Stacey A. Ward ~ No McCain!'s Blog
•
All Categories
Trailhead: A Number You Probably Haven't Seen
This just in from Slate....
A Number You Probably Haven't Seen
It’s well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.
Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.
The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.
It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.
Published Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:34 PM by Christopher Beam
A Number You Probably Haven't Seen
It’s well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.
Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.
The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.
It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.
Published Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:34 PM by Christopher Beam
Primer: Clinton vs. Obama on the Top 10 Economic Policy Issues
Attribution: From http://www.motherjones.com/
February 29, 2008: Looking for a field guide to the Clinton/Obama differences on healthcare, social security, and subprime bailouts? We've got it below (and psst...writer Nomi Prins says Clinton wins this match-up). Plus: Why are citizens being locked up for "un-American" thoughts?
By Nomi Prins
On the surface, based on their voting records, the media, and their own admissions, the difference in policy choices between Obama and Clinton may seem small. Mostly, they've been about health care (her plan to make it mandatory, his carrot-and-stick approach) and her vote for the Iraq War. (He wasn't around to vote—though his propensity, like Clinton's, to vote along party lines or not show up at all may say more about what he would have done than any statements to the contrary; it's hard to imagine that he would have been the sole senator voting against the war besides the late Paul Wellstone. In any case, that's history.)
But there are substantial differences between the two on another issue, one that you might think would have some traction, what with a recession in progress: economics. The distinctions take a rigorous analysis to identify—a look at what they've chosen to emphasize as well as their choice of words and presentation. I took the time to group and compare the top 10 economic policy topics presented in Hillary Clinton's "Solutions for America: Economic Blueprint" and Barack Obama's "Keeping America's Promise: Strengthening the Middle Class."
As a practical matter of readability, Clinton's document is a clear 12-page report, with nonduplicative points and slightly less detail. Obama's is a 48–page thesis in which several key ideas appear multiple times with slightly different descriptions each time. But that's stylistic choice. On the economic substance, Clinton beats Obama 5-to-3 and ties on 2 topics.
1) Housing/Subprime Policy (Edge to Clinton)
The amount of money both candidates suggest using to stave off a complete housing catastrophe is equal, at $30 billion. Clinton suggests a 90-day moratorium for subprime-financed owner-occupied homes, a five-year rate freeze on subprime adjustable rate mortgages, and the creation of a $30 billion fund for state and local groups to stop foreclosures.
Obama posits a $20 billion fund with $10 billion going to state and local groups, and $10 billion directly to families to avoid foreclosure. If implemented well, it sounds like it gives money directly to struggling borrowers, but it's not clear how it would work in practice. He also suggests $10 billion in Mortgage Revenue Bonds to refinance subprime loans, effectively a cross between a government bailout of the lending industry, and a way for Wall Street to earn some trading-fee income.
2) Tax Policy (Slight Edge to Obama with reservations over free-market speak)
A thorough tax plan is lacking in Clinton's plan in terms of detail, and in Obama's, because of repetition through slightly varied explanations. Overall, Clinton suggests a $650 emergency energy assistance to 37 million families at a cost of $24 billion.
Obama suggests $500 in tax relief to workers and families, with an immediate $250 for 150 million individual workers, at a $75 billion cost. Here, his language echoes that of the business focus of President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson; he claims this tax relief would "stimulate consumer spending in the most rapid way possible."
But on the innovative side, he suggests a "Making Work Pay" tax cut that would eliminate income tax for 10 million Americans and a Universal Mortgage Credit for Americans who don't itemize taxes, a way of accommodating low-income homeowners.
3) Seniors/Social Security/Retirement Policy (Edge to Obama)
Obama's plans are more detailed than Clinton's. Clinton suggests a government-sponsored 401K savings plan, whereby plan holders would receive $1,000 in matching tax cuts for their first $1,000 invested to encourage savings.
Obama would create automatic workplace pensions to increase savings participation and match 50%, instead of all, of the first $1,000 of savings, for families earning less than $75,000. Though his health care plan is not mandatory, his savings plan is.
He also suggests a $250 "bonus" to be distributed to seniors in their social security checks, eliminating income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year, and increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by social security from the current $97,500 level. Clinton does not address this specifically in her plan.
4) College Education (Edge to Clinton)
Both plans are similar, beyond a minor difference in the size of tax credit, but Clinton's plan goes beyond Obama's. She suggests a $3,500 tax credit, an increase in Pell Grants, and $500 million for on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for those who don't go to college, acknowledging the importance of noncollege education. Obama suggests a $4,000 tax credit. Neither plan would go very far to equalize the racial and economic class bias in college and graduate-level education participation.
5) Worker Pay/Sick Benefits (Tie)
Their plans are identical. Both suggest a mandate to give workers seven paid sick days. Both would extend and expand unemployment insurance. Clinton does not specifically address the minimum or living wage in this blueprint, though she introduced legislation at the end of December to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011. Obama says the minimum wage should increase to that same amount by 2011 and be indexed to inflation. Both candidates are lacking in this department.
6) High Wage/Green Job Growth (Edge to Clinton)
Both candidates have jumped on the green jobs bandwagon with ambitious long-term plans that are difficult to quantify before being set in motion. Both would establish a national broadband strategy and create large national infrastructure reinvestment funds. Both would enhance research and development, she by doubling research budgets, he by making the R&D; tax credit permanent.
Clinton would create 5 million new green collar jobs compared to Obama's 2 million, and establish a $50 billion clean energy strategy fund. He would invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of bio fuels and renewable energy. The faster the shot in the arm, the better the results, so the edge here is to Clinton.
7) Health Care (Edge to Clinton)
Health care policy has been debated and discussed in great detail. In an economic context, Clinton's American Health Choices Plan provides a mandatory path to universal health care for all, ensures coverage is not denied because of preexisting conditions, and gives small businesses a tax credit for health care coverage. By widening the pool of coverage, it is more likely to be implemented by health insurance companies, create additional competition amongst them, and thereby possibly reduce rates.
Obama says his plan would provide universal health care, though not mandatorily, and reduce family premiums by $2,500 per year (though it's hard to see how he can commit to that number, an average 30% premium reduction). His plan would be available to the self employed, small businesses, and all children, and would also not turn anyone away for preexisting conditions. In place of a New Deal type of government-mandated inclusion, it utilizes a government watchdog, establishing a National Health Insurance Exchange to oversee plan fairness and standards, and increase competition amongst insurers.
8) Corporate Tax Policy (Edge to Obama for addressing tax haven problem)
Both would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Both would force competitive drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, repealing the current congressional act abdicating this right, saving $30 billion.
Clinton would scale back benefits and subsidies to big corporations by $55 billion per year, investing that money to help working families, and take tax credits from big oil companies to finance her $50 billion strategic energy fund. Obama's plan would provide $80-$85 billion in tax relief to ordinary Americans by closing corporate loopholes for oil and gas companies and cracking down on international tax havens.
Clinton would end no-bid contracting and cut 500,000 government contractors. Obama would ensure public contracts be awarded to companies committed to American workers.
9) Credit/Lending Policy (Tie. Points to Clinton for rate caps and suggesting real housing-oriented regulation. Points to Obama for reforming 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.)
Both say they will get tough on abuse. Clinton would create a Fair Credit for Families Agenda to combat abusive credit card practices, impose a 30% cap on interest rates, and work to lower the cap. Obama would create a Stop Fraud Act to combat abusive lending practices, but doesn't get specific on rate caps, beyond capping payday loan rates at 36%.
Clinton would establish a regulatory framework to crack down on mortgage lenders to prevent future housing crises, but doesn't go into specifics. Obama would create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score to provide borrowers a metric to compare risk of various mortgage products, and mandate accurate loan disclosure.
Clinton's plan does not discuss the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, whereas Obama would amend it to help ordinary families renegotiate loan terms for homes in bankruptcy, as well as reform the law so that if the reason for filing was medical expenses, people should be relieved of that debt. He would alter corporate bankruptcy laws to protect pensions by putting them higher on the list of debt companies can't shed if they go bankrupt.
10) Family-Oriented Policy (Slight edge to Clinton for grant vs. refund suggestions)
Both would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to cover employers with 25 workers, instead of the current 50 employees. Clinton would commit $1 billion per year to a Family Leave Innovation Fund to support state-level parental-leave programs and expand at-home family care through individual and business tax credits. Obama would expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families up to 50% credit for child care, instead of the current 35%.
February 29, 2008: Looking for a field guide to the Clinton/Obama differences on healthcare, social security, and subprime bailouts? We've got it below (and psst...writer Nomi Prins says Clinton wins this match-up). Plus: Why are citizens being locked up for "un-American" thoughts?
By Nomi Prins
On the surface, based on their voting records, the media, and their own admissions, the difference in policy choices between Obama and Clinton may seem small. Mostly, they've been about health care (her plan to make it mandatory, his carrot-and-stick approach) and her vote for the Iraq War. (He wasn't around to vote—though his propensity, like Clinton's, to vote along party lines or not show up at all may say more about what he would have done than any statements to the contrary; it's hard to imagine that he would have been the sole senator voting against the war besides the late Paul Wellstone. In any case, that's history.)
But there are substantial differences between the two on another issue, one that you might think would have some traction, what with a recession in progress: economics. The distinctions take a rigorous analysis to identify—a look at what they've chosen to emphasize as well as their choice of words and presentation. I took the time to group and compare the top 10 economic policy topics presented in Hillary Clinton's "Solutions for America: Economic Blueprint" and Barack Obama's "Keeping America's Promise: Strengthening the Middle Class."
As a practical matter of readability, Clinton's document is a clear 12-page report, with nonduplicative points and slightly less detail. Obama's is a 48–page thesis in which several key ideas appear multiple times with slightly different descriptions each time. But that's stylistic choice. On the economic substance, Clinton beats Obama 5-to-3 and ties on 2 topics.
1) Housing/Subprime Policy (Edge to Clinton)
The amount of money both candidates suggest using to stave off a complete housing catastrophe is equal, at $30 billion. Clinton suggests a 90-day moratorium for subprime-financed owner-occupied homes, a five-year rate freeze on subprime adjustable rate mortgages, and the creation of a $30 billion fund for state and local groups to stop foreclosures.
Obama posits a $20 billion fund with $10 billion going to state and local groups, and $10 billion directly to families to avoid foreclosure. If implemented well, it sounds like it gives money directly to struggling borrowers, but it's not clear how it would work in practice. He also suggests $10 billion in Mortgage Revenue Bonds to refinance subprime loans, effectively a cross between a government bailout of the lending industry, and a way for Wall Street to earn some trading-fee income.
2) Tax Policy (Slight Edge to Obama with reservations over free-market speak)
A thorough tax plan is lacking in Clinton's plan in terms of detail, and in Obama's, because of repetition through slightly varied explanations. Overall, Clinton suggests a $650 emergency energy assistance to 37 million families at a cost of $24 billion.
Obama suggests $500 in tax relief to workers and families, with an immediate $250 for 150 million individual workers, at a $75 billion cost. Here, his language echoes that of the business focus of President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson; he claims this tax relief would "stimulate consumer spending in the most rapid way possible."
But on the innovative side, he suggests a "Making Work Pay" tax cut that would eliminate income tax for 10 million Americans and a Universal Mortgage Credit for Americans who don't itemize taxes, a way of accommodating low-income homeowners.
3) Seniors/Social Security/Retirement Policy (Edge to Obama)
Obama's plans are more detailed than Clinton's. Clinton suggests a government-sponsored 401K savings plan, whereby plan holders would receive $1,000 in matching tax cuts for their first $1,000 invested to encourage savings.
Obama would create automatic workplace pensions to increase savings participation and match 50%, instead of all, of the first $1,000 of savings, for families earning less than $75,000. Though his health care plan is not mandatory, his savings plan is.
He also suggests a $250 "bonus" to be distributed to seniors in their social security checks, eliminating income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year, and increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by social security from the current $97,500 level. Clinton does not address this specifically in her plan.
4) College Education (Edge to Clinton)
Both plans are similar, beyond a minor difference in the size of tax credit, but Clinton's plan goes beyond Obama's. She suggests a $3,500 tax credit, an increase in Pell Grants, and $500 million for on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for those who don't go to college, acknowledging the importance of noncollege education. Obama suggests a $4,000 tax credit. Neither plan would go very far to equalize the racial and economic class bias in college and graduate-level education participation.
5) Worker Pay/Sick Benefits (Tie)
Their plans are identical. Both suggest a mandate to give workers seven paid sick days. Both would extend and expand unemployment insurance. Clinton does not specifically address the minimum or living wage in this blueprint, though she introduced legislation at the end of December to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011. Obama says the minimum wage should increase to that same amount by 2011 and be indexed to inflation. Both candidates are lacking in this department.
6) High Wage/Green Job Growth (Edge to Clinton)
Both candidates have jumped on the green jobs bandwagon with ambitious long-term plans that are difficult to quantify before being set in motion. Both would establish a national broadband strategy and create large national infrastructure reinvestment funds. Both would enhance research and development, she by doubling research budgets, he by making the R&D; tax credit permanent.
Clinton would create 5 million new green collar jobs compared to Obama's 2 million, and establish a $50 billion clean energy strategy fund. He would invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of bio fuels and renewable energy. The faster the shot in the arm, the better the results, so the edge here is to Clinton.
7) Health Care (Edge to Clinton)
Health care policy has been debated and discussed in great detail. In an economic context, Clinton's American Health Choices Plan provides a mandatory path to universal health care for all, ensures coverage is not denied because of preexisting conditions, and gives small businesses a tax credit for health care coverage. By widening the pool of coverage, it is more likely to be implemented by health insurance companies, create additional competition amongst them, and thereby possibly reduce rates.
Obama says his plan would provide universal health care, though not mandatorily, and reduce family premiums by $2,500 per year (though it's hard to see how he can commit to that number, an average 30% premium reduction). His plan would be available to the self employed, small businesses, and all children, and would also not turn anyone away for preexisting conditions. In place of a New Deal type of government-mandated inclusion, it utilizes a government watchdog, establishing a National Health Insurance Exchange to oversee plan fairness and standards, and increase competition amongst insurers.
8) Corporate Tax Policy (Edge to Obama for addressing tax haven problem)
Both would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Both would force competitive drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, repealing the current congressional act abdicating this right, saving $30 billion.
Clinton would scale back benefits and subsidies to big corporations by $55 billion per year, investing that money to help working families, and take tax credits from big oil companies to finance her $50 billion strategic energy fund. Obama's plan would provide $80-$85 billion in tax relief to ordinary Americans by closing corporate loopholes for oil and gas companies and cracking down on international tax havens.
Clinton would end no-bid contracting and cut 500,000 government contractors. Obama would ensure public contracts be awarded to companies committed to American workers.
9) Credit/Lending Policy (Tie. Points to Clinton for rate caps and suggesting real housing-oriented regulation. Points to Obama for reforming 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.)
Both say they will get tough on abuse. Clinton would create a Fair Credit for Families Agenda to combat abusive credit card practices, impose a 30% cap on interest rates, and work to lower the cap. Obama would create a Stop Fraud Act to combat abusive lending practices, but doesn't get specific on rate caps, beyond capping payday loan rates at 36%.
Clinton would establish a regulatory framework to crack down on mortgage lenders to prevent future housing crises, but doesn't go into specifics. Obama would create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score to provide borrowers a metric to compare risk of various mortgage products, and mandate accurate loan disclosure.
Clinton's plan does not discuss the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, whereas Obama would amend it to help ordinary families renegotiate loan terms for homes in bankruptcy, as well as reform the law so that if the reason for filing was medical expenses, people should be relieved of that debt. He would alter corporate bankruptcy laws to protect pensions by putting them higher on the list of debt companies can't shed if they go bankrupt.
10) Family-Oriented Policy (Slight edge to Clinton for grant vs. refund suggestions)
Both would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to cover employers with 25 workers, instead of the current 50 employees. Clinton would commit $1 billion per year to a Family Leave Innovation Fund to support state-level parental-leave programs and expand at-home family care through individual and business tax credits. Obama would expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families up to 50% credit for child care, instead of the current 35%.
Veteran's Issues: Clinton versus McCain
The source of this information is as follows: VA Watchdog Dot Org and http://www.votesmart.org/
As the daughter of a now-deceased World War II veteran who was decorated for bravery (HARRY H. WARD, Bronze Star, Pacific Theater, Combat Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, 1st Lt., 1944) and who was badly wounded and spent months in recovery, I am very sensitive to veterans' issues and politicans' voting records on them. No one can dispute Sen. John McCain's bravery. But based upon his voting record on veterans' issues, I must say that I find it appalling how willing he is to put our young men and women in harm's way but vote against adequate funding for services upon their return home when they are lucky enough to come home. His hawkishness extends only to militarism and not to supporting our servicepeople upon their return. Sen. Clinton on the other hand has consistently voted to aid our returning veterans and to offer greater support to the families of those whose loved ones do not make it home.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Clinton a grade of A-.
2006 Senator Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 41 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 50 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 92 percent in 2001.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment Y
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment Y
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment Y
John Sidney McCain
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.
2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 46 percent in 2001.
1999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 66 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 0 percent in 1997-1998.
1989-1990 On the votes that the Vietnam Veterans of America considered to be the most important in 1989-1990 , Senator McCain voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N
As the daughter of a now-deceased World War II veteran who was decorated for bravery (HARRY H. WARD, Bronze Star, Pacific Theater, Combat Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, 1st Lt., 1944) and who was badly wounded and spent months in recovery, I am very sensitive to veterans' issues and politicans' voting records on them. No one can dispute Sen. John McCain's bravery. But based upon his voting record on veterans' issues, I must say that I find it appalling how willing he is to put our young men and women in harm's way but vote against adequate funding for services upon their return home when they are lucky enough to come home. His hawkishness extends only to militarism and not to supporting our servicepeople upon their return. Sen. Clinton on the other hand has consistently voted to aid our returning veterans and to offer greater support to the families of those whose loved ones do not make it home.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Clinton a grade of A-.
2006 Senator Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 41 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 50 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 92 percent in 2001.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment Y
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment Y
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment Y
John Sidney McCain
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.
2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 46 percent in 2001.
1999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 66 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 0 percent in 1997-1998.
1989-1990 On the votes that the Vietnam Veterans of America considered to be the most important in 1989-1990 , Senator McCain voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N
My Response to a mid-Jan Proposal that the Dems Draft Kerry
At this point Uncle ------, I'll vote for and campaign for whoever the
Democratic nominee is. But I'm supporting Hillary in the primaries.
Obama and Edwards and their "no girls in the treehouse" whining will
make it damned hard for me to support them should either of them come out on top.
The boys have totally radicalized and hardened my support for Hillary, from that of an interested but uncommitted observer to someone who has been writing to and calling up people in key primary states, sending letters to the editor, and ponying up a small recurring monthly contribution. [Editor's note: With non-recurring extra donations thrown in, it's up to about $400.00.]
For me, Hillary does not represent politics as usual, Washington cronyism, or some past distasteful era of corruption and pandering. Indeed, I'd gladly have Bill back despite my anger and disappointment with him at the beginning of his second term. Nothing like nearly eight years of that cretin Dubya in the White House to put things in perspective; Bill lied about a blow job, something most married men would do. Bush's lies are a scourge upon this nation in innumerable ways, but hopefully not irreparable ones. I think Sen. Clinton represents the best combination of experience and the ability and desire to make the changes needed in this country.
That said, I'm so tired of Bushie and his minions and the politics of
evangelism and idiocy (redundant, I know) that I'd vote for the
disinterred corpse of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed if he were the
Democratic nominee. (An exaggeration perhaps, but you get the point.)
I frankly hope Kerry stays the hell out of it, and felt even more strongly that way after his miserable little performance endorsing Obama
without so much as a behind-the-scenes phone call to give John Edwards a heads-up. Sorry, but I kept the faith with Kerry through the last campaign and bemoaned the fact that once again in this country the better man lost and the stupidity of the same American public that gave two terms to Nixon and Reagan reared its ugly head. But Kerry has none of the genius of Al Gore, and all the charisma of an undertaker. If I'd wanted anyone to throw his hat in the ring early on, it would've been the man who actually was popularly elected President of the United States in 2000, the aforementioned and terribly underappreciated Al Gore. But I have not signed petitions to draft him in the 11th hour either. It's too damn late for another powerful Democrat to enter without the result being an ultimately fatal round of blood-letting.
The Democrats need to not eviscerate their own this time around. My advice to anyone who doesn't like whoever the eventual nominee is...?
Look at Guantanamo Bay...
Look at the unprecedented increase in the use of signing statements...
Look at American citizens reclassified as enemy combatants by an executive who argues that no other co-equal branch of government may review the decision...
Look at an administration that tries to undermine the applicability of the Geneva Conventions...
Look at dummied up "intelligence" leading us to invade a non-aggressing country and topple its government...
Look at the wall between church and state derided and crumbling...
Look at people who will not acknowledge global warming even to preserve the planet for their own children and grandchildren, so vast is their greed and so pervasive is their confusion between cultural mythology and science...
Buy a set of hip waders, buy a clothes pin to put on your nose if need be,
but COME THIS FALL go to the damned polls, ..............
AND VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pardon the vehemence, but with a daughter turning 8 in two days and
another who is 4, I am frightened as never before about the future of
this country and the planet itself if we have to endure even four more
years of another Republican idealogue. [Editor's note: This was written before Sen. McCain was essentially the de facto Republican nominee. If I'd known that then, I'd have pointed out to my Uncle that McCain is no longer any sort of political maverick if he ever was one, having sold out on issues ranging from making Bushie's tax cuts permanent to waffling on waterboarding as torture to snuggling up to the likes of Jerry Falwell, whom he once denounced. A McCain administration would be nothing more nor less than a third term of Dubya Dubya Duh.]
As for primary season, Obama is thus far a lot of style but no substance. I may well be forty but what worries me about Obama isn't at all that he's "too radical" or that he's black, but that thus far I've heard no explanations from him for the miraculous things he's planning to accomplish. The color bothering me is green, as in he's as green as grass. This country doesn't need a President in training. As for John Edwards, whose positions I mainly agree with? I cannot forget that he looked like a child being taken to the woodshed in the VP debates last time around, and Cheney is not exactly a skilled debater. That worries me because it betrays a lack of confidence, a lack of adequate preparation, a tendency to underestimate the enemy, and frankly a lack of cojones.
As for poor ol' Kerry? I lived through the Carter years; he's a much better ex-president than he ever was a president. Kerry reminds me of Carter.
Love,
Stacey
(part of the generation of women getting more radical as we age)
Democratic nominee is. But I'm supporting Hillary in the primaries.
Obama and Edwards and their "no girls in the treehouse" whining will
make it damned hard for me to support them should either of them come out on top.
The boys have totally radicalized and hardened my support for Hillary, from that of an interested but uncommitted observer to someone who has been writing to and calling up people in key primary states, sending letters to the editor, and ponying up a small recurring monthly contribution. [Editor's note: With non-recurring extra donations thrown in, it's up to about $400.00.]
For me, Hillary does not represent politics as usual, Washington cronyism, or some past distasteful era of corruption and pandering. Indeed, I'd gladly have Bill back despite my anger and disappointment with him at the beginning of his second term. Nothing like nearly eight years of that cretin Dubya in the White House to put things in perspective; Bill lied about a blow job, something most married men would do. Bush's lies are a scourge upon this nation in innumerable ways, but hopefully not irreparable ones. I think Sen. Clinton represents the best combination of experience and the ability and desire to make the changes needed in this country.
That said, I'm so tired of Bushie and his minions and the politics of
evangelism and idiocy (redundant, I know) that I'd vote for the
disinterred corpse of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed if he were the
Democratic nominee. (An exaggeration perhaps, but you get the point.)
I frankly hope Kerry stays the hell out of it, and felt even more strongly that way after his miserable little performance endorsing Obama
without so much as a behind-the-scenes phone call to give John Edwards a heads-up. Sorry, but I kept the faith with Kerry through the last campaign and bemoaned the fact that once again in this country the better man lost and the stupidity of the same American public that gave two terms to Nixon and Reagan reared its ugly head. But Kerry has none of the genius of Al Gore, and all the charisma of an undertaker. If I'd wanted anyone to throw his hat in the ring early on, it would've been the man who actually was popularly elected President of the United States in 2000, the aforementioned and terribly underappreciated Al Gore. But I have not signed petitions to draft him in the 11th hour either. It's too damn late for another powerful Democrat to enter without the result being an ultimately fatal round of blood-letting.
The Democrats need to not eviscerate their own this time around. My advice to anyone who doesn't like whoever the eventual nominee is...?
Look at Guantanamo Bay...
Look at the unprecedented increase in the use of signing statements...
Look at American citizens reclassified as enemy combatants by an executive who argues that no other co-equal branch of government may review the decision...
Look at an administration that tries to undermine the applicability of the Geneva Conventions...
Look at dummied up "intelligence" leading us to invade a non-aggressing country and topple its government...
Look at the wall between church and state derided and crumbling...
Look at people who will not acknowledge global warming even to preserve the planet for their own children and grandchildren, so vast is their greed and so pervasive is their confusion between cultural mythology and science...
Buy a set of hip waders, buy a clothes pin to put on your nose if need be,
but COME THIS FALL go to the damned polls, ..............
AND VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pardon the vehemence, but with a daughter turning 8 in two days and
another who is 4, I am frightened as never before about the future of
this country and the planet itself if we have to endure even four more
years of another Republican idealogue. [Editor's note: This was written before Sen. McCain was essentially the de facto Republican nominee. If I'd known that then, I'd have pointed out to my Uncle that McCain is no longer any sort of political maverick if he ever was one, having sold out on issues ranging from making Bushie's tax cuts permanent to waffling on waterboarding as torture to snuggling up to the likes of Jerry Falwell, whom he once denounced. A McCain administration would be nothing more nor less than a third term of Dubya Dubya Duh.]
As for primary season, Obama is thus far a lot of style but no substance. I may well be forty but what worries me about Obama isn't at all that he's "too radical" or that he's black, but that thus far I've heard no explanations from him for the miraculous things he's planning to accomplish. The color bothering me is green, as in he's as green as grass. This country doesn't need a President in training. As for John Edwards, whose positions I mainly agree with? I cannot forget that he looked like a child being taken to the woodshed in the VP debates last time around, and Cheney is not exactly a skilled debater. That worries me because it betrays a lack of confidence, a lack of adequate preparation, a tendency to underestimate the enemy, and frankly a lack of cojones.
As for poor ol' Kerry? I lived through the Carter years; he's a much better ex-president than he ever was a president. Kerry reminds me of Carter.
Love,
Stacey
(part of the generation of women getting more radical as we age)
Serious Concerns About Sen. Obama's Electability Over McCain
by Lanny Davis on The Huffington Post
Recent Polling Data Shows Serious Concerns About Senator Obama's "Electability" Over Senator McCain vs. Senator Clinton's
Posted February 28, 2008 | 08:13 PM (EST)
I know that Senator Obama is the front-runner. But I remain concerned about his electability. I find him inspirational, attractive, articulate and very intelligent. He has run an outstanding campaign. Close friends are ardently for him. I like him.
But recent polling data confirms for me, despite all the horde of punditry proclaiming him a "phenom" with stronger general electorate appeal than Senator Clinton, that Senator Obama is very vulnerable in the general election and less likely to defeat Senator McCain than Senator Clinton. And so to all Democrats - especially those in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - I offer these facts and these arguments to take another look before if you believe Senator Obama is the stronger general election candidate.
CNN's Bill Schneider recently looked at the data showing Senator Obama as leading Senator Clinton in most Democratic national polls for the first time. Primarily, he said, this was because Democrats now see Senator Obama as more likely to defeat Senator McCain.
But the polling data do not consistently support this overwhelming Democratic voter and punditry perception.
In fact, many recent national polls show very little difference in head-to-head contests against Senator McCain between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Some show Senator Obama running slightly ahead of Senator McCain, with Senator Clinton close or in a dead heat. Recently, a front page story in USA Today showed Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in a statistical dead heat with Senator McCain, i.e., while Senator Obama was slightly ahead of Senator McCain and Senator Clinton slightly behind numerically, both were within the +/- 3% margin of error.
But how can this be? Hasn't Senator Obama usually shown more support among independents and Republicans, both in the national polls and those states with open primaries? The answer is yes - but once you look beneath those data, you will see serious reasons to doubt whether that pattern will hold by the time of the November 2008 general election.
First, recent national data shows the surprising, even shocking, fact that Senator Obama runs weaker among Democrats vs. Senator McCain than does Senator Clinton. For example, in the last three national Gallup polls (January, early February and late February,) Senator McCain wins more Democrats in a race against Senator Obama than he does in a race against Senator Clinton - i.e., Senator McCain wins an average of 17%-19% of Democrats against Senator Obama, but only 10%-12-% average Democrats running against Senator Clinton.
And why is that? Here could be a key reason: According to a recent Washington Post/ABC survey, about 4 out of 10 primary voting Democrats in Ohio and Texas say that Barack Obama "does not have the kind of experience" necessary to "serve as president." This compares to Senator Clinton, who is seen by most voters as having superior experience to be president as compared to Senator Obama, even by his own supporters.
This should be an extraordinary and worrisome piece of data for all Democrats who most of all want to win back the White House in 2008. Imagine: if 40% of self-identified voters planning to participate in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries feel that way, then no wonder that Gallup's recent January and February polls show nearly one-out-of five Democrats supporting Senator McCain against Senator Obama. And those defections could well be indicators of similar defections come next November among moderate and conservative "Reagan Democrats" who did not participate in the low-turn out Democratic primaries and caucuses, as well as moderate and conservative Independents and Republicans.
But what about data showing that Independents and Republicans have shown greater preference for Senator Obama than Senator Clinton?
The answer is, Senator Obama remains is virtually unknown to most voters outside of the small percentage of registered voters who participated in all the Democratic primaries and caucuses. (A recent group of Obama young supporters was asked by MSNBC pollster to name a single accomplishment of Obama and after some uncomfortable silence, one supporter said, "he's run a great campaign.") In his own book, The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama himself (I am writing from memory, so I hope my paraphrase is correct) admits that he is relatively unknown to most Americans - in effect a blank slate.
No one disagrees that Senator Clinton is well-known and that she has sustained all the negative attacks the Republicans can muster and, therefore, her "negatives" with general election voters cannot go much higher. But regarding Senator Obama, the reverse is also hard to deny: his potential for his negatives getting higher over the course of the general election campaign is much greater than Senator Clinton's, especially when Senator McCain and the Republicans fill in the "blank" to currently unknowing voters with facts about Senator Obama's consistently liberal voting record (which I like!) and his absence of foreign policy and national security experience.
What about the change issue?
Conventional wisdom says Sen. Obama is seen as the change agent and not Sen. Clinton (a very strange CW for me, given that Senator Clinton could become the first woman president and has proposed major social and economic programs that constitute substantial change in the future--such as universal health care and getting out of Iraq).
But on the issue of who is the change agent, current data also defies the punditry's CW: According to the recent Washington Post/ABC poll found, 69% of Ohio primary Democrats and 67% of Texas Democrats say Senator Clinton would "do enough to bring change to Washington," including many Obama voters.
Thus Senator Clinton is seen as the candidate both of change and of having the experience to make it happen. That is what the polls show - even the ones showing Senator Obama ahead. Senator Obama is seen as the candidate of change - but not of experience, including among any Democrats.
That is why I believe that by the end of the general election campaign, comparing the positions of Senators Obama vs. Senator Clinton --
-- when the comparison is between two equally known candidates, not a well-known one vs. a blank-slate one -- Senator Clinton will clearly be the stronger candidate against Senator McCain.
* * * * * *
I still believe Senator Clinton can be the nominee - even if she wins Ohio and Pennsylvania but not Texas. Because she will have carried all the major states a Democrat must win, especially Ohio, and also such border and winnable red states and marginal states, such as Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona. And Senator Obama's victories in the small-turn out red states such as Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota and Utah, are not likely to be replicated in the general election.
If Senator Obama is the nominee I hope I am wrong about the following worry about his electability - but as of now I have it big time.
I have this déjà vu sensation.
I remember when Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, whom I loved and strongly supported in the primaries and general election in 1988, was seen after the Democratic convention as a flinty fiscal conservative with appeal to Republicans and moderates and to "red" states (before they were called "red" states). He was ahead of Vice President Bush by 18% after the July 1988 Democratic Convention. But he too was not well known to most general election voters.
But then the Republican attack machine began - the same one that Hillary Clinton has sustained and survived, the same one Senator Obama has never experienced. And we all know the unfortunate result - a landslide victory by George H.W. Bush.
This also feels a lot like the Ned Lamont campaign for U.S. Senator in Connecticut in 2006.
Lamont defeated Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in August of 2006, primarily due to Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. Lamont defeated Lieberman by just four points, despite Lieberman's unpopular war position, but no matter. Lamont and his campaign were described by the national media in much the same way as Senator Obama's campaign - as an unstoppable grassroots phenom riding the wave of euphoria on the Net-roots. Many major Democrats endorsed and campaigned for him, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman's long-time friend and Connecticut colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, who even cut a commercial for Lamont.
Sound familiar?
But then a funny thing happened on the way to the general election.
The first set of polls after the primary had Lieberman ahead - an early reminder that the general electorate was not the same as the Democratic primary/caucus electorate. Ned Lamont was a blank slate who most non-Democratic primary voters -- meaning a substantial majority of the general electorate who did not vote in the Democratic primary -- did not know. When they learned more about him, they decided he was inexperienced and more liberal than themselves by a good margin. The result: Joe Lieberman, running as an independent moderate Democrat, won by 10%.
How often do we Democrats have to re-learn the lesson that the primary/caucus electorate, heavily depending on liberal activists (a description that I still apply to myself) turning out in low-turn out elections, is not the same as the general electorate.
Even supporters of Senator Obama who disagree with me --and I hope we can respect each other and agree we have two great and historic candidates to run against John McCain - should ask themselves why so many Democrats are already saying in the Gallup polls that they are for Senator McCain -- and whether their numbers will grow, and the Obama supporters among independents and Republicans will drop, the more the "blank slate" is filled in.
Take another look at the electability question. Let your head, not your heart, rule -- Senator Clinton has taken all the shots; she has the experience to make change happen; she is less vulnerable to the Republican attack machine. She will defeat John McCain. I worry that Senator Obama may not.
Recent Polling Data Shows Serious Concerns About Senator Obama's "Electability" Over Senator McCain vs. Senator Clinton's
Posted February 28, 2008 | 08:13 PM (EST)
I know that Senator Obama is the front-runner. But I remain concerned about his electability. I find him inspirational, attractive, articulate and very intelligent. He has run an outstanding campaign. Close friends are ardently for him. I like him.
But recent polling data confirms for me, despite all the horde of punditry proclaiming him a "phenom" with stronger general electorate appeal than Senator Clinton, that Senator Obama is very vulnerable in the general election and less likely to defeat Senator McCain than Senator Clinton. And so to all Democrats - especially those in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - I offer these facts and these arguments to take another look before if you believe Senator Obama is the stronger general election candidate.
CNN's Bill Schneider recently looked at the data showing Senator Obama as leading Senator Clinton in most Democratic national polls for the first time. Primarily, he said, this was because Democrats now see Senator Obama as more likely to defeat Senator McCain.
But the polling data do not consistently support this overwhelming Democratic voter and punditry perception.
In fact, many recent national polls show very little difference in head-to-head contests against Senator McCain between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Some show Senator Obama running slightly ahead of Senator McCain, with Senator Clinton close or in a dead heat. Recently, a front page story in USA Today showed Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in a statistical dead heat with Senator McCain, i.e., while Senator Obama was slightly ahead of Senator McCain and Senator Clinton slightly behind numerically, both were within the +/- 3% margin of error.
But how can this be? Hasn't Senator Obama usually shown more support among independents and Republicans, both in the national polls and those states with open primaries? The answer is yes - but once you look beneath those data, you will see serious reasons to doubt whether that pattern will hold by the time of the November 2008 general election.
First, recent national data shows the surprising, even shocking, fact that Senator Obama runs weaker among Democrats vs. Senator McCain than does Senator Clinton. For example, in the last three national Gallup polls (January, early February and late February,) Senator McCain wins more Democrats in a race against Senator Obama than he does in a race against Senator Clinton - i.e., Senator McCain wins an average of 17%-19% of Democrats against Senator Obama, but only 10%-12-% average Democrats running against Senator Clinton.
And why is that? Here could be a key reason: According to a recent Washington Post/ABC survey, about 4 out of 10 primary voting Democrats in Ohio and Texas say that Barack Obama "does not have the kind of experience" necessary to "serve as president." This compares to Senator Clinton, who is seen by most voters as having superior experience to be president as compared to Senator Obama, even by his own supporters.
This should be an extraordinary and worrisome piece of data for all Democrats who most of all want to win back the White House in 2008. Imagine: if 40% of self-identified voters planning to participate in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries feel that way, then no wonder that Gallup's recent January and February polls show nearly one-out-of five Democrats supporting Senator McCain against Senator Obama. And those defections could well be indicators of similar defections come next November among moderate and conservative "Reagan Democrats" who did not participate in the low-turn out Democratic primaries and caucuses, as well as moderate and conservative Independents and Republicans.
But what about data showing that Independents and Republicans have shown greater preference for Senator Obama than Senator Clinton?
The answer is, Senator Obama remains is virtually unknown to most voters outside of the small percentage of registered voters who participated in all the Democratic primaries and caucuses. (A recent group of Obama young supporters was asked by MSNBC pollster to name a single accomplishment of Obama and after some uncomfortable silence, one supporter said, "he's run a great campaign.") In his own book, The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama himself (I am writing from memory, so I hope my paraphrase is correct) admits that he is relatively unknown to most Americans - in effect a blank slate.
No one disagrees that Senator Clinton is well-known and that she has sustained all the negative attacks the Republicans can muster and, therefore, her "negatives" with general election voters cannot go much higher. But regarding Senator Obama, the reverse is also hard to deny: his potential for his negatives getting higher over the course of the general election campaign is much greater than Senator Clinton's, especially when Senator McCain and the Republicans fill in the "blank" to currently unknowing voters with facts about Senator Obama's consistently liberal voting record (which I like!) and his absence of foreign policy and national security experience.
What about the change issue?
Conventional wisdom says Sen. Obama is seen as the change agent and not Sen. Clinton (a very strange CW for me, given that Senator Clinton could become the first woman president and has proposed major social and economic programs that constitute substantial change in the future--such as universal health care and getting out of Iraq).
But on the issue of who is the change agent, current data also defies the punditry's CW: According to the recent Washington Post/ABC poll found, 69% of Ohio primary Democrats and 67% of Texas Democrats say Senator Clinton would "do enough to bring change to Washington," including many Obama voters.
Thus Senator Clinton is seen as the candidate both of change and of having the experience to make it happen. That is what the polls show - even the ones showing Senator Obama ahead. Senator Obama is seen as the candidate of change - but not of experience, including among any Democrats.
That is why I believe that by the end of the general election campaign, comparing the positions of Senators Obama vs. Senator Clinton --
-- when the comparison is between two equally known candidates, not a well-known one vs. a blank-slate one -- Senator Clinton will clearly be the stronger candidate against Senator McCain.
* * * * * *
I still believe Senator Clinton can be the nominee - even if she wins Ohio and Pennsylvania but not Texas. Because she will have carried all the major states a Democrat must win, especially Ohio, and also such border and winnable red states and marginal states, such as Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona. And Senator Obama's victories in the small-turn out red states such as Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota and Utah, are not likely to be replicated in the general election.
If Senator Obama is the nominee I hope I am wrong about the following worry about his electability - but as of now I have it big time.
I have this déjà vu sensation.
I remember when Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, whom I loved and strongly supported in the primaries and general election in 1988, was seen after the Democratic convention as a flinty fiscal conservative with appeal to Republicans and moderates and to "red" states (before they were called "red" states). He was ahead of Vice President Bush by 18% after the July 1988 Democratic Convention. But he too was not well known to most general election voters.
But then the Republican attack machine began - the same one that Hillary Clinton has sustained and survived, the same one Senator Obama has never experienced. And we all know the unfortunate result - a landslide victory by George H.W. Bush.
This also feels a lot like the Ned Lamont campaign for U.S. Senator in Connecticut in 2006.
Lamont defeated Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in August of 2006, primarily due to Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. Lamont defeated Lieberman by just four points, despite Lieberman's unpopular war position, but no matter. Lamont and his campaign were described by the national media in much the same way as Senator Obama's campaign - as an unstoppable grassroots phenom riding the wave of euphoria on the Net-roots. Many major Democrats endorsed and campaigned for him, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman's long-time friend and Connecticut colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, who even cut a commercial for Lamont.
Sound familiar?
But then a funny thing happened on the way to the general election.
The first set of polls after the primary had Lieberman ahead - an early reminder that the general electorate was not the same as the Democratic primary/caucus electorate. Ned Lamont was a blank slate who most non-Democratic primary voters -- meaning a substantial majority of the general electorate who did not vote in the Democratic primary -- did not know. When they learned more about him, they decided he was inexperienced and more liberal than themselves by a good margin. The result: Joe Lieberman, running as an independent moderate Democrat, won by 10%.
How often do we Democrats have to re-learn the lesson that the primary/caucus electorate, heavily depending on liberal activists (a description that I still apply to myself) turning out in low-turn out elections, is not the same as the general electorate.
Even supporters of Senator Obama who disagree with me --and I hope we can respect each other and agree we have two great and historic candidates to run against John McCain - should ask themselves why so many Democrats are already saying in the Gallup polls that they are for Senator McCain -- and whether their numbers will grow, and the Obama supporters among independents and Republicans will drop, the more the "blank slate" is filled in.
Take another look at the electability question. Let your head, not your heart, rule -- Senator Clinton has taken all the shots; she has the experience to make change happen; she is less vulnerable to the Republican attack machine. She will defeat John McCain. I worry that Senator Obama may not.
Why We Need Clinton's Strengths Now
My Turn: We need Clinton's strengths now
By Madeleine Kunin
February 28, 2008
For the first time in our political history, the Vermont primary on March 4 may make a difference in determining the nominees for president. The Republican race is almost concluded, but the Democratic race remains hotly contested. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will make history if one of them wins the nomination.
Back in 2006, few would have predicted that the top contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2008 would be a woman and an African-American. These are exciting times. With two such strong, qualified candidates, how do we choose? The difference has been framed as a choice between change and experience. That is easy political shorthand, but the facts are more interesting and complex. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama represent change. Foremost, they represent change from the domestic and foreign policies of George Bush. Both represent change if we envision their portraits hanging in the White House next to the white men who preceded them.
I support Hillary Clinton because she is the first woman to be qualified to be president. Health care, women's issues, the environment and education are areas where female politicians have had the greatest impact. Today we know they are critical issues to our well-being and even to our survival. She will put them at the top of her agenda.
Many believe that Clinton is the conservative candidate and Obama the progressive candidate. Economist Paul Krugman thinks otherwise. He credits her with the more inclusive and ambitious health plan and the stronger economic stimulus package.
Her vote on the war in Iraq in 2002 has been a litmus test in this election. I disagreed with her on that vote, but I am looking at 2009 when either Clinton or Obama will move troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
Clinton has achieved something that no woman has been able to do -- she is seen as a capable commander-in-chief, but that achievement has come at a price. A woman who displays toughness and ambition often sacrifices being liked. Women in business, academia, and science -- you name it -- are caught in a double bind. If they are not tough enough, they are not up to the job. If a woman is too tough, she does not fit our stereotype of female behavior. One study of women corporate leaders called it "damned if you do, doomed if you don't." It is impossible to untangle who Hillary is as an individual and who she is as a woman.
There are differences between the candidates that have nothing to do with gender. Still, there is a significant gender gap; more men are voting for Obama and white women continue to support Clinton. The bar is higher for a woman presidential candidate than a man because the same qualities that are praised in men, such as anger, are criticized in women. I point out these gender stereotypes because all of us, women and men, have been raised in a society of continuous male leadership. We cannot dispel our reactions overnight, but we can increase our awareness of how stereotypes influence our judgment.
I have known Hillary through the years; she has the right values, she listens, she is smart, she is qualified and she will create change the likes of which we have never seen before. The world will respect us once again and we will respect our government once again, because we will have a madam president who will lead us in the right direction.
The good news for both candidates in this campaign is that it has attracted new voters and most importantly, young voters. No matter who wins the primary, I will support the nominee. Yes, these are revolutionary times, but only if we are united after the last delegate is counted and elect the first woman or the first African-American president in our history.
Madeleine M. Kunin of Burlington is a former governor of Vermont.
By Madeleine Kunin
February 28, 2008
For the first time in our political history, the Vermont primary on March 4 may make a difference in determining the nominees for president. The Republican race is almost concluded, but the Democratic race remains hotly contested. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will make history if one of them wins the nomination.
Back in 2006, few would have predicted that the top contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2008 would be a woman and an African-American. These are exciting times. With two such strong, qualified candidates, how do we choose? The difference has been framed as a choice between change and experience. That is easy political shorthand, but the facts are more interesting and complex. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama represent change. Foremost, they represent change from the domestic and foreign policies of George Bush. Both represent change if we envision their portraits hanging in the White House next to the white men who preceded them.
I support Hillary Clinton because she is the first woman to be qualified to be president. Health care, women's issues, the environment and education are areas where female politicians have had the greatest impact. Today we know they are critical issues to our well-being and even to our survival. She will put them at the top of her agenda.
Many believe that Clinton is the conservative candidate and Obama the progressive candidate. Economist Paul Krugman thinks otherwise. He credits her with the more inclusive and ambitious health plan and the stronger economic stimulus package.
Her vote on the war in Iraq in 2002 has been a litmus test in this election. I disagreed with her on that vote, but I am looking at 2009 when either Clinton or Obama will move troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
Clinton has achieved something that no woman has been able to do -- she is seen as a capable commander-in-chief, but that achievement has come at a price. A woman who displays toughness and ambition often sacrifices being liked. Women in business, academia, and science -- you name it -- are caught in a double bind. If they are not tough enough, they are not up to the job. If a woman is too tough, she does not fit our stereotype of female behavior. One study of women corporate leaders called it "damned if you do, doomed if you don't." It is impossible to untangle who Hillary is as an individual and who she is as a woman.
There are differences between the candidates that have nothing to do with gender. Still, there is a significant gender gap; more men are voting for Obama and white women continue to support Clinton. The bar is higher for a woman presidential candidate than a man because the same qualities that are praised in men, such as anger, are criticized in women. I point out these gender stereotypes because all of us, women and men, have been raised in a society of continuous male leadership. We cannot dispel our reactions overnight, but we can increase our awareness of how stereotypes influence our judgment.
I have known Hillary through the years; she has the right values, she listens, she is smart, she is qualified and she will create change the likes of which we have never seen before. The world will respect us once again and we will respect our government once again, because we will have a madam president who will lead us in the right direction.
The good news for both candidates in this campaign is that it has attracted new voters and most importantly, young voters. No matter who wins the primary, I will support the nominee. Yes, these are revolutionary times, but only if we are united after the last delegate is counted and elect the first woman or the first African-American president in our history.
Madeleine M. Kunin of Burlington is a former governor of Vermont.
100 Reasons to VOTE for Hillary Clinton
100 Reasons to Support Hillary Clinton
By David Speakman
February 12, 2008
Reason #1 to support Hillary: In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.
Reason #2 to support Hillary: In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would INCREASE discrimination.
Reason #3 to support Hillary: After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.
Reason #4 to Support Hillary: She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
Reason #5 to Support Hillary: She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Reason #6 to Support Hillary: She’s authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans.
Reason #7 to Support Hillary: She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them.
Reason #8 to Support Hillary: Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman’s right to choose.
Reason #9 to Support Hillary: She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.
Reason #10 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Reason #11 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Reason #12 to Support Hillary: Vows to protect next generation by paying off national debt.
Reason #13 to Support Hillary: Fought in Congress to “Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #14 to Support Hillary: In 1962 she met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago and learned from him the importance of equal rights for all.
Reason #15 for Supporting Hillary: In 1965 she brought black classmates to her until-then all-white church.
Reason #16 to Support Hillary: Since 1995 has criticized China’s human rights abuses.
Reason #17 to Support Hillary:IN 1988 Instituted gender diversity Report Card within the American Bar Association, which sets standards for lawyers in the U.S.
Reason #18 to Support Hillary: In 1972 worked as a lawyer suing white-only schools, working with Marian Wright Edelman on enforcing school desegregation in the South.
Reason #19 to Support Hillary: In October, 2000 she said it’s not enough for America just to apologize for slavery and move on; we need to concentrate on civil rights now.
Reason #20 to Support Hillary: Has been pushing for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” for all Americans since 2000.
Reason #21 to support Hillary: Will end don’t ask, don’t tell in the military, “Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight.” November 2003.
Reason #22 to Support Hillary: Supports civil unions, with full equality of federal benefits.
Reason #23 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on adding violent crimes based on victim’s sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Reason #24 to support Hillary: Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Reason #25 to support Hillary: Freedom of Speech: Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Reason #26 to Support Hillary: [A.K.A “Whoopi Goldberg’s Reason to support Hillary”] Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Reason #27 to Support Hillary: Voted more funding and stricter sentencing for prosecution of hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Reason #28 to Support Hillary: Voted to Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Reason #29 to Support Hillary: Although she was in college during the height of the drug culture in the late 1960s, she was devoted to work on civil rights instead of partying and taking drugs.
Reason #30 to Support Hillary: She is fighting for Universal pre-kindergarten.
Reason #31 to Support Hillary: Wants to establish an education “Bill of Rights” - Establish right to education from pre-school thru college.
Reason #32 to Support Hillary: Since 1998 has fought publicly to keep art and music programs in public schools. “Arts education is needed in our schools.”
Reason #33 to Support Hillary: ‘Government should pay off all student loans for teachers who go to urban schools.” March, 2000
Reason #34 to Support Hillary: Wants a complete re-write, a Total change in No Child Left Behind. (August, 2007)
Reason #35 to Support Hillary: Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.
Reason #36 to Support Hillary Voted YES on spending $448B on education & debt reduction instead of Bush’s tax cut for the rich. (Apr 2001)
Reason #37 to Support Hillary: Wants to “Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us.” (Jun 2006)
Reason #38 to Support Hillary: Wants to build a “$50B strategic energy research fund from taxing oil companies.” (Oct 2006)
Reason #39 to Support Hillary: Wants to Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced.
Reason #40 to Support Hillary: Called on U.S. to Ratify Kyoto; and fund more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Reason #41 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Reason #42 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Reason #43 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Reason #44 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Reason #45 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Reason #46 to Support Hillary: (listen up Louisiana!) Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Reason #47 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Reason #48 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Reason #49 to Support Hillary: Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Reason #50 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Reason #51 to Support Hillary: Called on Bush to “Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #52 to Support Hillary: Her Support for green-collar job training
Reason #53 to Support Hillary: Introduced bill to Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials coming from China.
Reason #54 to support Hillary: Calls for the government to treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors” under the law. (Since Dec 1999)
Reason #55 to Support Hillary: Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition
Reason #56 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include poor Eastern Europe nations. (May 2002)
Reason #57 to Support Hillary: “Smartest strategic choice is peace.” (Nov 1999)
Reason #58 to Support Hillary: Calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (June, 2007)
Reason #59 to Support Hillary: In the 1970s worked to pass Constitutional Amendment to allow young people aged 18, 19, 20 to vote.
Reason #60 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress.
Reason #61 to Support Hillary: Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world.
Reason #62 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
Reason #63 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Reason #64 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Reason #65 to Support Hillary: Says, “Torture cannot be American policy, period.” (Sep 2007)
Reason #66 to Support Hillary: She would never say anything as creepy and cult-like as “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
Reason #67 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
Reason # 68 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Reason #69 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Reason #70 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Reason #71 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Reason #72 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Reason #73 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Reason #74 to Support Hillary: Voted: No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased.
Reason #75 to Support Hillary: Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Reason #76 to Support Hillary: Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.
Reason #77 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Reason #78 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
Reason #79 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
Reason #80 to Support Hillary: Admits she made mistake in believing in WMDs in Iraq after being mislead by the Bush Administration.
Reason #81 to Support Hillary: Reaches out to conservatives but voting record is progressive.
Reason #82 to Support Hillary: “Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on and beat them.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #83 to Support Hillary: Served as a Staff attorney on Watergate/Nixon impeachment investigation.
Reason #84 to Support Hillary: 1976: Organized Indiana for Carter-Mondale campaign. She knows what it is like to work on a democrat campaign in RED STATES!
Reason #85 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.
Reason #86 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Reason #87 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.
Reason #88 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
Reason #89 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
Reason #90 to Support Hillary: At Wellesley in 1968, steered college anti-war movement.
Reason #91 to Support Hillary: Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.
Reason #92 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Reason # 93 to Support Hillary: 1980s: Led her church to found the largest daycare in Arkansas.
Reason #94 to Support Hillary: 1978: chaired Legal Services Corp. in President Carter’s Administration - allowing Poor Families access to legal aid
Reason #95 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report to get us out of Iraq in a fast, safe manner.
Reason #96 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders eliminated by the Bush Administration.
Reason #97 to Support Hillary: Worked with Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others in the 1980s to rejuvenate the Democratic Party from within.
Reason #98 to Support Hillary: In 1969, she entered law school as “vehicle for social change.”
Reason #99 to Support Hillary: Calls to Increase spending for libraries.
Reason #100 to Support Hillary: In October, 2006 - called for “Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately.”
By David Speakman
February 12, 2008
Reason #1 to support Hillary: In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.
Reason #2 to support Hillary: In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would INCREASE discrimination.
Reason #3 to support Hillary: After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.
Reason #4 to Support Hillary: She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
Reason #5 to Support Hillary: She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Reason #6 to Support Hillary: She’s authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans.
Reason #7 to Support Hillary: She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them.
Reason #8 to Support Hillary: Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman’s right to choose.
Reason #9 to Support Hillary: She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.
Reason #10 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Reason #11 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Reason #12 to Support Hillary: Vows to protect next generation by paying off national debt.
Reason #13 to Support Hillary: Fought in Congress to “Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #14 to Support Hillary: In 1962 she met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago and learned from him the importance of equal rights for all.
Reason #15 for Supporting Hillary: In 1965 she brought black classmates to her until-then all-white church.
Reason #16 to Support Hillary: Since 1995 has criticized China’s human rights abuses.
Reason #17 to Support Hillary:IN 1988 Instituted gender diversity Report Card within the American Bar Association, which sets standards for lawyers in the U.S.
Reason #18 to Support Hillary: In 1972 worked as a lawyer suing white-only schools, working with Marian Wright Edelman on enforcing school desegregation in the South.
Reason #19 to Support Hillary: In October, 2000 she said it’s not enough for America just to apologize for slavery and move on; we need to concentrate on civil rights now.
Reason #20 to Support Hillary: Has been pushing for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” for all Americans since 2000.
Reason #21 to support Hillary: Will end don’t ask, don’t tell in the military, “Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight.” November 2003.
Reason #22 to Support Hillary: Supports civil unions, with full equality of federal benefits.
Reason #23 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on adding violent crimes based on victim’s sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Reason #24 to support Hillary: Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Reason #25 to support Hillary: Freedom of Speech: Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Reason #26 to Support Hillary: [A.K.A “Whoopi Goldberg’s Reason to support Hillary”] Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Reason #27 to Support Hillary: Voted more funding and stricter sentencing for prosecution of hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Reason #28 to Support Hillary: Voted to Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Reason #29 to Support Hillary: Although she was in college during the height of the drug culture in the late 1960s, she was devoted to work on civil rights instead of partying and taking drugs.
Reason #30 to Support Hillary: She is fighting for Universal pre-kindergarten.
Reason #31 to Support Hillary: Wants to establish an education “Bill of Rights” - Establish right to education from pre-school thru college.
Reason #32 to Support Hillary: Since 1998 has fought publicly to keep art and music programs in public schools. “Arts education is needed in our schools.”
Reason #33 to Support Hillary: ‘Government should pay off all student loans for teachers who go to urban schools.” March, 2000
Reason #34 to Support Hillary: Wants a complete re-write, a Total change in No Child Left Behind. (August, 2007)
Reason #35 to Support Hillary: Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.
Reason #36 to Support Hillary Voted YES on spending $448B on education & debt reduction instead of Bush’s tax cut for the rich. (Apr 2001)
Reason #37 to Support Hillary: Wants to “Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us.” (Jun 2006)
Reason #38 to Support Hillary: Wants to build a “$50B strategic energy research fund from taxing oil companies.” (Oct 2006)
Reason #39 to Support Hillary: Wants to Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced.
Reason #40 to Support Hillary: Called on U.S. to Ratify Kyoto; and fund more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Reason #41 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Reason #42 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Reason #43 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Reason #44 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Reason #45 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Reason #46 to Support Hillary: (listen up Louisiana!) Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Reason #47 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Reason #48 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Reason #49 to Support Hillary: Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Reason #50 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Reason #51 to Support Hillary: Called on Bush to “Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #52 to Support Hillary: Her Support for green-collar job training
Reason #53 to Support Hillary: Introduced bill to Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials coming from China.
Reason #54 to support Hillary: Calls for the government to treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors” under the law. (Since Dec 1999)
Reason #55 to Support Hillary: Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition
Reason #56 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include poor Eastern Europe nations. (May 2002)
Reason #57 to Support Hillary: “Smartest strategic choice is peace.” (Nov 1999)
Reason #58 to Support Hillary: Calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (June, 2007)
Reason #59 to Support Hillary: In the 1970s worked to pass Constitutional Amendment to allow young people aged 18, 19, 20 to vote.
Reason #60 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress.
Reason #61 to Support Hillary: Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world.
Reason #62 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
Reason #63 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Reason #64 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Reason #65 to Support Hillary: Says, “Torture cannot be American policy, period.” (Sep 2007)
Reason #66 to Support Hillary: She would never say anything as creepy and cult-like as “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
Reason #67 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
Reason # 68 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Reason #69 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Reason #70 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Reason #71 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Reason #72 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Reason #73 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Reason #74 to Support Hillary: Voted: No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased.
Reason #75 to Support Hillary: Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Reason #76 to Support Hillary: Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.
Reason #77 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Reason #78 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
Reason #79 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
Reason #80 to Support Hillary: Admits she made mistake in believing in WMDs in Iraq after being mislead by the Bush Administration.
Reason #81 to Support Hillary: Reaches out to conservatives but voting record is progressive.
Reason #82 to Support Hillary: “Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on and beat them.” (Aug 2007)
Reason #83 to Support Hillary: Served as a Staff attorney on Watergate/Nixon impeachment investigation.
Reason #84 to Support Hillary: 1976: Organized Indiana for Carter-Mondale campaign. She knows what it is like to work on a democrat campaign in RED STATES!
Reason #85 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.
Reason #86 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Reason #87 to Support Hillary: Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.
Reason #88 to Support Hillary: Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
Reason #89 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
Reason #90 to Support Hillary: At Wellesley in 1968, steered college anti-war movement.
Reason #91 to Support Hillary: Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.
Reason #92 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Reason # 93 to Support Hillary: 1980s: Led her church to found the largest daycare in Arkansas.
Reason #94 to Support Hillary: 1978: chaired Legal Services Corp. in President Carter’s Administration - allowing Poor Families access to legal aid
Reason #95 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report to get us out of Iraq in a fast, safe manner.
Reason #96 to Support Hillary: Voted YES on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders eliminated by the Bush Administration.
Reason #97 to Support Hillary: Worked with Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others in the 1980s to rejuvenate the Democratic Party from within.
Reason #98 to Support Hillary: In 1969, she entered law school as “vehicle for social change.”
Reason #99 to Support Hillary: Calls to Increase spending for libraries.
Reason #100 to Support Hillary: In October, 2006 - called for “Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately.”
Look BOTH Ways BEFORE You Vote! Eight Questions Asked Too Rarely
LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE YOU VOTE! Eight Questions Asked Too Rarely
Two candidates are left standing on the Democratic ticket. We know a lot about only one of them. Even though Barack Obama is obviously a bright and talented man, we are still trying to learn who he is and what, beyond seeing him “on stage,” he has accomplished that would qualify him for the most difficult job in the world.
Here are a few of the questions that people are asking. You decide.
Question #1. Close your eyes. Can you name this tune?
“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”
Barack Obama, right? No, that would be from Governor Deval Patrick’s inauguration speech in 2006. The two men’s campaigns were run by the same campaign manager, David Axelrod, whose clients have used messages of hope and change since his first campaign for senatorial candidate Paul Simon in the 1980s. “Yes we can!” is also taken from Axelrod’s playbook for Deval Patrick’s campaign, although when that similarity was pointed out Patrick’s was changed to “Together we can.” (The phrase itself has been the motto for four decades of the United Farm Workers, and they have endorsed Hillary Clinton.)
All candidates have speech writers and strategists. Yet Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a fresh, new, and different kind of candidate. As Jake Tapper puts it, “Thousands, if not millions, of Americans are inspired by Obama's words…But many of them also likely think they are at least somewhat original.” For more detail: http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com/deval_patrick_a_cautionar... http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-echoes-...
Question #2. Is experience all that important?
Barack Obama’s opponent has repeatedly expressed the need for considerable experience relative to the job of Commander-in-Chief, especially in these perilous and troubled times.
Mr. Obama apparently disagrees—or does he? On November 8th, 2004—just over 3 short years ago--he said, "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were seriously considering running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." Watch the video at http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27093
Question #3. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that much different when it comes to the war in Iraq? (You might be surprised by this one…)
Most Americans want this war to end. Many were against it from the start. Mr. Obama asserts that he is the only one who can lead our country because he was against the war from the beginning.
First, contrary to a popular misconception, Mr. Obama did NOT vote against going into Iraq. He did give a speech to a group in Chicago in 2002 stating his opposition to going to war, two years before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He later stated, however, ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point [without access to any classified information] the case was not made.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-spea...
While running for the Senate in 2004, Obama said, “…he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …” [Christopher Wills, “Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq,” The Associated Press, 9/19/04] http://thepage.time.com/clinton-release-on-obamas-iraq-record.
Few have read H.J. Resolution 114 giving the President discretion to get tough with Iraq. Imagine that you were a Senator in 2002 as you read one very important section:
“Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated”
What would you have done based on what you were told by those who were entrusted to put out correct information, only a year after 9/11? The vast majority of Senators (77) voted in favor of HR 114, including Joe Biden, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, and Evan Bayh, as well as Hillary Clinton. (Remember, Obama was not in the Senate at this time.) Only later was this “so-called intelligence” discovered to be false.
Since coming on board in the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's. They differed on ONLY one vote related to the confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army. (Obama voted for, Clinton against.) Obama even conceded back in May of 2007 that his position on the war is not that different from that of Hillary Clinton. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_c...
Question # 4. Aren’t “hope” and “change” great platforms on which to run a campaign?
Any Democrat will bring huge changes compared to our current administration, and we all hope that they are for the better! HOWEVER, running almost exclusively on the platform of “hope and change” typically describes an inexperienced candidate. George W. Bush ran on being the “The Uniter,” and look where we got without experience and qualifications. Whether running for a local school board or city council, those who lack long-term substantial, relevant experience related to the position to which they aspire have no choice but to run as the “change” or “anti-establishment” candidate.
The question is, are promises of hope and change the most important message from a candidate for commander-in-chief of these United States in such perilous times?
Question #5. How important is involvement in foreign affairs?
The next President will face continuing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as many other hot spots around the world. These require astute insights and experience in world affairs. We know that Hillary Clinton has visited more than 80 countries during her service as First Lady, has conferred with world leaders, and was actively involved in policy matters during her husband’s 8 years in office. She has been closely involved in foreign policy issues and promoting America’s interests abroad since being elected to the Senate in 2000.
By comparison, last November, Mr. Obama cited his most relevant experience as having lived in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10: "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/19/obama-cites-c... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.03.html
In the meantime, Obama vigorously speaks against taking our eyes away from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have regrouped. However, as the chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, he has held no policy or oversight hearings since becoming chair in January of 2007, nor has he visited the European continent, save for a brief stopover in London. Ambassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations notes that there is a variety of urgent matters that Obama could have examined, including the role of NATO in Afghanistan. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
Question #6. Political contributions—no special interest money?
Obama tells sorrowful stories in his stump speeches about Maytag workers in Illinois whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. These put a face on his vigorous complaints against special interests and how corporations use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones. A powerful video, however, raises serious concerns about Barack Obama’s commitment to these workers, accusing him of abandoning them after he promised to help. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/machinists-union-tell... The union that represents most of those workers now endorses Hillary Clinton.
It turns out that one of the Maytag board members raised over $200,000 for Obama since 2003. Although he has denied a conflict of interest and gathering up large sums of money is part of the reality of running any campaign, it does seem hypocritical that Obama would criticize Clinton for “old-style politics” and for courting special interests when he does so himself. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1057928/
Question # 7. Old Scandals, new Scandals—What’s the difference this time around?
Hillary Clinton has had her share of troubles. For example, Whitewater ate up $70 million of taxpayers money for nothing. Ken Starr’s final report conceded that there was no Clinton scandal. http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/03/21/whitew... But yet Mr. Obama tries to imply that he wouldn’t come with this sort of baggage.
Mr. Obama is new on the national scene. We have not had much time to take a close look at what has already happened and what may be coming down the pike. Dealings with Tony Rezko and the purchase of his million dollar home suggest very bad judgment; even Obama himself called entering into this deal “boneheaded.” http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdo... http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.... Rezko was also one of Obama’s major donors, although some of that money has since been donated to charity. Rezko has since been indicted on extortion charges and goes on trial soon. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/u...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/812715,CST-NWS-rezko26.art... No matter what happens, the Republicans will play the relationship between the two men for everything they can.
Question #8. Whom to denouce?
During the recent Ohio debate (Feb. 26, 2008) Obama was questioned about his reaction to the strong endorsement of his candidacy by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, a man who has long vilified both whites and, especially, Jews. Obama firmly noted that he had not sought this endorsement and that he “denounced” Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic opinions of Jews. Obama restated his strong support for Israel.
There is a puzzling element, however, that was hinted at but not explored in the debate. If you denounce a person, why remain closely tied to one who firmly embraces the one you denounce? Obama’s long-time family minister, Jeremiah Wright, has continually heaped praise on Louis Farrakhan, traveled with him to Libya, and even granted him an award. “According to Trumpet [the church’s magazine], Rev, Wright applauded his ‘depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.’ He praised ‘his integrity and honesty.’ He called him ‘an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.’”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/profiles/c...
According to Rolling Stone, Obama checks with Rev Wright before making any bold political moves. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_... More detail:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/u...
Bottom Line: Take as close a look as you can at BOTH candidates.
------------------------
Study Group Effort, Tricia Spiegel and Friends
Two candidates are left standing on the Democratic ticket. We know a lot about only one of them. Even though Barack Obama is obviously a bright and talented man, we are still trying to learn who he is and what, beyond seeing him “on stage,” he has accomplished that would qualify him for the most difficult job in the world.
Here are a few of the questions that people are asking. You decide.
Question #1. Close your eyes. Can you name this tune?
“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”
Barack Obama, right? No, that would be from Governor Deval Patrick’s inauguration speech in 2006. The two men’s campaigns were run by the same campaign manager, David Axelrod, whose clients have used messages of hope and change since his first campaign for senatorial candidate Paul Simon in the 1980s. “Yes we can!” is also taken from Axelrod’s playbook for Deval Patrick’s campaign, although when that similarity was pointed out Patrick’s was changed to “Together we can.” (The phrase itself has been the motto for four decades of the United Farm Workers, and they have endorsed Hillary Clinton.)
All candidates have speech writers and strategists. Yet Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a fresh, new, and different kind of candidate. As Jake Tapper puts it, “Thousands, if not millions, of Americans are inspired by Obama's words…But many of them also likely think they are at least somewhat original.” For more detail: http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com/deval_patrick_a_cautionar... http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-echoes-...
Question #2. Is experience all that important?
Barack Obama’s opponent has repeatedly expressed the need for considerable experience relative to the job of Commander-in-Chief, especially in these perilous and troubled times.
Mr. Obama apparently disagrees—or does he? On November 8th, 2004—just over 3 short years ago--he said, "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were seriously considering running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." Watch the video at http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27093
Question #3. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that much different when it comes to the war in Iraq? (You might be surprised by this one…)
Most Americans want this war to end. Many were against it from the start. Mr. Obama asserts that he is the only one who can lead our country because he was against the war from the beginning.
First, contrary to a popular misconception, Mr. Obama did NOT vote against going into Iraq. He did give a speech to a group in Chicago in 2002 stating his opposition to going to war, two years before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He later stated, however, ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point [without access to any classified information] the case was not made.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-spea...
While running for the Senate in 2004, Obama said, “…he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …” [Christopher Wills, “Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq,” The Associated Press, 9/19/04] http://thepage.time.com/clinton-release-on-obamas-iraq-record.
Few have read H.J. Resolution 114 giving the President discretion to get tough with Iraq. Imagine that you were a Senator in 2002 as you read one very important section:
“Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated”
What would you have done based on what you were told by those who were entrusted to put out correct information, only a year after 9/11? The vast majority of Senators (77) voted in favor of HR 114, including Joe Biden, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, and Evan Bayh, as well as Hillary Clinton. (Remember, Obama was not in the Senate at this time.) Only later was this “so-called intelligence” discovered to be false.
Since coming on board in the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's. They differed on ONLY one vote related to the confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army. (Obama voted for, Clinton against.) Obama even conceded back in May of 2007 that his position on the war is not that different from that of Hillary Clinton. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_c...
Question # 4. Aren’t “hope” and “change” great platforms on which to run a campaign?
Any Democrat will bring huge changes compared to our current administration, and we all hope that they are for the better! HOWEVER, running almost exclusively on the platform of “hope and change” typically describes an inexperienced candidate. George W. Bush ran on being the “The Uniter,” and look where we got without experience and qualifications. Whether running for a local school board or city council, those who lack long-term substantial, relevant experience related to the position to which they aspire have no choice but to run as the “change” or “anti-establishment” candidate.
The question is, are promises of hope and change the most important message from a candidate for commander-in-chief of these United States in such perilous times?
Question #5. How important is involvement in foreign affairs?
The next President will face continuing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as many other hot spots around the world. These require astute insights and experience in world affairs. We know that Hillary Clinton has visited more than 80 countries during her service as First Lady, has conferred with world leaders, and was actively involved in policy matters during her husband’s 8 years in office. She has been closely involved in foreign policy issues and promoting America’s interests abroad since being elected to the Senate in 2000.
By comparison, last November, Mr. Obama cited his most relevant experience as having lived in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10: "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/19/obama-cites-c... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.03.html
In the meantime, Obama vigorously speaks against taking our eyes away from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have regrouped. However, as the chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, he has held no policy or oversight hearings since becoming chair in January of 2007, nor has he visited the European continent, save for a brief stopover in London. Ambassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations notes that there is a variety of urgent matters that Obama could have examined, including the role of NATO in Afghanistan. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
Question #6. Political contributions—no special interest money?
Obama tells sorrowful stories in his stump speeches about Maytag workers in Illinois whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. These put a face on his vigorous complaints against special interests and how corporations use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones. A powerful video, however, raises serious concerns about Barack Obama’s commitment to these workers, accusing him of abandoning them after he promised to help. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/machinists-union-tell... The union that represents most of those workers now endorses Hillary Clinton.
It turns out that one of the Maytag board members raised over $200,000 for Obama since 2003. Although he has denied a conflict of interest and gathering up large sums of money is part of the reality of running any campaign, it does seem hypocritical that Obama would criticize Clinton for “old-style politics” and for courting special interests when he does so himself. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1057928/
Question # 7. Old Scandals, new Scandals—What’s the difference this time around?
Hillary Clinton has had her share of troubles. For example, Whitewater ate up $70 million of taxpayers money for nothing. Ken Starr’s final report conceded that there was no Clinton scandal. http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/03/21/whitew... But yet Mr. Obama tries to imply that he wouldn’t come with this sort of baggage.
Mr. Obama is new on the national scene. We have not had much time to take a close look at what has already happened and what may be coming down the pike. Dealings with Tony Rezko and the purchase of his million dollar home suggest very bad judgment; even Obama himself called entering into this deal “boneheaded.” http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdo... http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.... Rezko was also one of Obama’s major donors, although some of that money has since been donated to charity. Rezko has since been indicted on extortion charges and goes on trial soon. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/u...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/812715,CST-NWS-rezko26.art... No matter what happens, the Republicans will play the relationship between the two men for everything they can.
Question #8. Whom to denouce?
During the recent Ohio debate (Feb. 26, 2008) Obama was questioned about his reaction to the strong endorsement of his candidacy by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, a man who has long vilified both whites and, especially, Jews. Obama firmly noted that he had not sought this endorsement and that he “denounced” Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic opinions of Jews. Obama restated his strong support for Israel.
There is a puzzling element, however, that was hinted at but not explored in the debate. If you denounce a person, why remain closely tied to one who firmly embraces the one you denounce? Obama’s long-time family minister, Jeremiah Wright, has continually heaped praise on Louis Farrakhan, traveled with him to Libya, and even granted him an award. “According to Trumpet [the church’s magazine], Rev, Wright applauded his ‘depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.’ He praised ‘his integrity and honesty.’ He called him ‘an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.’”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/profiles/c...
According to Rolling Stone, Obama checks with Rev Wright before making any bold political moves. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_... More detail:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/u...
Bottom Line: Take as close a look as you can at BOTH candidates.
------------------------
Study Group Effort, Tricia Spiegel and Friends
Categories
