Sunday, March 09, 2008

Let's try something new:


So a (regular, I think) anonymous poster left a link in an unpublished comment* that I was going to publish as I thought the questions for Hillary were answered really well by the first commenter, but then I read the rest of the comments (I know, I know.)

I do not think you are stupid for voting for Obama. I am scared by reasons from *some* people that I am given as to why someone is voting for him, but I do know many knowledgeable people with good reasons to vote for Obama as well. The fact is, their platforms are very very similar, but one cannot just be "present" when one is president, one *must* make decisions. I'm going to side-step and come back to the topic of the vile being spewed in these comments to post what is (in my opinion long overdue) a very good article on why I am not supporting Obama. (I'm quoting it here since you have to register and I know some people don't like that or else I would have just kept going with my original train of thought.)

Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role

Senator Barack Obama stood before Washington’s elite at the spring dinner of the storied Gridiron Club. In self-parody, he ticked off his accomplishments, little more than a year after arriving in town.

“I’ve been very blessed,” Mr. Obama told the crowd assembled in March 2006. “Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape.

“Really, what else is there to do?” he said, his smile now broad. “Well, I guess I could pass a law or something.”

They were the two competing elements in Mr. Obama’s time in the Senate: his megawatt celebrity and the realities of the job he was elected to do.

He went to the Senate intent on learning the ways of the institution, telling reporters he would be “looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.” But frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the “glacial pace,” he soon opted to exploit his star power. He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors.

Outside Washington, Mr. Obama was a multimedia sensation — people offered free tickets to his book readings for $125 on eBay and contributed thousands of dollars each to his political action committee to watch him on stage questioning policy experts.

But inside the Senate, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, was 99th in seniority and in the minority party his first two years. In committee hearings, he had to wait his turn until every other senator had asked questions. He once telephoned reporters himself to draw attention to his amendments. And some senior colleagues were cool to the newcomer, whom they considered naïve.

Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a draw down only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it.

And while he rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a “gold standard,” like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates.

Yet Mr. Obama was planning for the future. He spent much of his time raising money for other Democrats, which helped him build chits and lists of potential voters. He tended to his image, even upbraiding a reporter for writing that he had smoked a cigarette (a habit he later said he gave up for his presidential bid).

Early on in his tenure in Washington, he concluded that it would be hard to have much of an impact inside the Senate, where partisan conflict increasingly provoked filibuster threats, nomination fights and near gridlock even on routine spending bills.

“I think it’s very possible to have a Senate career here that is not particularly useful,” he said in an interview, reflecting on his first year. And it would be better for his political prospects not to become a Senate insider, which could saddle him with the kind of voting record that has tripped up so many senators who would be president.

“It’s sort of logic turned on its head, but it really is true,” said Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former senator and Democratic leader who has been a close adviser to Mr. Obama.

“Two things develop the more time you spend here,” Mr. Daschle said. “One is a mind-set that we did it this way before, we should do it this way again, and I think that’s a real burden. More importantly — and Hillary and McCain are the perfect examples of this — the longer you are here, you take on enemies. And these enemies don’t forget.”

Rising to Stardom

If freshman senators arrive as celebrities, it is usually because they are “dragon slayers,” having ousted big-name incumbents. Mr. Obama was not one of those; two serious opponents in Illinois self-destructed, smoothing his path to election in November 2004.

He had been anointed his party’s rising star after delivering a soaring speech at the Democratic National Convention the previous July. His fresh face that fall cheered Democrats demoralized by their failure to win the White House and the defeat of Mr. Daschle, the party’s Senate leader.

But Mr. Obama knew the Senate scorns a showboat. He had waited to crack open “Master of the Senate,” Robert A. Caro’s book about the legendary legislative career of Lyndon B. Johnson, until after he was elected, wary that he would be photographed — and seen as presumptuous — reading it during his campaign. After he was on the cover of Newsweek the same week President Bush appeared as Time’s Man of the Year, his fellow Democratic senators gently ribbed him at their first weekly luncheon of the new Congress.

He met with nearly one-third of the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, including his future rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to learn about the institution and solicit advice on how to succeed. That shaped a strategy: work hard, tend to your constituents, and, above all, get along with others. He spent many weekends traveling across Illinois for town-hall-style meetings.

Mr. Obama’s advisers referred to it as “the Hillary model,” patterned after Mrs. Clinton’s approach when she joined the Senate in 2001. But while Mr. Obama expressed admiration for her at the time, he dissuaded reporters from making too close a comparison. AHA! (just found that interesting)

“I wasn’t the first lady, and I didn’t have some of the political baggage of eight years of hand-to-hand combat between the White House and the Republican Congress,” he said soon after he first arrived. “In that sense, she had a harder task.”

Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office. Mr. Rouse advised Mr. Obama about managing relationships on the Hill and helped engineer hefty assignments, including a Foreign Relations Committee seat. He sought out senior colleagues, traveling to Russia with Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, an advocate of nuclear disarmament. (Later, they passed legislation to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons.) Mr. Obama also sought tutorials from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, considered the Democrats’ master legislator.

Some colleagues found Mr. Obama remarkably well prepared, even more so than longtime staff members, in discussions. And his role as the good student earned him the affection of some fellow lawmakers. “I don’t think you can be around him and not come to the conclusion that this is a person of rare quality,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota.

Mr. Obama had visited Washington only a handful of times before taking office, and he was fresh enough to its ways that he bubbled over about his first trip on Air Force One in June 2005. He fretted about getting lost on his first trip to the White House, for a reception the day he was sworn in, and later marveled that there were flat-screen televisions in the Lincoln Bedroom.

But he remained ambivalent about the city and its institutions. Unlike many senators with young children, he did not move his family to the capital. He rarely spent more than three nights in Washington — aides would reserve tickets on several flights to make sure he got home to Chicago after the final Senate vote of the week.

Mr. Obama found the Hill a difficult place to fit in, and it was not always clear that he wanted to. He was 43 when he arrived, younger than most of his colleagues — whose average age was 60 — and even many senior staff members. Unlike senators who come up through the House, he did not have an existing network of friends, and while some members of Congress bunk with others, he lived by himself in one of the nondescript new boxes along Massachusetts Avenue. On the nights he was in town, he typically went alone to a Chinatown athletic club — not the Senate gym — or attended events on the Hill.

And for all his efforts to play down his celebrity, Mr. Obama was exceptional, and it was hard for him or anyone to ignore the aura and sense of history around him. He was only the third black senator elected since Reconstruction. His memoir was on The New York Times’s best-seller list for 54 weeks. And Washington society was eager to embrace him — a Capitol Hill newspaper ranked him as No. 2 on its list of most beautiful people.

Etching a Path

Mr. Obama was also pulling in big money. He created a political action committee, the Hopefund, to increase his visibility and help other Democrats. It raised $1.8 million the first year.

In the Senate, meanwhile, he was discovering the realities of being a senator — that not every bill is perfect (or perfectly unacceptable) and that most votes required balancing the good and bad. Mr. Obama wanted to vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, for example — he thought the president deserved latitude when it came to appointments — but Mr. Rouse advised against it, pointing out that Mr. Obama would be reminded of the vote every time the court made a conservative ruling that he found objectionable.

Mr. Obama took few bold stands and diverted little from the liberal orthodoxy he had embraced in the Illinois Senate. His voting record in his first year in Washington, according to the annual rankings by National Journal, was more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate (compared with, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s 79.8 percent that year).

He worked with Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and one of the most conservative in the chamber, to establish a public database to examine government spending after Hurricane Katrina.

But for the most part, he stuck to party lines; there were few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his current campaign. he's a uniter, you say?

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war — he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field. again, all this "HRC voted for the war!! Well he wasn't in the senate then, but look what he's done since!

His most important accomplishment was his push for ethics reform. Party leaders named him their point person in 2006, and when the Democrats assumed the majority in Congress in January 2007, Mr. Obama and Mr. Feingold, a longtime Democratic proponent of ethics reform, proposed curtailing meals and gifts from lobbyists, restricting the use of corporate planes and requiring lobbyists who bundle donations to disclose individual donors.

Colleagues fought back hard.

Mr. Obama’s determination not to back down, Mr. Feingold said, “struck me as an example of someone showing real guts.”

Of course, he added, “He was not any freshman. He was Barack Obama.”

To others, though, the mismatch between Mr. Obama’s outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante.

He joined a bipartisan group, which included Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Kennedy, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill even though it was sure to face challenges from interest groups on both sides. Yet when the measure reached the floor, Mr. Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed.

To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obama’s move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand.

“He folded like a cheap suit,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a close ally of Mr. McCain. “What it showed me is you are not an agent of change. Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then.”

Laying the Groundwork

Early on in his tenure in Washington, Mr. Obama began meeting every few months over late-night pizza with a handful of classmates from Harvard Law School and a couple of senior advisers to discuss his future. Being a 2008 presidential candidate, participants said, never came up. The only race mentioned was for Illinois governor in 2010 — the year Mr. Obama’s Senate term ended — but the group decided to put off considering the idea until at least his fourth year in the Senate.

Mr. Obama chose Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 to step into a more prominent role, speaking to his party’s caucus about the importance of using the disaster to focus the party’s efforts toward ending poverty.

The next February, he appeared on several Sunday shows in a row. “People are getting tired of me already,” he said in an interview.

In fact, outside Washington, people were clamoring for more. He was received like a returning hero in Africa in August 2006. On a book tour two months later, crowds mobbed him, and people urged him to run for president.

During the midterm elections that year, Mr. Obama was his party’s most sought-after campaigner — he helped raised nearly $1 million online in a matter of days that spring for Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institution’s senior member.

His appearances on the trail helped lay the groundwork for a possible presidential campaign. He earned the good will of some Democrats who have now endorsed him. And most campaign events required tickets, so his staff members collected names and addresses of potential supporters.

Finally, Mr. Obama did what he had done when he first arrived in the Senate, quietly consulting those who knew the institution well — Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle — for advice on whether to run.

They told him that these chances come along rarely. His celebrity was undeniable. And yes, he was green, but that also meant he did not have the burden of a long record.

“For somebody to come in with none of that history is a real advantage,” Mr. Daschle said. “I told him that he has a window to do this. He should never count on that window staying open.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Since the platforms are so close, THESE are the reasons why I'm scared of Obama getting the nod. That, and the fact that he is an uber-politician by continuing his state senate record of not voting on potentially controversial issues so that he could secure a more powerful government position. Wow, I'm just bloody speechless. I don't think HRC's perfect. In fact, my perfect candidate will never get elected in this country and is substantially left of the ruling socialist party in Spain, fyi.

She's made mistakes, but she's also demonstrated that she has learned from them. Health care failed in the US? Well she got it to work for people, but they were in Puerto Rico so what do US voters care? (I do, however.)

Back to the vile comments in the link I will not post:

It was a list of questions for Hillary. Whatever. THIS one got me going:

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the GE

WHAT? Hmm, well let's see what says:

Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama's image in a Clinton attack ad.

Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:
The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.

However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama's skin color that's affected.

Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.
Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign's intentions and motives, as they already have. But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying.

And you can see the comparison images for yourself at the link above. Anon: *THIS* is why the link goes unpublished.

Now for the comments:

I support Hillary. Unless you have something better to say then tell me I'm a "Hillbot" or that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" or telling me all the ways her HUSBAND screwed up (now I'm not an idiot and I know he will be involved to some extent but how sexist are you to think that she's just running so he can be president again?) They ARE NOT the same person for fuck's sake!

How do you think calling her a monster or mcclinton and me an idiot for supporting her makes me want to support your candidate? It makes me want to kick things. You talk about how democracy's great because we can all make up our own minds, but to mean that means the ability to have reasoned (which doesn't exclude heated, mind you) discussions and debates about politics. Give me reasons to want to support your candidate, and give me actual reasons why you don't support mine. WHen we ask a question, please respond with something other then one of the aforementioned insults. (This happens from Clinton supporters to, but on this website it's like 4:1, though possibly b/c I'm getting the idea that this is a very staunch "We love Obama" website.) Also, CLinton isn't the only one saying not so nice things about her opponent so shut it. He should not be held to a different standard.

Here's another thing that pissed the hell out of me:
I believe that bringing up his past drug use, as some Hillary supporters did in the thread discussion was a low blow. He's been open and honest about it. I would think that a better way to show that he doesn't have good judgement is to look at the people he surrounds himself with, because they have been doing some pretty not good things. The drug use thing means nothing to me. It was in the past. Doesn't it show VERY GOOD judgement that he got clean and worked with his church to clean up his neighbourhood which would also mean getting rid of the drug dealers who prey on lower income neighbourhoods. (Yes I read his book.) How is drug use from over a decade ago relevant? DOes he do it now as he's running? No? OK then. Non-issue. That was just disgusting

You know what's going to happen? Everyone will keep ripping each other to shreds until we get a candidate and then we'll look horrible because half the party will hate the other half. Bah. I'm starting to agree with my math geek, primaries are not good.

*It was left in this post where I was not talking about either Obama or Clinton but rather a badly written article in the NY Times that implied that people with the luxury to attend caucuses are more dedicated then primary voters. Which is classist and sexist and generally fucked up. (though in theory, I think they're an awesome idea. But I think anarchy is a good theory to. You don't see me advocating for that at this very moment now do you?)


Arbitrista said...

My feeling about the presidential race is: can't we all just get along? One of these 2 is going to be the Democratic nominee, neither is evil or perfect, none of their supporters are deluded or bad people, and either would be infinitely better than McCain.

I can't wait until it's over.

Anonymous said...

wow, tl:dr

but i'll respond to some of it.

-i didn't check number 4 on the list, so you might be right. even i thought it was kind of a stretch.

-for the drug use thing. i think it makes a lot of sense for him to put that on the table and be open about it. Of course it's irrelevant to the current election, just like john kerry's swiftboat deal. but someone made it relevant, didn't they?

-re: the article you copypasta'd( the whole article come ON! lol)
brought up a lot of good points. I can't argue, but i still support mr. Obama.

So. i don't have a whole lot to reply back. I'm sure you have read up on recent political news, but here is an article i saw today that i found very interesting.
(takes you to a preview, not the actual page, if you're scared)

I think this gives me and other voters a legitimate reason to not like Clinton. I don't care who her husband is, like you said, it just doesn't matter, but she has been playing the 'experience' card a lot lately. Particularly her experience in the bosnian situation. Lying about previous experience to get a job is frowned upon.

As always,

lost clown said...

Yes, but how does he compare his comments to those of the reporters also on the trip or his comments at the time? I don't see that as compelling reason to dislike Hillary.

lost clown said...

arbitrista: AMEN to that!