This has to be the first time I have quoted anything Rove has done in a positive light. But the man has a valid point on Obama's lack of experience and how Hillary should hammer him on this point.
Obama is all words and when Rove and the Republican media machine get a hold of his words and twist them he will have nothing left to rely on, except his actual legislation and policy. Unfortunately, Obama has neither. Rove's assault on Obama demonstrates exactly why Hillary must be the candidate if the Democrats are going to take back the White House. All of Hillary's "problems" and every step she has taken for the last 16 years has been under a microscope. There will be no surprises and she has dealt with the pressure from Republicans. She has proven herself against their slander, but Obama has not and I would bet good money that if Obama wins the nomination the Republicans will destroy him in the media and make him look naive and inexperienced. Many of the right leaning pundits are already taking aim at him.
Some of these arguments are going to stick and if Obama looks like a hypocrite it will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to dig out of the hole. When Hillary is questioned she can point to her career and voting record. Obama has not had a national career and as mentioned in prior blog posts here, he has failed to vote often, especially on hard issues.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama and McCain neglecting their Senatorial Duties
As compiled by the Washington Post, McCain has missed over half of the Senate in the 110th Congress. It is a big deal that McCain has neglected his Senatorial duties, but it is partially excusable because he is running for president. While this is a huge percentage, and if I was his constituent I would be concerned, he has been in Congress for over 20 years and has a voting record history. In fact, McCain has missed more votes during this Congressional session than he has made.
Obama, has missed the third most votes of any Senator (trailing only McCain and Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage on December 13 and has not returned to the Senate yet). This means we really have no idea how Obama will vote once he is in office. If I was a real skeptic I would argue that Obama has neglected his Senatorial duties in order to run for President. But this is not a terribly strong argument given that IF Obama wins the Presidency he could not have his mind set on any bigger sights and once President he will have no reason to neglect his duties.
However, I still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of voting, not just because he has neglected his constituency or because he has not fulfilled his voting duties to the country as a Senator, but because he has not been forced to vote on important issues and really take a claim on the bills. What happens when a controversial bill gets passed by Congress and he needs to veto or sign it? Will Obama become the pocket veto president? I want to know how Obama behaves on important legislative issues of national importance and so far that has not happened. For all intensive purposes, Obama has only served one 2 year Congress term where he actually showed up for his job. Is this enough to qualify him for the job of President?
Obama, has missed the third most votes of any Senator (trailing only McCain and Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage on December 13 and has not returned to the Senate yet). This means we really have no idea how Obama will vote once he is in office. If I was a real skeptic I would argue that Obama has neglected his Senatorial duties in order to run for President. But this is not a terribly strong argument given that IF Obama wins the Presidency he could not have his mind set on any bigger sights and once President he will have no reason to neglect his duties.
However, I still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of voting, not just because he has neglected his constituency or because he has not fulfilled his voting duties to the country as a Senator, but because he has not been forced to vote on important issues and really take a claim on the bills. What happens when a controversial bill gets passed by Congress and he needs to veto or sign it? Will Obama become the pocket veto president? I want to know how Obama behaves on important legislative issues of national importance and so far that has not happened. For all intensive purposes, Obama has only served one 2 year Congress term where he actually showed up for his job. Is this enough to qualify him for the job of President?
Hillary "borrowing" language from Obama
We have heard too many commentators saying Hillary is desperate by pointing out Obama has plagiarized Deval Patrick's speech. If Hillary is desperate for pointing out Obama's plagiarism, what does it mean when Obama's campaign puts out a memo outlining "statements" that Hillary lifted from Obama?
Does anyone honestly believe that Obama can lay claim to phrases like "Bring the country together," or "turn the page?" I find the memo insulting, because these are two phrases we have heard in reference to each and every political campaign. Did Obama lift "turn the page" from the Pete Seeger song by the same title? What politician does not aspire to bring the country together? That is the most common refrain at every political rally I have ever been to.
Does anyone honestly believe that Obama can lay claim to phrases like "Bring the country together," or "turn the page?" I find the memo insulting, because these are two phrases we have heard in reference to each and every political campaign. Did Obama lift "turn the page" from the Pete Seeger song by the same title? What politician does not aspire to bring the country together? That is the most common refrain at every political rally I have ever been to.
Obama and Plagiarizing
On Saturday Obama gave a speech where he lifted rhetoric from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. This part is no secret, but the media's attack on Hillary for her campaign acknowledging this is fact is asinine. Obama has not passed any tangible legislation and has actually failed to do anything more than inspire America with his words. It is frustrating to read that so many people have bought into the hype of Obama's words, but when we will see his actions? When will Obama actualize his words?
In the New York Sun, Seth Gitell went after Hillary's campaign for bringing up Obama's lifting of Mr. Patrick's words. Gitell takes this as Hillary's desperation, but from day one Gitell has disliked Hillary and the chances of Gitell saying anything nice or even neutral about Hillary is as likely as hearing a complete sentence by President Bush. The highlighted sentence for the column was, "Hillary Clinton has a slim chance in this presidential race. But yesterday's trick will likely do more to hasten the end of her national career than sustain it." That is a mouthful.
There is nothing tired about stating that Obama lifted his words from another speaker. In college if you did that and did not acknowledge the source you failed the paper, sometimes the class, and in egregious plagiarism you were expelled. But instead of Mr. Gitell commenting on Obama's statements he would rather trash Hillary. It seems like a curious decision considering the incident should be about whether or not Obama lifted these words from Mr. Patrick.
It does not matter that Mr. Patrick and Mr. Obama are friends, what matters are the originality of Mr. Obama's words. If Hillary did not say anything then people would say she is spineless. But since Hillary did say something Hillary is "desperate."
If anything was revealed by Mr. Obama lifting the speech from Deval it is that Hillary is correct: Obama is all words and no actions. Obama is able to quote some of the memorable statements of American Presidents, but will he be able to pass important legislation like the civil rights act or ending slavery or making advances in federal funding for stem cell research. Obama, by improvising this part of his speech, demonstrated Hillary's point about his candidacy: he is all words. Whether they are borrowed or not, Obama has run a campaign based on promises and phrases, but lacking in content to back it up. Mr. Gitell has bought the bait, hook line and sinker. Whether or not it is plagiarism to lift Mr. Deval's words should be the issue not Hillary's response.
In the New York Sun, Seth Gitell went after Hillary's campaign for bringing up Obama's lifting of Mr. Patrick's words. Gitell takes this as Hillary's desperation, but from day one Gitell has disliked Hillary and the chances of Gitell saying anything nice or even neutral about Hillary is as likely as hearing a complete sentence by President Bush. The highlighted sentence for the column was, "Hillary Clinton has a slim chance in this presidential race. But yesterday's trick will likely do more to hasten the end of her national career than sustain it." That is a mouthful.
There is nothing tired about stating that Obama lifted his words from another speaker. In college if you did that and did not acknowledge the source you failed the paper, sometimes the class, and in egregious plagiarism you were expelled. But instead of Mr. Gitell commenting on Obama's statements he would rather trash Hillary. It seems like a curious decision considering the incident should be about whether or not Obama lifted these words from Mr. Patrick.
It does not matter that Mr. Patrick and Mr. Obama are friends, what matters are the originality of Mr. Obama's words. If Hillary did not say anything then people would say she is spineless. But since Hillary did say something Hillary is "desperate."
If anything was revealed by Mr. Obama lifting the speech from Deval it is that Hillary is correct: Obama is all words and no actions. Obama is able to quote some of the memorable statements of American Presidents, but will he be able to pass important legislation like the civil rights act or ending slavery or making advances in federal funding for stem cell research. Obama, by improvising this part of his speech, demonstrated Hillary's point about his candidacy: he is all words. Whether they are borrowed or not, Obama has run a campaign based on promises and phrases, but lacking in content to back it up. Mr. Gitell has bought the bait, hook line and sinker. Whether or not it is plagiarism to lift Mr. Deval's words should be the issue not Hillary's response.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Great Article in Wall Street Journal on Hillary
How often do we hear that Hillary Clinton is not a viable candidate for the Presidency? I think Drudge posts around 10 articles a week bashing Hillary, and I am sure he has made a small fortune off of advertisers requesting to be linked to these articles. The irrational hatred of Hillary and the Clinton family is getting old.
Republicans and even some Democrats have gotten into the act of claiming Hillary lives off of Bill's coattails. Hillary has only made a career because her husband is such a powerful politician. These criticisms are short-sighted and lack any truth. Hillary has campaigned hard and worked hard throughout her career.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed in which they explained how Hillary is getting the short end of the stick and how she is qualified to be the President. Hillary is the first woman candidate to come of age during the Feminist revolution and while she was able to mother a successful daughter and be a supportive wife for her husband in his political career she never sacrificed her own career. She is the first Presidential candidate to demonstrate that women can have it all. They can have children and support their ambitious husbands without being forced to stay on the sidelines and assume traditional feminine roles of domesticity with a secondary emphasis on a career. Hillary has been a successful lawyer, corporate board member and even Senator without sacrificing her family.
Hillary presents an interesting phenomenon. Older women identify with her struggle against the political establishment. Women in her age range, give or take ten years, understand the many priorities she has to balance in order to succeed politically.
Women in our generation have benefited immensely from Hillary and her women peers. They broke down dozens of barriers and proved that woman can have careers and still have a family. Hillary climbed the corporate ladder to make partner at prestigious law firm; Hillary worked on corporate boards; and Hillary has now succeeded in crafting important legislation and proudly representing the citizens of New York.
Of course Hillary has her shortcomings, we all do. As outsiders many questioned her desire to stay with her husband even though he had cheated on her. Given the same position millions of women have opted to stay with their husband. Who is so blameless to cast the first stone and say she should have left him? No one is perfect and while Bill was wrong to cheat on Hillary, it is Hillary's decision and her decision only to choose to forgive him.
Republicans and even some Democrats have gotten into the act of claiming Hillary lives off of Bill's coattails. Hillary has only made a career because her husband is such a powerful politician. These criticisms are short-sighted and lack any truth. Hillary has campaigned hard and worked hard throughout her career.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed in which they explained how Hillary is getting the short end of the stick and how she is qualified to be the President. Hillary is the first woman candidate to come of age during the Feminist revolution and while she was able to mother a successful daughter and be a supportive wife for her husband in his political career she never sacrificed her own career. She is the first Presidential candidate to demonstrate that women can have it all. They can have children and support their ambitious husbands without being forced to stay on the sidelines and assume traditional feminine roles of domesticity with a secondary emphasis on a career. Hillary has been a successful lawyer, corporate board member and even Senator without sacrificing her family.
Hillary presents an interesting phenomenon. Older women identify with her struggle against the political establishment. Women in her age range, give or take ten years, understand the many priorities she has to balance in order to succeed politically.
Women in our generation have benefited immensely from Hillary and her women peers. They broke down dozens of barriers and proved that woman can have careers and still have a family. Hillary climbed the corporate ladder to make partner at prestigious law firm; Hillary worked on corporate boards; and Hillary has now succeeded in crafting important legislation and proudly representing the citizens of New York.
Of course Hillary has her shortcomings, we all do. As outsiders many questioned her desire to stay with her husband even though he had cheated on her. Given the same position millions of women have opted to stay with their husband. Who is so blameless to cast the first stone and say she should have left him? No one is perfect and while Bill was wrong to cheat on Hillary, it is Hillary's decision and her decision only to choose to forgive him.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Look at Her Hair, Her Makeup, Her Suits...
How many times have you heard political pundits, talk show hosts or even the person sitting next to you on the subway, make a comment about how Hillary Clinton looked last night on television? It is unfortunate that people today would rather focus on a person's superficial qualities, rather than their substantive policies. Even if the comments are positive, you can be assured that Senator Clinton is not running for President of the United States based on her looks or fashion sense.
These materialistic comments are a type of discrimination. When you make a decision about someone based on how they look, rather than on what they have to say or what they stand for, you are making an uninformed decision about that person. Often this ends up being the wrong decision, and it is you, or in this case the public, who will suffer in the end.
As a woman trying to focus on my career, I can relate to the Senator's struggle to get people to look beyond what they see. As a young woman out of college, my first job required me to travel around the country and give speeches to college students. After a year on the job and getting nothing but rave reviews, my supervisor was replaced. Within one week of the new supervisor taking control, I was fired because he felt "students would be too busy looking at me instead of listening to me." This was a ridiculous statement of course. Nevertheless, I lost my job because of his inability to look beyond the exterior, and it was to his detriment because I was exceptional at my job.
I do believe that the public can look beyond the superficial, but it is extremely hard to do when the media is constantly commenting on Senator Clinton's hair, makeup or clothing. Hillary Clinton is not a fashion icon nor does she proclaim to be. She is a political leader with ideas and policies (which are discussed more fully in other postings on this blog) that will move this country forward for the next 8 years.
These materialistic comments are a type of discrimination. When you make a decision about someone based on how they look, rather than on what they have to say or what they stand for, you are making an uninformed decision about that person. Often this ends up being the wrong decision, and it is you, or in this case the public, who will suffer in the end.
As a woman trying to focus on my career, I can relate to the Senator's struggle to get people to look beyond what they see. As a young woman out of college, my first job required me to travel around the country and give speeches to college students. After a year on the job and getting nothing but rave reviews, my supervisor was replaced. Within one week of the new supervisor taking control, I was fired because he felt "students would be too busy looking at me instead of listening to me." This was a ridiculous statement of course. Nevertheless, I lost my job because of his inability to look beyond the exterior, and it was to his detriment because I was exceptional at my job.
I do believe that the public can look beyond the superficial, but it is extremely hard to do when the media is constantly commenting on Senator Clinton's hair, makeup or clothing. Hillary Clinton is not a fashion icon nor does she proclaim to be. She is a political leader with ideas and policies (which are discussed more fully in other postings on this blog) that will move this country forward for the next 8 years.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Many Flaws in Ryan Lizza's "Can Obama Catch Hillary"
One of the political correspondents for the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza, published an article
November 26, 2007 on the Obama candidacy. Many of the residents of New York I know read the article and quickly made a decision to endorse Barack's candidacy. The very fact that the New Yorker was the magazine that helped shift votes is telling. Many exit polls have shown that Obama has very strong support among college graduates, but Hillary has stronger support among Democratic voters that ended their education after high school. All of my friends are college graduates and many of them have advanced degrees. That being said many of them point towards the idea of "change" that Obama has espoused. It is so strange to me that Obama has been able to garner so much of the college educated vote through he has not taken a strong stance on any issue and as Hillary pointed out at several debates he has abstained from voting on some important legislation.
At one point in the article, Obama tells Lizza, "Hillary is running, in many ways, a textbook campaign. But it’s a textbook that I think is inadequate to the moment. It’s a textbook that says you don’t answer tough questions directly because it may make you a bigger target in the general election—that you tell people what they want to hear but avoid telling some hard truths.” I find this quote troubling, as should anyone that has seen any of the debates. In fact, Obama has refused to debate Hillary anymore. Hillary has answered tough questions and has completed 7 years as Senator of New York and has had to vote on many important and difficult bills. In comparison, Obama announced that he was running for President after barely serving two years in our Senate (the only national position he has held).
I think, and I have been saying this since the campaign season began over a year ago, Obama has been running a "textbook" campaign. Focus groups have shown time and time again that "change" is the key political term to gain votes. Obama is running a "campaign of change," but every campaign is seeking to change from President Bush. Not even any of the Republicans want to be seen as the successor to the Bush Presidency.
What bothers me most about this change theme is what Obama supporters argue that he wants "change," but they cannot tell me what change he is going to bring that Hillary or any of the other former Democratic candidates would not bring. Obama keeps focusing on "change," as advised by his focus groups and if any campaign can be seen as being run by advisers and not being organic it is Obama's campaign for "change."
November 26, 2007 on the Obama candidacy. Many of the residents of New York I know read the article and quickly made a decision to endorse Barack's candidacy. The very fact that the New Yorker was the magazine that helped shift votes is telling. Many exit polls have shown that Obama has very strong support among college graduates, but Hillary has stronger support among Democratic voters that ended their education after high school. All of my friends are college graduates and many of them have advanced degrees. That being said many of them point towards the idea of "change" that Obama has espoused. It is so strange to me that Obama has been able to garner so much of the college educated vote through he has not taken a strong stance on any issue and as Hillary pointed out at several debates he has abstained from voting on some important legislation.
At one point in the article, Obama tells Lizza, "Hillary is running, in many ways, a textbook campaign. But it’s a textbook that I think is inadequate to the moment. It’s a textbook that says you don’t answer tough questions directly because it may make you a bigger target in the general election—that you tell people what they want to hear but avoid telling some hard truths.” I find this quote troubling, as should anyone that has seen any of the debates. In fact, Obama has refused to debate Hillary anymore. Hillary has answered tough questions and has completed 7 years as Senator of New York and has had to vote on many important and difficult bills. In comparison, Obama announced that he was running for President after barely serving two years in our Senate (the only national position he has held).
I think, and I have been saying this since the campaign season began over a year ago, Obama has been running a "textbook" campaign. Focus groups have shown time and time again that "change" is the key political term to gain votes. Obama is running a "campaign of change," but every campaign is seeking to change from President Bush. Not even any of the Republicans want to be seen as the successor to the Bush Presidency.
What bothers me most about this change theme is what Obama supporters argue that he wants "change," but they cannot tell me what change he is going to bring that Hillary or any of the other former Democratic candidates would not bring. Obama keeps focusing on "change," as advised by his focus groups and if any campaign can be seen as being run by advisers and not being organic it is Obama's campaign for "change."
Stanley Fish's brilliant column on anti-Hillary diatribes
I think Stanley Fish has hit the nail on its head when he describes the deep, irrational hatred too many individuals have for Hillary.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/
While I was reading the blog entry the first thing I thought of was Sartre explanation for anti-Semitism. Sartre accurately explains that the anti-Semite is irrational. The anti-Semite hates the Jew for no rationale reason. Sartre famously remarked that if the Jew did not exist the anti-Semite would create him to hate. For the anti-Semite the Jew represents anything they despise. Similarly the anti-Hillary mob transfers each and every one of their peeves to Hillary. For those on the right, Hillary represents a Senator that espouses Socialist ideas and is a committed Marxist. They argue strongly that Hillary's current health care plan and the failed plan of President Clinton during the mid 1990s was Hillary's attempt at bringing Socialism to America through their health care system. The left says Hillary is in the hands of capitalist America because she was a partner at a large law firm that represented corporate interests and she sat on the corporate board of Walmart. I cannot continue to explain the irrationality of the anti-Hillary crowd but Stanley Fish is so eloquent I will not waste my words.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/
While I was reading the blog entry the first thing I thought of was Sartre explanation for anti-Semitism. Sartre accurately explains that the anti-Semite is irrational. The anti-Semite hates the Jew for no rationale reason. Sartre famously remarked that if the Jew did not exist the anti-Semite would create him to hate. For the anti-Semite the Jew represents anything they despise. Similarly the anti-Hillary mob transfers each and every one of their peeves to Hillary. For those on the right, Hillary represents a Senator that espouses Socialist ideas and is a committed Marxist. They argue strongly that Hillary's current health care plan and the failed plan of President Clinton during the mid 1990s was Hillary's attempt at bringing Socialism to America through their health care system. The left says Hillary is in the hands of capitalist America because she was a partner at a large law firm that represented corporate interests and she sat on the corporate board of Walmart. I cannot continue to explain the irrationality of the anti-Hillary crowd but Stanley Fish is so eloquent I will not waste my words.
Advent of Saving Hillary
This is a blog we would have rather not started, but unfortunately Hillary Clinton needs eloquent, intelligent bloggers to defend against her detractors that are too often malicious and inaccurate. We would rather not write this blog, but there are too many nasty rumors and bloggers that are aiming to derail her Presidential run. We care to set the record straight, not only because we want to defend Hillary from her defamers for the sake of historical accuracy but because we sincerely believe that she is the best candidate for America. She is capable of setting America back on the path towards being respected globally and gaining back its economic edge. She knows how to work within the political system to pass bipartisan legislation. She is capable of engineering America's rise to global respectability. It is imperative that America gain back the international reputation it lost over the last seven years.
Sure, some of Hillary's political stances, ideology and personal life deserve criticism. After all, no one is perfect, but too much of the criticism surrounding her candidacy is completely invalid and ad hominum attacks. For the sake of the future of America she is the most qualified candidate and we will defend her.
Sure, some of Hillary's political stances, ideology and personal life deserve criticism. After all, no one is perfect, but too much of the criticism surrounding her candidacy is completely invalid and ad hominum attacks. For the sake of the future of America she is the most qualified candidate and we will defend her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)