This is what the Clintonistas don't want you to see.
please be serious. it's Clinton who has been campaigning on her record.
On what she wants you to believe to be her 35 years of service. 8 years married to the President does not make you anything like an elected official. And her Senate Record is no more special than a lot of other Senators who couldn't get themselves nominated either.
well, this is always the case. let's not pretend that "the Senator with the strongest voting record" is entitled to the nomination. that's fantasy land.
because we all know that only consanguinial relatives and spouses of former presidents are entitled to the nomination...
What the hell does that mean? Who then is entitled to the nom?
dude stop. that's not what I said. I think we agree on the fact that the nomination process is messed up. I made no claim that Clinton was "entitled" to schitt. I'm just saying that your complaint that there are people with stronger voting records "who couldn't get themselves nominated" is a nonstarter.[/b] nice idea, but fantasy. we all know this is not a meritocracy.
Where did I say that again?
"her Senate Record is no more special than a lot of other Senators who couldn't get themselves nominated either."
that's what you said. and I agree with you dude. stop arguing. I am just saying that the nomination process is not based purely on one's voting record. Clinton and Obama both have plus (and minus) factors going into this nomination process that have nothing to do with their voting records.
Dude, I said that.
you mean birdman is not an alias for cashless? lol. I think I made my point regardless. I am going to lunch.
I don't know who shold be more flattered or who should be more insulted.
what facts are you talking about? are there distortions or inaccuracies in that article you can point to directly? it looks like an honest and relatively unbiased look at each candidate's record. if health care is really your thing, the writer even talks about how its clear that hillary's primarily been very influential in that area. perhaps she would be a better pediatrician than president
also, your wack ad hominems are reflective of your wack candidate's wack overall strategy
In that "article"", get serious?!!?? this is such a waste of time. mom's diary post doesn't make any sense, if you don't understand why, then go educate yourself before coming on here talking about - if kvh reads this and doesn't vote for obama he's insane.
i'm not attacking you either - that's not my thing - i'm just telling you to
In that "article"", get serious?!!?? this is such a waste of time. mom's diary post doesn't make any sense, if you don't understand why, then go educate yourself
Look at the comparisons. As I already said - Hillary has proposed a massive amount of bills in her 7+ years as a senator but up until November, she was dealing with a republican majority. So looking at their "successes" is arbitrary, and truth be told, neither of them is responsible for any significant bills. The number of positive bills passed in the senate at all (from a democrat's standpoint) in the past 7 years have been few and far between. The issue (if even relevant) should be on voting, on committees, on relationships and on proposed bills. Their voting records are similar, she has served for longer terms on more committees, and has proposed far more bills. I don't think "experience" is really an issue and wouldn't put her record in the senate on the plus side of her column, other than for the fact that she has served longer. He is currently on several committees, has the same relationships, etc.
Its not a winning issue for either of them. COngress has something like a 25% approval rating. She has more experience because she has served more years and proposed more bills, so she can say she is more "active". Again, its not a big deal to anyone who knows their records.
Look at the comparisons. As I already said - Hillary has proposed a massive amount of bills in her 7+ years as a senator but up until November, she was dealing with a republican majority. So looking at their "successes" is arbitrary, and truth be told, neither of them is responsible for any significant bills. The number of positive bills passed in the senate at all (from a democrat's standpoint) in the past 7 years have been few and far between. The issue (if even relevant) should be on voting, on committees, on relationships and on proposed bills. Their voting records are similar, she has served for longer terms on more committees, and has proposed far more bills. I don't think "experience" is really an issue and wouldn't put her record in the senate on the plus side of her column, other than for the fact that she has served longer. He is currently on several committees, has the same relationships, etc.
Its not a winning issue for either of them. COngress has something like a 25% approval rating. She has more experience because she has served more years and proposed more bills, so she can say she is more "active". Again, its not a big deal to anyone who knows their records.
i dont think this contradicts anything in that article. her proposing more bills cuz shes been around longer is kind of beside the point
how are you addressing obama's wider breadth of issues addressed, and hillary's tendency to propose bills that get no co-sponsors. or obama's willingness to piss off certain lobbys in order to address a specific issue while hills takes the path of least resistance (i.e. the lead paint example)
how are you addressing obama's wider breadth of issues addressed, and hillary's tendency to propose bills that get no co-sponsors
dude, move on. this is a tired topic and something that you will see republicans using against obama for the next 10 months. why didn't obama have any real senate accomplishments? answer: because he had to deal with a republican majority and a republican prez with veto power. i'm more impressed with someone like kucinech who makes a statement and says lets try to impeach bush even though we won't have the votes - than looking at a bunch of bills that either were intentionally watered down to get gop approval, or were done in vain with no chance of being passed, even thought they weren't that progressive to begin with.
its not a winner on either side. whether hillary got cosponsers for bills that were never gonna pass???
how are you addressing obama's wider breadth of issues addressed, and hillary's tendency to propose bills that get no co-sponsors
dude, move on. this is a tired topic and something that you will see republicans using against obama for the next 10 months. why didn't obama have any real senate accomplishments? answer: because he had to deal with a republican majority and a republican prez with veto power. i'm more impressed with someone like kucinech who makes a statement and says lets try to impeach bush even though we won't have the votes - than looking at a bunch of bills that either were intentionally watered down to get gop approval, or were done in vain with no chance of being passed, even thought they weren't that progressive to begin with.
its not a winner on either side. whether hillary got cosponsers for bills that were never gonna pass???
no one is talking about how many bills either of them passed because most of them did NOT pass. This is acknowledged in the article. The issue is - why throw bills out there that no one would cosponsor, that you knew wouldn't pass, unless you did it so you could say 'i created a bill to address [x issue]'? And you still haven't explained away the fact that obama was involved in numerous bills beyond the scope that hillary was focused on, and that the majority of his were cosponsored by other dems
how are you addressing obama's wider breadth of issues addressed, and hillary's tendency to propose bills that get no co-sponsors
dude, move on. this is a tired topic and something that you will see republicans using against obama for the next 10 months. why didn't obama have any real senate accomplishments? answer: because he had to deal with a republican majority and a republican prez with veto power. i'm more impressed with someone like kucinech who makes a statement and says lets try to impeach bush even though we won't have the votes - than looking at a bunch of bills that either were intentionally watered down to get gop approval, or were done in vain with no chance of being passed, even thought they weren't that progressive to begin with.
its not a winner on either side. whether hillary got cosponsers for bills that were never gonna pass???
no one is talking about how many bills either of them passed because most of them did NOT pass. This is acknowledged in the article. The issue is - why throw bills out there that no one would cosponsor, that you knew wouldn't pass, unless you did it so you could say 'i created a bill to address [x issue]'?
And you still haven't explained away the fact that obama was involved in numerous bills beyond the scope that hillary was focused on, and that the majority of his were cosponsored by other dems
so its okay to sponsor bills that don't pass just as long as some other democrat is a co-sponsor? your arguing a frivolous point to a non-issue, while leading off this thread as if you had just discovered a bombshell. sorry if i don't accept your invitation to go re-skim that blog from supermom, but your saying he was involved in bills "beyond the scope that hillary was focused on"? aside from the fact that your "evidence" is coming from the commentary of a pro obama daily kos blogger post, even if it was true, so what? neither of them passed any significant legislation, but without question, she has had a more active role just due to her term length thus far.
We're about 2 weeks away from KVH putting his full support behind Obama.
I am pretty confident that Hillary's supporters will rally behind Obama if he emerges the candidate. I only wish I had the same confidence in Obama's supporters in the event that it goes the other way.
there is a dangerous potentiality I think on the part of a lot of Obama supporters to just drop out if he is not nominated. that could spell doom for the Dems in November.
We're about 2 weeks away from KVH putting his full support behind Obama.
I am pretty confident that Hillary's supporters will rally behind Obama if he emerges the candidate. I only wish I had the same confidence in Obama's supporters in the event that it goes the other way.
there is a dangerous potentiality I think on the part of a lot of Obama supporters to just drop out if he is not nominated. that could spell doom for the Dems in November.
It's scary how democracy works when you have a candidate people really like...
We're about 2 weeks away from KVH putting his full support behind Obama.
I am pretty confident that Hillary's supporters will rally behind Obama if he emerges the candidate. I only wish I had the same confidence in Obama's supporters in the event that it goes the other way.
there is a dangerous potentiality I think on the part of a lot of Obama supporters to just drop out if he is not nominated. that could spell doom for the Dems in November.
The independents who support Obama will not support Clinton in the same numbers. They just won't. The Republicans who support Obama will not support Clinton in ANY numbers. They just won't.
Clinton's supporters are basically half the core of the Democratic party. Obama keeps beating her because he gets 2/3 of independents and, if it's an open primary, 3/4 of republicans. It's not a mystery that Clinton will not be as attractive to those voters, nor should it be some kind of disappointment, unless you want to engage in the extremely gross game of condescending to people regarding their voting practices because somehow you know better.
Everyone is entitled to their vote. And I am not entitled to have it be the same as mine. But people typically disappoint me with their electoral behavior.
Knowledge dropped. Now I've got to go get my wisdom teeth out.
On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
The independents who support Obama will not support Clinton in the same numbers. They just won't. The Republicans who support Obama will not support Clinton in ANY numbers. They just won't. No lie, JRoot
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
The independents who support Obama will not support Clinton in the same numbers. They just won't. The Republicans who support Obama will not support Clinton in ANY numbers. They just won't. No lie, JRoot
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
The independents who support Obama will not support Clinton in the same numbers. They just won't. The Republicans who support Obama will not support Clinton in ANY numbers. They just won't. No lie, JRoot
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
OK but it would still be a shame if -- in the event of a Hillary nomination -- Obama supporters handed the White House to McCain.
Maybe the Republicans among them wouldn't mind seeing McCain in the WH over Hillary, but I suspect that, on a close election night in Novemebr, there will be some non-voting former Obama supporters biting their nails, feeling maybe a little voters remorse (see: Nader supporters on election night 2000).
That blog entry is a very superficial look at each of these bills and it is pretty clear that she has no idea what she is talking about. Using the titles of the bills as demonstrations of how one is more effective or pointed than another = flaming poptart status revealed.
Also, this quotation of hers:
And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others.
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
this is such bullshit. there is no "independents" position on any issue. we use the terms liberal and conservative interchangeably with democrat and republican for a reason. party lines are in fact very important in elections, because they allow people to cast votes based on principles of a party - as opposed to spending an extraordinary amount of time to learn what each candidate's position is on every issue.
perhaps that is okay for a presidential election, but i live in a city where there is about 30 different offices to fill each election - including judgeships. i try to read up on city politics but when it comes down to things like city council, i'm not exactly well versed in what separates the individual candidates. that is why we have party lines. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
Comments
I think you should be insulted. I'm indifferent.
In that "article"", get serious?!!?? this is such a waste of time. mom's diary post doesn't make any sense, if you don't understand why, then go educate yourself before coming on here talking about - if kvh reads this and doesn't vote for obama he's insane.
i'm not attacking you either - that's not my thing - i'm just telling you to
you are going in circles
sidebar:
There are many graemlins to choose from.
You need to put the monkey down, son.
You keep fixating on this..as if the parental - and gender - of the author is somehow relevant to the opinions express therein.
MOTHER ISSUES REVEALED
Don't you realize he obviously has us both on ignore?
I guess that makes sense, since we're now just aliases of each other. So that would make Deej next on the list?
Look at the comparisons. As I already said - Hillary has proposed a massive amount of bills in her 7+ years as a senator but up until November, she was dealing with a republican majority. So looking at their "successes" is arbitrary, and truth be told, neither of them is responsible for any significant bills. The number of positive bills passed in the senate at all (from a democrat's standpoint) in the past 7 years have been few and far between. The issue (if even relevant) should be on voting, on committees, on relationships and on proposed bills. Their voting records are similar, she has served for longer terms on more committees, and has proposed far more bills. I don't think "experience" is really an issue and wouldn't put her record in the senate on the plus side of her column, other than for the fact that she has served longer. He is currently on several committees, has the same relationships, etc.
Its not a winning issue for either of them. COngress has something like a 25% approval rating. She has more experience because she has served more years and proposed more bills, so she can say she is more "active". Again, its not a big deal to anyone who knows their records.
jokes. if the author's blogger name was Grassroots Dad - i think the same jabs would apply.
Staying at home watching the kids today issues revealed.
Republican Dodge Tactic #4080
If it was someone else, they'd be suffering from anti-Hillary bias, Obamania, or they're in the pocket of the Republicans.
Hillary and her fanboys are exhausting the playbook, looking like a dying animal....
how are you addressing obama's wider breadth of issues addressed, and hillary's tendency to propose bills that get no co-sponsors. or obama's willingness to piss off certain lobbys in order to address a specific issue while hills takes the path of least resistance (i.e. the lead paint example)
ha ha, especially when she said "As a mom with small kids ..."
Details, details
dude, move on. this is a tired topic and something that you will see republicans using against obama for the next 10 months. why didn't obama have any real senate accomplishments? answer: because he had to deal with a republican majority and a republican prez with veto power. i'm more impressed with someone like kucinech who makes a statement and says lets try to impeach bush even though we won't have the votes - than looking at a bunch of bills that either were intentionally watered down to get gop approval, or were done in vain with no chance of being passed, even thought they weren't that progressive to begin with.
its not a winner on either side. whether hillary got cosponsers for bills that were never gonna pass???
And you still haven't explained away the fact that obama was involved in numerous bills beyond the scope that hillary was focused on, and that the majority of his were cosponsored by other dems
so its okay to sponsor bills that don't pass just as long as some other democrat is a co-sponsor? your arguing a frivolous point to a non-issue, while leading off this thread as if you had just discovered a bombshell. sorry if i don't accept your invitation to go re-skim that blog from supermom, but your saying he was involved in bills "beyond the scope that hillary was focused on"? aside from the fact that your "evidence" is coming from the commentary of a pro obama daily kos blogger post, even if it was true, so what? neither of them passed any significant legislation, but without question, she has had a more active role just due to her term length thus far.
We're about 2 weeks away from KVH putting his full support behind Obama.
I am pretty confident that Hillary's supporters will rally behind Obama if he emerges the candidate. I only wish I had the same confidence in Obama's supporters in the event that it goes the other way.
there is a dangerous potentiality I think on the part of a lot of Obama supporters to just drop out if he is not nominated. that could spell doom for the Dems in November.
It's scary how democracy works when you have a candidate people really like...
Barack is on
Foreign Relations
Veterans' Affairs
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Hillary is on
Armed Services
Environment and Public Works
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Aging
The independents who support Obama will not support Clinton in the same numbers. They just won't. The Republicans who support Obama will not support Clinton in ANY numbers. They just won't.
Clinton's supporters are basically half the core of the Democratic party. Obama keeps beating her because he gets 2/3 of independents and, if it's an open primary, 3/4 of republicans. It's not a mystery that Clinton will not be as attractive to those voters, nor should it be some kind of disappointment, unless you want to engage in the extremely gross game of condescending to people regarding their voting practices because somehow you know better.
Everyone is entitled to their vote. And I am not entitled to have it be the same as mine. But people typically disappoint me with their electoral behavior.
Knowledge dropped. Now I've got to go get my wisdom teeth out.
No lie,
JRoot
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
OK but it would still be a shame if -- in the event of a Hillary nomination -- Obama supporters handed the White House to McCain.
Maybe the Republicans among them wouldn't mind seeing McCain in the WH over Hillary, but I suspect that, on a close election night in Novemebr, there will be some non-voting former Obama supporters biting their nails, feeling maybe a little voters remorse (see: Nader supporters on election night 2000).
Also, this quotation of hers:
Is an absurd assertion.
BTW- I'm an Obama supporter.
this is such bullshit. there is no "independents" position on any issue. we use the terms liberal and conservative interchangeably with democrat and republican for a reason. party lines are in fact very important in elections, because they allow people to cast votes based on principles of a party - as opposed to spending an extraordinary amount of time to learn what each candidate's position is on every issue.
perhaps that is okay for a presidential election, but i live in a city where there is about 30 different offices to fill each election - including judgeships. i try to read up on city politics but when it comes down to things like city council, i'm not exactly well versed in what separates the individual candidates. that is why we have party lines. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.