply told her the truth: Congress will not pass a policy whole-sale if they are shut out of the deliberation process.

Cooper may be a blue dog, but he was still the kind of ally that Clinton needed to bring on board in 1993 and 1994.  Not only did her closed process alienate allies it helped to make it easier for enemies in the industry and within Congress to scuttle health care.  

Legislation by definition is a collaborative process -- it entails compromise between competing interests.  The roll out of the health care plan in 1993-94 was handled extremely poorly.  Even if Cooper was on-board I'm not sure that Clinton could have gotten a health care plan through in 1993-94.  It was a given though that shutting Cooper out of the process helped to ensure the failure of health care reform.

Unless you are from Tennessee and/or know Cooper personally, please don't defend him.  Not because he is a blue dog - I like and respect many of them - but the man is personally rude, arrogant and extremely conservative.

My husband, Dan, used to be a supporter of Cooper's as well as one of his constituents in Tennessee.  

Then one time, Dan paid a visit to Cooper's office in Washington (back in the days when we lived in Florida).

The visit started friendly enough with Cooper asking what his former constituent and still enthusiastic supporter was doing in Washington, DC.  Dan told him happily that he had just accepted a job with a union and was up here for training.

Jim Cooper literally turned his back on Dan when he heard this news. He whirled around in his seat and refused to discuss anything further.

If Cooper had simply told Dan why he disliked unions or tried to dissuade him from going to work for one but had remained polite, they could simply have had an honest and friendly disagreement.  But that is not what happened.  His behavior was impolite to say the least.

I'd expect better manners even from a conservative Republican meeting with one of his former constitutents.

Trust me, Jim Cooper is the type of ally no progressive and not many Democrats need. His presence as an adviser on the Obama campaign, and on health care reform, deeply troubles me even more than the presence of some of Obama's other economic advisers with their DLC pro free market philosophies.

According to the list attached to the link she was on the corporate board of Walmart.  Not anytime recently, but when it was starting out.  She helped it grow. She made sure that it became a worldwide corporation that helped millions of people go from a living wage to $5.15 an hour.  She led the fight to ensure that cheaper products from China were sold in America.    Certain things can be said about Hillary but you can't say that she failed to lead.  She was in with Walmart in the early days without her help maybe it wouldn't be what it is today.

and very legitimate concerns.

And maybe, when you put it all through the wash, the good and bad evens out. Or maybe the bad outweighs the good.

My point is that it isn't fair to simply pretend the good doesn't exist.

regarding free speech, but botched the posting.

Aside from the snarkiness of the diary, and the twenty-something topics quoting that most well-qualified guru of government and politics, Chris Rock... Lets talk about leadership and accomplishments.

Hillary organized Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, an organization which has lobbied and worked n behalf of tens of thousands Arkansas children since it began. I'm going to take a stab and say that organizing a group like AACF took some leadership.

She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. Again, leadership in combatting workplace discrimination.

She worked across the aisle with Lindsay Graham to expand health coverage for veterans and active duty members of the National Gaurd. How? By amending Senator John Warner's National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which passed 96-0. Golly... that looks like bi-partisan leadership.

After 35 years all that there is are three initiatives?

We haven't even touched on what she didn't do in advance of the Iraq War or during her time on the Wal-Mart board of directors.

Never mind her votes against limiting lobbyist influence in Washington -- or her votes against amendments in the Coburn-Obama Open Gov't and Transparency Act which now allow us to track closely when a politician sponsors a piece of earmark legislation.

Where is the work on issues such as oil dependence, or energy policy?

And what is it with her vote with the credit card companies in 2001 in the Bankruptcy Reform Act which she voted for in the hopes that the bill wouldn't pass (fortunately it did not -- although a later version the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act did).

It is a safe bet that Clinton will continue her work on health care if she gets the nomination and I am sure she will be an advocate for children.  However, a number of her initiatives in congress -- including the authorization of the Iraq war are going to cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion dollars when all is said and done.  Actions such as those undercut other objectives like providing universal health care, or strengthen America's middle class.

She was also late to the ballgame on Sherrod Brown's Patriot Corporation Act -- which she JUST signed onto this past week in advance of the Ohio primary -- a year after Obama.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs...

This is just a sampling. I'll have more shortly.

Commission on Women in the Profession did WHAT? Exactly when did that occur?  Seems like we would have heard something about it.

wikipedia:

From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession,[98] which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.[98] She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.[99]

This is noteworthy -- and I would mark this up as a check in Clinton's favor.  But this also happened almost 20 years ago.  

rather than just mindlessly trashing somebody, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

Thank you JPTERP for providing that.

I distinctly remember those particular initiatives emanating from elsewhere.  And yes, I am familiar with that Commission.  Now I know we have Hillary Clinton to thank that there are so many women judges and no gender bias whatsoever in the courts, which are that Commission's real tasks.  This is just poofing her resume.

is this an admission that Clinton and just about everybody else save Teddy Kenndey is "right" of Obama. I do not get the personification of those battling Obama amongsat Democrats are "right wing"? Are we saying there is a "right" wing of liberalism or are we just so used to characterizing those on the other side of the aisle in such fashion that we are now characterizing rank and file Democrats who may see things different than Obama (thats about 42% I think) as "right wing"? Just asking.

you know the smears I'm talking about... according to the right-wing, people who believe in America are deluded now.  

It's pitiful, and while expected of republicans it's unworthy of Democrats.

As for the who wrote what debacle, that's just desperation.  

I entered this election cycle believing that Hillary would make a wonderful president, her actions are making me like her  less.  I understand she's fighting for it.  These things get heated, but remember we've got to come back together after all of this.

These attacks are expected of Republicans, but unworthy of Democrats.

We hope we can expect just a bit more from our own.

it is not just Republicans my friend, it is the reality of politics given the circumstance. Its easy when a Party and its leadership as so many times in the past with the Democrats gets behind someone early and rides them through to the convention, but thats not happening here. Democrats are in a fight for not the nominee, but for their very identity and what they want to shape the party going forward. The Party has an opportunity to transform itself and of course there are and will always be nay sayers to a change in direction. Obama/Clinton may differ slightly at best on issues, but that is not what is really the point, what is is the personification of the Party that accompanies the nominee. That is the battle that is being fought. To say that the the fight regardless of the side is "unworthy" strikes me of someone who wishes there be no confrontation, no debate, no struggle for ideas and merely one who would rather have the leadership as so many times in our history pick the nominee and then give us a large dose of them to swallow.
Party of taking the country back my friend may just start with this fight to take back the Party itself. This is the reality of politics in its present form with no one willing to back down, save Edwards and Romney, as two different kinds of horses in each stable race off against one another.

and America strengthened in the struggle.

I've got to say your persistence is amazing, very impressive. You've got all the RK veterans batting at your positions on HRC like a Big Pinata' and you keep coming back .... striking.

Oh where oh where has Ms. Dianne gone ... oh where oh where can see be???

Hillary isn't a she-devil ... she's just not what the country needs right now and her campaign is fighting against the tide of change brought about largely by the net-roots and grassroots.  If you think about it .... just 2 months ago the Democratic field was large and full of talent. There were people on stage with lengthy and impressive resumes. The two that are left represent different things within the Democratic party (because policy wise there isn't much of a gap). Hillary is establishment and Obama is an uprising against the establishment. He's in this enviable position because he is inspiring. Simply he inspires and leads a sincere movement for something new, something different.

It would be tough for anybody to win against that.

I admire your tenacity aznew .... pretty tough.

or in any way associated with her, I assure you I am not. I have no idea who she is, and could care less.

As for your analogy (or is it a metaphor or simile -- I can't ever sort that out) of my arguments as a "big pinata," I guess I just don't see them that way.

As I have noted many times, I respect that this blog is behind Obama. I do not argue on HRC's behalf, but I do take exception (not personally, but in the detached, analytical sense) to the mischaracterization of her record and the mindless speculation about her motives and future actions that does all seem to stem, in your words, from the apparent belief among many that she is the "she-devil."

Anyway, TMSKI, somewhere in your post was a compliment, I think, so thanks.  

When I used to go do battle at the old Commonwealth Conservative blog, I knew I was in enemy territory.  I knew I was swimming upstream, but I kept going there to hone my message and stay with the fight.

Kudos to you.  This is the blogging equivalent of paying your dues, and you've earned my lasting respect.

Excellent work, and thank you so much for making a lasting contribution here.

and at the end of the day, I think we all share the same goal for 2008, which is to elect a Democratic president and a fillibuster-proof Senate, including the election of Mark Warner.

And on a more granular level, I am looking forward to Virgil Goode shedding a tear in his farewell address.

It was a compliment AZNEW.

I read quickly through these long blogs and it seems to me you're out numbered about 10 to 1 .... maybe more so since Dianne "left".

I make no association between you two other then rabid Clintonism .... and overall it's not that big of a deal to me since EVERYONE has a right to their opinion and better still the capacity to stand up and speak their mind.

So go easy .... however this all turns out .... there is a better day. Remember 2004 ... anybody but Bush!!

This is classic.

this is like smacking a cow with a fork lift.