Jane!

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

I will NEVER give them another red cent. They are part of the problem.

will they call her someone who fights hard, a bitch, or desperate?

OMG – talk about sending the wrong message!

She’s trying to fool the voters into thinking she wasn’t for NAFTA. I supposed we can take some solace that our candidates are now running away from that mess. It’s progress! :)

This Dkos diary contains the Obama campaign response about those flyers:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..731/434555

The best part was how the guy kept using “we” – as in “we need to get out of this war”.

Why does she say NAFTA was negotiated by the bush administration? Is that true?

Is India IN this war?

yeah, it is certainly weird. To try to disassociate herself and Bill from NAFTA is just crazy. Way better to make the free-trade argument and then try to say that the implementation was flawed and should be improved than to try to pin the whole thing on someone else …

BTW, Jane, you left out the most puzzling quote:

As president, Mr. Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta, lobbied Congress to pass it and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed it would cost the country jobs.

Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that position on Saturday, asserting that Mr. Clinton did not negotiate the agreement.

“The agreement was negotiated in the Bush administration,” she said. “It was passed in the Clinton administration.”

Losing it, is she?

‘They’ will always and forever ‘fuck up the job…’ since they are essentially Republicans who don’t believe in the traditions of FDR and LBJ.

Who are they? Any loser of a politician who belongs to the Dead Loser Caucus or the Dead Corpse Commitee on Change.

Bought and paid for: Hillary, Bill, Obama, the entire Dem Congresional ‘Leadership’. Get with the reality of it and start to work to dis-elect these shills for the ‘conservative’ scum who’ve driven this country to the brink of bankruptcy or worse.

Not really. Bush I admin did all the negotiations of the treaty then it was passed by the Senate and confirmed after Clinton took office.

Hillary seems to step into every trap Barack lays for her — talking about NAFTA in Ohio is entirely couterproductive for her. This does not strike me as a smart campaign.

Well, there is the tensions and occasional shot fired along their border with Pakistan. I wonder if Huck knows about this? :)

To answer your question directly, no, no troops in Iraq.

being a sold-out corporatist
AND
a progressive (/snark)

The whole thing is weird. I mean, it’s not like Bill vetoed it or anything.

The process of getting NAFTA approved was started during the Bush administration. It was completed by the Clinton administration.

My recollection is that Bill pushed hard for NAFTA. Is that incorrect?

The question is … why is Hillary talking about Nafta now? Why not over the past year?

My recollection is that Hillary supported it for a long time.

oh, fyi, cassie is at a bill clinton event this afternoon

Excuse me? Obama had to fight the DLC to get his name removed from their website.

The DCCC called me this week too, and the guy actually said “I’m asking, begging for your help so we can get more Democrats into office…” I told him we need more and better Democrats, so I’d be donating any money directly to candidates, rather than have the DCCC give money to incumbents who need to be replaced. He wasn’t happy, but didn’t sound surprised either.

just responding to one comment …
I certainly recall Mr Bill doing a lot of pro-NAFTA campaigning and putting pressure on congress to pass.
And the whole thing is very weird. Certainly not a point where it seems like Hillary will get much traction, even if there is confusion in the record …

CNN is on with the sound off. Sen. Obama looked rested, cheerful, and companionable. Sen. Clinton looks drained and fairly awful and, from her body language, is lecturing and hectoring.

People may start to detect that difference, among the others.

Here’s a link to the final NAFTA vote in the Senate

google is yr friend: one chronology of NAFTA. Lots of people’s fingers in that pie … One could make the case that Bush 1 negotiated and signed NAFTA and Bill Clinton merely negotiated and signed the subsidiary agreements and pushed NAFTA ratification thru congress. That’s very far from claiming to have not really supported it …

(thanks to dakine for getting me to look up timeline.)

It’s possible that Hillary is actually more liberal than Bill, but was caught in a conundrum – distancing herself from her own husband, also currently one of the most popular ex-Presidents, would make her campaign much more difficult. Now she has nothing to lose.

WHO didn’t KNOW she would???!!!?
I’ve been expecting this. Now that she’s let fly with it, I hope she burns out fast and backs out of this.

And she did SO WELL! at the debate!
wow.

This guy didn’t believe me when I told him I don’t have any money to give them because all my cash is tied up in my own campaign, so I hung up on him.

The question is … why is Hillary talking about Nafta now?

To be fair, she’s talking about it now because the Obama campaign released flyers in Ohio attacking her on it.

Just got back on. There was a fire at some substation somewhere. All I know is that I lost electrical power, lost the phone and (gasp)lost the internet.
Anyway, this is OT but I want to clarify something I said earlier. I had said that the repubs were planning to destroy the next president. Some took that to mean that I thought they would attack his character. They probably will, but that’s not what I meant.
This executive order is what got me thinking that they were laying land mines for the next president.

President Bush will issue an executive order tomorrow that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by lawmakers and included in a law approved by Congress. It’s a long-overdue step by the administration to curtail earmarks, but falls short of what conservatives had hoped Bush would do.

Bush’s maneuver will apply only to future earmarks, subjecting them to votes and greater transparency. However, it does nothing to block the nearly 10,000 earmarks included in the omnibus spending bill passed last month.

It goes into effect for the next president, not the current. It was noted in that article that any pres. that rescinds that order will face the criticism of the repubs.
That’s what I was referring to. This indicates to me that the repubs expect the next pres to be a dem and they’re setting the groundwork to make his administration fail.

This is an issue on which she really cannot win, no matter what she says.

IIRC NAFTA was negotiated by Bush 41 and passed the Senate after the change of administrations. I recall Clinton was moderately ambivalent at first but ended up giving the treaty full support in the Senate while at the same time resistance became organized against passing the treaty, which Bill duly ignored (the traditional labor support for the democratic party was at the center of opposition but this was not in Bill’s coalition of power). NAFTA was eventually passed after gaining broad opposition to its passage, a schism that survives till this day in the Democratic coalition.

And Obama ran so many ads in WI because so much of what was run against him was negative, whether it was lit, radio or TV. It costs money to fight against that type of attack.

I don’t see either of them (BO,HRC)untroducing legislation to renegotiate any of the terrible trade agreements.

So, my question is this. Can’t the next president NEGATE Bush’s signing statements and EO’s with signing statements and EO’s of his or her OWN?
Or is that the main reason why we need trials that end up at The Hague, so that we can undo all The Chimperor’s “edicts”?

and who cares or is listening to criticism from the rethugs anyway?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. It keeps coming back like a song. Hillary, you should have dumped Bill years ago.

Without Bill’s record and being nailed to his cross, she could have moved more freely into her own positions on issues. Instead, she has to cover for him. “Oh, my man I love him so…..”

The more Hillary speaks, the more I am confused who is the real Hillary. She works her butt off, she gives her all, she takes a lot of ugly sexist slaps. Still, she’s wearing Bill like a mill stone around her neck. Or, better expressed, she’s lugging him around like dead horses.

NAFTA was entrenched under Reagan. Bill continued it and under him it got it’s infamous name. They are smart people so how could they dismiss the devastation of the apparel industry, steel industry, footwear industry, pirating and on and on? The Reagan disaster of offshore manufacturing was in their face. Mass marketing was taking hold.

My deep concern about Hillary is that she is not her own person. If she were, she would have to rise up against Bill’s tenure as president. Instead, she uses his old Neocon advisors.

When she defends lobbyists by saying there are some very good causes like nurses, human rights, anti-war, women’s rights, she is right on. But she uses this to defend corporate lobbyists. She lumps them all together. Well, there is a gigantic difference. Lobbyists who fight for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves are a far cry from corporate lobbyists who quid pro quo for their own personal greedy interests. Hillary doesn’t seem to know the difference.

Where I live it is virtually impossible to ignore it unless you crawled under a rock and stayed there.

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.

The rethug media will scream and a couple days later the traditional media will join in. Except that now we have the internet and actual liberals will fight back. The 90’s might have been quite different for Bill Clinton if we were as organized back then as we are now.

well, there’s no need to negate signing statements. They’re constituionally meaningless. Seems like Obama can just say somewhere that he isn’t paying attention to them and they’re done.

Reworking exec orders, I assume, just requires work. They’re internal instructions to the exec branch and presumably continue by default in subsequent admin. So, Obama will have to figure all of them out and start re-issuing new exec orders and regulations as approp. Just a lot of work.

Hague trials are a whole different matter: bringing the war criminals to justice. And much as I’d love to see these guys called what they are and nailed for it, may or may not be the right answer for the country going forward. We should certainly speak truth about them being war criminals.

That’s not a fair criticism of a Senate candidate running for Presidential office. It’s fair to criticize what they do and don’t say, but not every cause has to be codified into a specific bill and introduced into the Senate.

The new earmark rules are in an Executive Order, which has force. Signing statements do not. Yes, the next president will need to write a bunch of new EOs, and amend quite a few more.

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

Way back when, before I knew any better, I used to toss them some money now and again. Never again. Now Howard Dean’s organization Democracy for America gets a monthly contribution from me. I can’t afford to kick in much, but it goes to them every month. I am a huge supporter of Howard Dean and the 50 State Strategy.

I just wrote a comment that includes this. My business was the first to go. It was the apparel industry. The year was 1981 under Ronald Reagan. He made a deal with China that they could have the US apparel industry in exchange for multinational corporations like IBM, Coca Cola to go into China. China sent workers into Hong Kong, taking away jobs from Hongkongese for a fraction of the wage. Cheaper apparel was shipped to the US duty free and within one year small US manufacturers were totally out of business. Larger manufacturers moved their operation to Hong Kong.

siri, according to that article, the next pres can definitely do that. But expect some faux outrage when a dem wipes out the transparancy on earmarks.
It will be the first issue that will be hammered on FoxNews around the clock. “Bush tries to curb earmarks, Obama(?) voids the order.”

Creating an confrontational issue may be the very reason he signed the EO.

thank you lee.
really!

The trade agreements have lost millions of jobs, and helped our economy into the toilet, it’s more than fair IMO. If you’re going to make it an issues in your campaign it’s fair game.

The DCCC called me this week too, and the guy actually said “I’m asking, begging for your help so we can get more Democrats into office…” I told him we need more and better Democrats, so I’d be donating any money directly to candidates, rather than have the DCCC give money to incumbents who need to be replaced. He wasn’t happy, but didn’t sound surprised either.

Tell ‘em that you’ll contribute once they reclaim that $150K of “walking around money” they funneled to Al Wynn in the primary against [winning challenger] Donna Edwards. That’s what they do with “our” money.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought all earmarks were “voted on by lawmakers and included in a law approved by Congress.” The only other way I can think of to direct federal spending is by the executive branch directing the agencies themselves – which the President by definition controls.

What am I missing here?

well, that’s ONE! it’s all those others that have me so concerned!

Not really. Bush I admin did all the negotiations of the treaty then it was passed by the Senate and confirmed after Clinton took office.

Actually negotiations and modifications to the Treaty were made after Clinton entered office, as well. The Senate wouldn’t pass it without adding labor and environmental clauses, which won over enough Democrats to ratify the treaty. Bill Clinton firmly advocated NAFTA. That’s the NAFTA we have.

the problem is that they’re not really free trade agreements. The market and playing fields are still cooked. Free trade is a good thing if it’s really free trade. But, when they’re just agreement aimed at keeping the multi-nationals from actually having to compete and at ensuring that folks everywhere don’t get the rights and protections they need, they’re waaay bad.

The best article about Hillary and nafta by Mr Sirota

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..86747.html

you’re welcome!

Is no one conerned that the flyer quotes a news account that has since been corrected?
Now, of course, Hillary needs to make clear what her concerns with these trade pacts are, when she came to have these concerns and what does she intend to do about them?

The problem is that the clauses you reference are unenforceable (or at least not enforced).

How do we get rid of her? It’s like dinner guests who never leave.

According to Matt Taibbi(the guy who writes for Rolling Stone), Hillary left the Republicans when they nominated Nixon over Rockefeller. And she was a Goldwater Girl.

I’ve read from other sources on line that one of the few policy conflicts that Hillary had with bill was about NAFTA. She apparently did not trust corporations to uphold their end of the bargain where Bill saw no other way to approach the problem. That supports her claims and current perspective. It also explains her efforts to modify the things that she allowed in her supporting her husband’s well-intentioned efforts. The good thing to know is that Dems see purpose in revisiting the trade agreement and modifying corporate responsibilities in light of the way that corporations have turned NAFTA to disserve the labor force of this nation.
As for the ‘clean-up comment’. Bush the Elder left this nation more of a mess than NAFTA addressed. Bill handled a good deal of it effectively. Bush the Lesser has shredded the beneficial intent of many policies with the early help of a Republican majority. Acutely aware of this, Hillary is right on this point: she knows where to place the markers for major shifts in policy so that something is accomplished in short order. She goes for the election, if nominated, with a mandate for specific policies and outcomes. If nominated, Obama goes up for election with a mandate for hope. I’d like to do more than hope that the next president knows where to place the markers for the changes to be realized for the soonest benefit to be accomplished.

LOL!
good un’

Hill, you are soooooooo then! sooo was. What don’t you come our for something trendy like Free Silver. Go visit a zoo.

Why does she say NAFTA was negotiated by the bush administration? Is that true?

i think that is true.

and, imo, congress would never have passed it – too many dems were against it. but clinton became it’s champion and got it passed.

the best history of nafta that i’m aware of is “The Selling of “Free Trade”" by John R. MacArthur.

it’s been a while and my memory is fuzzy, time to pick up the book again and refresh my memory.

I agree, but she has really opened up a can of worms, there are so many articles and quotes about her quoting NAFTA and how good it is…
look at this campaign response from Obama;

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..731/434555

Losing it, is she?

fixed it for you.

Well, that was a good reason to leave the Republicans! (Nelson Rockefeller was my Governor for a long time, and today he would be castigated as being to the left of the left wing…)

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.

it was NOT the progressive view. it was the DLC view.

The Obama campaign mailer claims Hillary said that NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy. The quote is based on a 2006 Newsday article that CHARACTERTIZED her views this way without any substantiation. In fact, Newsday recently said that the Obama campaign’s use of their article was “misleading.” The Politico called the Obama campaign’s use of the quote “bogus.”

The second mailer from the Obama campaign mimics Harry and Louise ads that the health care industry used to scare people into opposing universal health care. It’s appalling that Obama would use the same ad campaign re Hillary’s health care proposal as was used by the health care industry in the early nineties. However, it isn’t surprising. Obama’s health care advisor, Rep. Jim Cooper, refused to consider universdal health care when the Clinton administration proposed it in 93′. In fact his counter proposal – approved by the health care industry – was the rallying popint for Republicans opposed to meaningful health care reform. The health care insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies were, and still are, among Cooper’slargest $ contributors.

Obama supporters criticize Hillary for claiming 35 years of experience citing that her 8 years as the first lady don’t count. Well, if you’re going to tag her for what you see as the failing of Bill’s 8 years then you have to credit her for all the good things and there were a lot.

I’ll vote for Obama next fall if I have to but, unlike the sheep falling in behind Obama, I won’t be dissapointed by his failings after/and if he’s elected. Hillary’s the progressive candidate in this contest. Obama is a “finger in the wind” centrist – at best.

so much for that NAFTAglow

but unfortunately, the clintons had a lot to do with redefining left wing as somewhat to the right of richard nixon … they’re not looking very clean to me … Clinton did appoint mostly competent people. And one of the best things about a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a return to competence in office.

While NAFTA isn’t the best solution to the economic disparity between the US and Mexico, it makes an attempt to bring Mexico into the larger US & Canadian economies. Over time, it could, if done right, make for a potent trading bloc like the EU. If you think that President Obama is going to end NAFTA or change it in any significant manner, you have drunk way too much of the messiah juice. Hillary may have a record that you don’t much care about, but at least she has a record; which is more than you can say for the blank slate onto which some people project every unreasonable fantasy that they have.

I told them in a lengthy letter that they would never receive another dime from me after the reprehensible betrayal of Christine Cegalis in Illinois’ 6th Congressional District in 2006. This after she had pulled 44% in a purely grassroots action opposing Henry Hyde, the late, unlamented Republican hypocrite.

Thank for calling Obama supporter “sheep”…..your mimicking of your candidate is revealing to say the least!

Forgive me, but as I recall the Overton window was shoved WAAAAAY right by Newt Gingrich and his band of evil elves, not the Clintons. It was Newt who promoted the use of the word “liberal” as a pejorative.

is it possible that neither of them are progressive? but that they are the best we could do given a sick and corrupt political and media culture? that considering the forces working against us, maybe neither one of them are so bad – but that doesn’t make either of them progressive?

(i know i’ve been told it’s gibberish to say that, but i still think it’s a question worth asking).

So, my question is this. Can’t the next president NEGATE Bush’s signing statements and EO’s with signing statements and EO’s of his or her OWN?
Or is that the main reason why we need trials that end up at The Hague, so that we can undo all The Chimperor’s “edicts”?

Signing statements are not “laws”…they are statements about how the law will (or in Bush’s case) or will not be enforced. Sometimes laws are vague in how they are to be implemented, and a President can detail how this will occur with Executive branch resources. In another sense, and this is how earlier Presidents have used signing statements, they are a challenge to the laws Constitutionality. Thus a President could tell Congress “The law you have just passed is UnConstitutional, and I will not enforce it. Take my actions to the Supreme Court if you disagree!” Bush has actually done the opposite (although he continually asserts that his power derives from the clause that makes him Commander In Chief and that he needs the power to wage war).

So a future President could easily rescind the signing statements (as they are Executive directives) and even Executive Orders. The only issue is whether such Orders and statements give some protection to actions that occurred while the directives were in place. IMO the law is THE law, regardless of a Presidential mandate to Executive officers to IGNORE the law or Constitution.

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

Noonan,

In my experience people from India have a very hard time losing their strong accent. Could it be that you might have actually been talking to an American citizen origionally from India? Did you ask the question?

TexBetsy, you still here? It’s off topic, but you should post the info on the Bush Library again. That was priceless.

but the objections to NAFTA were not objections to trade. they were objections to a fucked up trade policy that rewarded corporations while undermining democracy, the environment and labor and human rights.

It is clear that over the last half century our countries manufacturing capacity has been diminished.
What is less clear is the role of Nafta and other trade pacts in this development.
There are many reasons this has occurred and very few of them are amenable to a legislative fix.

I saw all that on CNN…which ran it two or three more times. “Shame on you! Barack Obama!” she yelled…

wow, those quotes from clinton in the obama response sure seem pretty damning. either they’re made up or there’s one helluva lot of context where she says something like “I certainly don’t mean the following: XXX”, or she’s changing her position …

one example:

“Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.”

sure — fair enough. plenty of blame to go around. And newtie was certainly one of the major bad guys.

yes, but wasn’t NAFTA before gingrich.?

JUan, I agree with you. I’ll vote for my party’s candidate, but I’m not really sold on Obama.

Can you refrain from characterizing supporters of Sen Obama as sheep? It doesn’t advanced your argument and in general lowers the discourse level. If you want a flame war, try the orange overlord’s place or mydd or taylor marsh. thank you and now back to our civilized discussion

On the CNN website: Clinton to Obama: Shame on you!

I am not counting on either of them to sweep me up and ride off on their white steed into the sunset. I plan to hold the female or male footsies to the fire. What I do know is that I’ll be able to have more of a voice than I do now and we can return to some semblence of a democracy. Just rebuilding the erosion will be work enough.

The “boon” comment is not the only evidence that she favored NAFTA. See the official Obama response in the Dkos diary I linked to above.

Hillary’s the progressive candidate in this contest.

No, she’s the DLC triangulating candidate. That is why she co-sponsored a flag-burning bill with a Republican.

There are no “true” progressive top-tier candidates in this election. But if Hillary is the progressive candidate, why did Russ Feingold vote for Obama in the primary?

He was also one of the early ones. I blame most of the toxic quality of political discourse today on Newt Gingrich. The fact that he’s being resurrected as anything close to respectable today makes me want to puke.

I always have mixed emotions on the crying about lost textiles jobs and such. Especially since so many of the jobs had gone to the South from New England to get rid of unions. There is a bit of irony at the whining about the jobs now going somewhere the corps can pay even less and offer less protection to the new workers.

Little Boots uses signing statements as pretend line item vetos. They are worthless legally, but no one’s challenged them in court yet.

Could we put an end to the messiah references too? It serves no purpose except to insult people and make folks cranky (like me).

Still time to draft Edwards??

True of many southerners, also. Never mind the bad syntax.

I know how you feel.

I don’t care all that much which one wins, even though I’m leaning towards Obama. What I want to see is the Democrats come through this with a strong leader and a unified party.

If this takes too long to happen, we’ll all be in trouble.

good call. we used to know how to disagree – even very strongly without the personal attacks.

not saying i haven’t been partly to blame… but i’d like to figure out a way we can get back to believing in the good intentions of people here. even and especially when we disagree.

what can i do to help that happen?

I was responding to

the clintons had a lot to do with redefining left wing as somewhat to the right of richard nixon …

Who did a better job of that, Bill and Hill or Newt?

I guess “sheep” is now politically incorrect

Sirota checked it all out, they are HER comments

I agree that approach would work better, assuming she believes the free-trade argument. I try not to assume that Hillary equals Bill when it comes to policy goals.

Anyhow, it really does look like she’s splitting hairs here, and I doubt many people will be interested in the details of her differences with Bill over NAFTA, if they even really exist.

““Shame on you! Barack Obama!” she yelled…”

vapidly? Or perhaps she hissed the words out, or screamed them hysterically?

It’s union busting at the highest level. Bypass US ports and their longshoreman and whatever regulations you can ignore by importing thru Mexico.
http://www.theamericanvoice.co…..ighway.jpg

she(ep) put the boon in boondoggle…?

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.

If there were really IWW’s (International Workers of the World = Wobblies] allowed to organize and openly unionize in the places where such Trade Agreements were in place, if there was strong cross-border environmental standards, immigration, as well as a host of other restrictions on the exploitation of workers on both sides of the borders, then the Treaties “might” be fair.

One would have to imagine a system so balanced that a highly skilled worker in Pittsburgh might actually be attracted to the housing, health-care, educational opportunities for the kids and standard-of-living/salary differentials to move down to Mexico for a job…and the Corporation might actually see the advantages of hiring such a person vis-a-vis equitable pay-scales with its own workers.

That wasn’t what the multinationals had in mind, though. It was all about obtaining the cheapest labor and, if possible, at a location closest to the resources being exploited.

I think it was on the last debate night that I heard a comment on the television saying NAFTA in Texas is very popular, especially among the Hispanic community.

It’s difficult to imagine NAFTA being helpful for Clinton almost anywhere else, especially in working/unemployed areas of Ohio.

i don’t think edwards was much of a progressive either, at least not while he was in the senate.

that said, he did sound like one while he was on the campaign trail.

selise you have been helping. If a Clinton or Obama supporter wants to make a point or call out the candidate, fine…but to call supporters names are uncalled for, things are tense enough…….I have done it and I regret it, so I am TRYING not to do it anymore, and calling someone Rove or Bush is really low, they are the worst of the worst(ers)

Jane said:

She’s not running against Obama anymore — she’s essentially running against Bill. I mean, I really don’t know how you utter the “It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush” line in one breath, and then in the next admit that he fucked up the job.

Yup. Bill’s the albatross around her neck in this race. It’s not only a referendum on the doofus in the Whitehouse, it’s also one on Bill

For what? Much as I’d love to see him be President, he clearly couldn’t get any traction in this race. If he’d stayed out of the race to begin with that might have been a possibility.

About the only hope of a draft I see is Al Gore, and that’s a slim one, to put it optimistically.

Nothing to do with that, but unlike may places were this primary season has caused some real bad feelings, we try to stay above the fray and debate. We disagree with one another, strongly disagree with one another but insulting one another serves no purpose especially when in the end, we all have the same goal

imo, bill.

recognizing that others see it differently.

Well said, Lou

Jane! Right on. I wrote a little about this at my place last night, quoting Phil Weiss’s two questions for HRC the day after Ohio and Texas.

Obama distributes deceptive negative brochures and you want to talk about Hillary?

That’s good unbiased journalism there Jane.

I’ll be glad when we have a nominee so y’all can quit being hacks.

Your point noted. Also noted, you couldn’t refute any of what I wrote.

Well “liberal” has been a perjorative since Reagan…

nafta had winners and losers. the problem is that the winners didn’t compensate the losers. and world-wide, i’m not sure that there were more losers from our version of “free trade”, and that they were among the least politically powerful.

wow, Jane is no not a hack but tis the season for raised hackles, isn’t it?

Sorry, Juan I would have refuted it, but already has been done better than I by David sirota and others.

Calling someone a sheep, as in going along with the crowd, doesn’t strike me as that much of an insult

Remember this?

Your point noted. Also noted, you couldn’t refute any of what I wrote.

George W. Bush Presidential Library, Southern Methodist University (Laura Bush’s alma mater), Dallas Texas.

Taylor Griffin, library spokesperson said, “Unlike other presidential libraries this one will focus equal parts on exploring the president’s personality as well as explaining the global political climate during his two terms.”

I’ve been saving this little nugget for a while. What a joke, but I guess they had to come up with some purpose for this pathetic endeavor.

It is hardly a compliment

True, and thanks for bolstering my argument. Newt made everything more toxic.

anyway, I thank you all for your comments as they have been informative and have peaked my curiosity enough to seek out additional info on the subject.

so, I guess half the library will be empty? And the rest will just be burning to reflect the impact he had on the global political climate?

yes, i agree, and it has always been thus! perhaps exceptions here and there, but for the most part, the LAW is the law, to ALL OF US, including the exec.
and thanks for this!

The combination of the hubris of the Big 3 in detroit and NAFTA’s policies have pretty much killed much of michigan. There are parts that are hanging on, but the ‘rust belt’ is becoming reality more than just a phrase.

Hillary Clinton today: “Let’s have a real campaign.” I assume Senator Clinton means one in which you stop trying to count the screwups in Florida and Michigan as real elections and stop trying to steal super delegates and pledged delegates after you lost the election. I assume she means the one she lost and the one in which her campaign mismanaged funds:

Donors Worried by Clinton Campaign Spending

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaign’s debt to him, tops $730,000.

The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses, and is still owed another $240,000.

Mrs. Clinton built a top-down fund-raising operation that relied on a core group of donors to write checks early on for the maximum amount, $4,600 for the primary and the general election, which left few of them to go back to when money became tight. Mr. Obama, by contrast, focused on building a network of small donors whose continued ability to give has been essential to his success this winter.

In this case, I’d call Hillary desperate. I’d like to be treated to the scene of Bill Clinton on stage outlining his NAFTA support, and Hillary Clinton on the same stage with her new position criticizing it.

What you’re seeing now is an angry person whose campaign has become a trainwreck shrieking in anger, thrashing around very desperately and pulling out her final death rattle which is “Obama is part of the right wing conspiracy that’s out to get Billiary.”

Again, Clinton has ignored the questions of the public. She is too arrogant to answer the main questions that have been put to her repeatedly and I’m still waiting for the FDL counterpart to the one that LHP had up on Tony Rezko, poker games, and a very wrong view of what a “Yes” vote actually stands for according to the Rules of the Illinois Senate.

As to Health Care plans–they’re aren’t any. The campaign slogans that Obama and Clinton have are very very far from beginning to cover most health care delivery issues.

2 Plans and Many Questions on the Uninsured

Where are your income tax returns Clinton? You’ve refused a thousand times to release them and where are the contributors to the Clinton library on the secret list you’ve refused a thousand times to release?

Here are 13 Questions You Can Zerox that Clinton Doesn’t Dare to Answer

Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Supported NAFTA But She Did

Clinton’s 15 Million Uncovered proclamation is pure bullshit. There are no real stats that support her purported figure.

1) What brought about the very sudden appearance of billing records from the Rose law firm in the dining room of the White House that had been subpoenaed 18 months earlier in 1984? You can bet that would be front and center in any hypothetical general election with McCain.

I do not see Christy Smith or LHP LHP sitting on their hands if they had issued a subpoena in a criminal case when at DOJ and the party refused to answer their subpoena in 18 days let alone 18 months. I’d expect a motion for contempt and jail time for the party refusing the subpoena. None was issued when Clinton was first lady by the Starr group, including by Amy St. Eve who was on the team.

I would expect that if Judge St. Eve ordered something produced or a subpoena enforced today, someone refusing her order would be shown the jail on the South loop of Chicago forthwith just as Rezko was shown it by St. Eve after Fitz’s motion he allegedly withheld funds.

2) What was the genesis of Hillary Clinton’s miraculous cattle futures trade netting her a sudden hundred grand in 1994?

1 Grand to 100 Grand No Experience in Cattle Futures Hillary’s Investment Miracle

3) Where does an examination of where Hillary got the $5 million to loan to her campaign? If it was in fact from her book deal, she doesn’t have a lot left to loan herself–except for the $100,000 speaking fees her husband continues to generate world wide. Was it from something like the mining deal that garnered $31.5 million for the Clinton library, or did it come from the misty, nebulous secret dealings of Bill Clinton and billionaire playboy friend Ron Burkle?

4) An examination of the $400,000 bribe paid by Denice Rich to Bill Clinton in order to get a pardon for her divorced husband Mark who pretty much fits the word “sleazy” that LHP used–at the time the pardon was granted Rich’s husband was an international fugitive on the run from US Marshal Service–that’s not quite up to the usual standards of the pardon office at LHP’s old digs–the DOJ. That’s going to be front and center in any attempt of Hillary Clinton to get elected.
It’s the classic defininition of a bribe and a Presidential pardon sold for $400,000.

5) An examination of the recent mining deal that netted Bill Clinton a contribution of $31.5 million dollars described in this article should be vetted. It’s going to be showcased in any hypothetical general election.

Clinton swings mining deal–gets $31.5 million for Secret Library Fund

6) What connections does TonyRezko have to the Clinton campaign or her campaign co-chairman? Two co-chairman took money from Rezko, and have refused to answer any questions about it.
Obama has answered dozens of questions to all Chicago newspapers.

7) Why has the word Rezko not come from Clinton’s lips and why has the accusation of working for slum lords not come from Clinton’s lips since early January in a debate? Is there a focal lesion brain/larynx that prevents this? She raised it once and never again.

8) When will Clinton learn to understand the Levin bill and the Kyle-Leiberman amendments she voted on authorizing war in Iraq in the first? Why did she mischaracterize them in the last debate, when she has had the advantage of a Yale law degree which should have insured that she can read a bill correctly? Why did she mischaracterize her vote against the Levin amendment and the amendment itself? Levin has said her explanation had nothing to do withhis amendment that she voted against.

9) Why has Clinton blocked release of over 1.5 million documents relating to a health care initiative she references all the time but refuses to detail at all no matter how many times she’s asked? This would be pressed for in any general election.

10) Why are the Clintons refusing to release the big money donor list to the Clinton library? This is a valid question for anyone who is running for any public office whether it’s a county commissioner or President of the United States. This would be front and center in any hypothetical general election.

11) Why did Clinton vote to table the earmark legislation that Obama wrote and sponsered votting with Vitter (R) who has made the most news in his Senate career in admitting his long term use of escort services?

12) Why did Clinton fail to know what a present vote means in the Illinois Senate when she grew up in Illinois and went to high school there as asked this morning on the op-ed page of the NYT?

‘Present’ Perfect

13) Why is Clinton White House Counsel Avner Mikvah working on the Obama campaign, and why is former best friend to the Clintons in law school and the coordinator of Clinton’s impeachment defense, Greg Craig of Williams and Connolly LLP working for Obama? Craig’s daughter was a good friend of Chelsea Clinton all through her private high schooling at the same school, and Craig rented the Clintons the first apartment they lived together in at Yale law school for $65 per week?

s(he)ep put the attitude in empty platitudes?

That’s a funny picture, Lee.

The dems are in trouble. They have been roved. I think they are going to lose big, unless, Obama can appeal to working class dems. Sure some of them are ignorant, some a little prejudiced, some a little racist, …, but they are the core of the party. A core we can’t win without ‘Progressives’ are not a majority of anything; any pol in America can tell you that. Some progressives are former Naderites and the dems losing again won’t bother them a one whit. My way or the highway with these folks. If they were half as smart as they think they are, they would be twice as smart as they are.

i hope “exploring his personality” INCLUDES valid psychoanalysis from the many professionals who have offered that!
I do not see, really, how the two could be separated!

Does anyone else get the stink of concern troll around the place?

Actually I picture a large simple roof structured building floating in a huge reflective pond to symbolize Katrina, and maybe a bronze statue of the famous hooded Abu Grahib prisoner out front.

This is not a well informed post. ‘Snot one of Jane’s best.

before moving on the book salon, here is my contribution to good will.

thanks to tw3k for inspiring me to make whole wheat chocolate chip pancakes this morning. how have i lived so long without them?

1 3/4 cups whole wheat white (not red) flour
2 teas baking powder
pinch salt
1 Tbls sugar
1 Tbls cinammon

separate 3 eggs

mix egg yolks with:
1 1/2 cups milk
4 Tbls melted butter (add last after mixing egg yolks and milk)

combine wet and dry ingredients with minimal strokes (just enough to make a lumpy batter)

beat egg whites until med. stiff and fold into batter.

spoon batter on to buttered pan and sprinkle some bittersweet choc. pieces (fair trade!) on the top of the batter.

take care of the melted chocolate and enjoy with a bit of maple syrup and a strong coffee.

The dems are in trouble.

Yes, that massive Democratic turnout in the primaries is ominous. *rolls eyes*

Maybe we are becoming gun-shy but I agree that this whole primary is feeling like a Rove trap. KKKarl is sitting back on his fat ass and letting two unelectibles duke it out..

COOL! Now we have 2 concern trolls!

Can you refrain from characterizing supporters of Sen Obama as sheep? It doesn’t advanced your argument and in general lowers the discourse level. If you want a flame war, try the orange overlord’s place or mydd or taylor marsh. thank you and now back to our civilized discussion

We’ve been having a lot of new visitors here at FDL it seems that don’t realize that we try to use reason rather than name-calling to criticize views. Someone came over the other day and used the term “Obamapods”. That was so unique that I was easily able to track its source down to particular pro-candidate websites.

The issue is whether Hillary supported NAFTA in the manner it was passed in 1993 with her husbands support. Clearly Bill Clinton negotiated some (superficial) ameliorative clauses that made the Treaty “less bad”. One has to assume that Hillary supported these measures, at least since she is running on “experience”. But we now know that NAFTA really didn’t succeed in the way it promised. Either it was too weak on those protections, or they were supercial glosses in the first place.

And other Free Trade bills have been passed (and turned down) since. Bills with Peru, the Caribbean, China, Singapore (and Indonesia’s Riau Islands), Australia, Malaysia, Morocco, Bahrain, and other nations have emerged under Bush. More interesting would be to see where the candidates stand now on those issues since they came into the Senate. Did Hillary become an opponent of Free Trade when Bush became President, or did she transform her views over time? Or was she selective on what treaties to support? Likewise with Obama.

Where did tried-and-true progressives like Wellstone or Feingold sit on these issues. Were they supported by Clinton (and for Feingold…by Obama)?

Equally interesting would be to investigate any amendments that they proposed on these Treaties.

The dems are in trouble. They have been roved. I think they are going to lose big, unless, Obama can appeal to working class dems. Sure some of them are ignorant, some a little prejudiced, some a little racist, …, but they are the core of the party. A core we can’t win without ‘Progressives’ are not a majority of anything; any pol in America can tell you that. Some progressives are former Naderites and the dems losing again won’t bother them a one whit. My way or the highway with these folks. If they were half as smart as they think they are, they would be twice as smart as they are.

This is hilariously wrong. The Rethugs are in big trouble. What will happen is crossovers from Republicans and Independents and the people you narrowly mischaracterized as “the base” are voting for Obama over McBush. I’ve run into 3 friends this morning who were life long Republicans who are voting Obama in the general.

The lobbying scandal for McBush is merely an embryo. It will unfold and envelop McCain in a way that will be critically damaging to his candidacy.

Kill Bill Volume Three

[RBG Note; let’s be thoughtful about where this one leads. Thanks.]

Feingold vote no on final passage in that link provided in #26

And Feingold voted for Obama in his primary.

LOL!

I know what a troll is but may I ask what a concern troll is?

Yep

Those rethugs crossing over are not doing so for the benefit of the dems or Obama. It’s called roving. Winning in caucus states, crossover states and red states should have set off alarms.

Concern troll. There may be 2 floating about here.

I agree and would also like to see these questions addressed. As for the visitors, I realize that reason is out.

excellent points. would love to know the answers.

what i do know however, is that everyone in congress who voted for that first iraq war supplemental spending package, voted to give miami $8 million to beat up on and lie about the protesters for the FTAA meeting in nov. 2004.

here’s one picture i took while volunteering for the national lawyers’ guild as a legal observer.

one thing about the so called ‘free trade’ agreements which really bothers me is how repressively protesters have been treated. i take it a little personally being tear gassed and targeted for pepper spray when i am doing nothing illegal. and seeing kids beaten bloody puts me off the scale mad.

Assuming you are correct (which I don’t), what should we do about it? Vote for Hillary?

Thanks for the definition, Marion, this old Roosevelt Liberal would hate to be called that..

right, check, it’s a vast conspiracy to choose the weakest demo candidate. The thugs all received secret instructions from the rovemaster sitting in his den and plotting exactly how best to corrupt the election. and then they all marched in lockstep to vote per those instructions. telepathic communication so there’d be no paper trail.

(rolls eyes)

couldn’t have anything to do w/ real appeal to independents, now could it? of course, any cross over votes for mcstain were all because of his outstanding qualities of integrity and honor.

Gaiilongong,

You wrote that you would have refuted what I wrote but that “David Sirota and others” already have!

You cite nothing and I don’t know who the “others” are. Most of my points refer to events that took place today. Sirota doesn’t blog on weekends so he obviously hasn’t refuted what I wrote.

He hasn’t and you can’t. When YOU actually have an informed opinion write baaaaaack.

unbelievable. Glad that folks like you were there to observe and record this crap.

I’ll vote for Obama next fall if I have to but, unlike the sheep falling in behind Obama, I won’t be dissapointed by his failings after/and if he’s elected. Hillary’s the progressive candidate in this contest. Obama is a “finger in the wind” centrist – at best.

I’m sure Juan you don’t mind butressing your claims with facts do you?

Tell us how Obama supporters are “sheep.”

Tell us how Obama is a ‘finger in the wind centrist’ according to you. Can you cite issues and votes?

Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.”

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that “the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton’s campaign can manufacture supposed “outrage” that anyone would say she supported NAFTA – all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

Also I posed 13 questions for Clinton or Clinton supporters @133 here I’m sure you’d be glad to answer.

God, you make an important point. The phrase “Free Speech Zone” is so PROFOUNDLY anti-American as to boggle the mind. The entire damn country is a free speech zone, and the sooner we get someone in the White House who understands that the better off we’ll all be. /rant

I refuted what you wrote and you don’t have to write on weekends to find that Clinton supported NAFTA multiple times.

When are you going to answer my 13 questions @133 for Clinton or her supporters on this weekend including why she won’t release her tax returns or the 1.6 million pages of her secret health initiative while First Lady?

True of many southerners, also. Never mind the bad syntax.

Bad syntax or not, no one would ever accuse a “southerner” of being from anywhere but the USA. That is not the case for many American citizens who originate from other countries.

My point was, that the person on the phone might well have been an American citizen. How would the person receiving the call know?

I wonder if that came from the Univision commentator, who I believe also made a comment about Texas being a State in which Unionization wasn’t successful because workers were happy that it was a “free Labor State”.

In fact, one would have to go to specific sectors to see if NAFTA was working in Texas. Does an immigrant have family with jobs in a Maquiladora? Were they able to obtain work at factories on an H2-B visa as Unions collapsed in the wake of NAFTA…while established workers had stagnating wages?

Many of the “mobile laborers”, including the Mexican American community, are not all that happy with their current labor conditions in Texas.

SEIU Breaks With AFL-CIO and Organizes Texas Janitors

Take a drive through Northern Mexico one of these days. All those factories built at the onset of NAFTA, well a large number are now sitting empty. Why? The corporations followed the trail of the cheapest labor markets and abandoned Mexico for Asia. Corporate America goes where cheap labor and no standards for workers and the enivornment reign. Mexico got screwed by NAFTA just like the Americans.

You’re right — it’s not a good thing to be!

agreed. may be a while, but something worth working for.

all my pics of individuals hurt (i got a few of young people with blood pouring down their faces) went to the NLG – when i asked to take their pics i told them that’s who would get the pics, so i never intend on sharing them. but they are the really scary ones, imo.

Hillary’s only chance continuing with campaigning as normal is a major gaff by Obama. But if she makes a major address on the Bush administration fear mongering over FISA, she can be the big story across the country. The idea that spying on American citizens should always require a warrant – even if weeks after the fact – is an easy case to make, will even resonate with conservatives, and will make her a hero to millions of progressives furious with the Senate Democrats for giving Bush everything he wanted.

Bless you, Marion!

If you come to Netroots Nation I will buy you a cocktail!

Thanks! If I ever make it there I’ll hold you to that promise!

Thanks Marion, it’s good to be reminded of the basics once in awhile..

not to offend any clinton supporters, but it seems clear that she’s essentially lost chances for nomination. As Jane (and others) have pointed out recently, the numbers just don’t add up.

I’d love to see her helping: do what you suggest, come out against FISA and illegal spying, be a strong voice for social justice from the senate, push for real progressive change.

of course, if she did that, or if she’d been doing that, maybe this primary season would be turning out differently … but not too late to hope.

They absolutely did! The Maquiladora are abandoned or running at part capacity as you say and the people are worse off than ever. The new slums which sprang up about those sweat shops are particularly dismal places.

Ron…I actually looked at that link in #26 and it clearly states that Feingold voted AGAINST the NAFTA Treaty.

NAFTA Vote

I assume you misread it, and thought that you might have muddled Feinstein with Feingold. But DiFi also voted against NAFTA.

I’m not quite sure why (maybe because I’ve freely marched on Washington more than once) but that phrase just makes me WILD. Pretty much everything that Dim Son has done over the past 7 years is a simmering disaster, but that phrase just sets me off… There. I feel better now!

I am curious as to why she used the term ‘rovian tactics’? Is there a reason for that choice of words knowing the emotions that are invoked when a democrat hears that word? (I’m not trying to start a fight, but as someone studying how words are used, i want to input as to why she chose those words)

I thought what # 70 said was civilized – he voiced an opinion. He didn’t say he despised Obama – come on. YOu ask him to leave and go to another site? Very strange. Kos-ish.

Yes, that’s what I said. :) I meant to type “Feingold voted no” when I typed “Feingold vote no”.

We need more Feingolds.

are you concerned? sorry, no flame wars over here but thanks for playing

Besides the reason for the comment had nothing to do with Obama (read again) it was about not insulting his supporters via name calling

My guess is it was an appeal the the Democrats’ “lizard brain.” ‘Nuff said? It’s a tactic much beloved of the other side.

Is that you , Ken Mehlman?

Oh, God! How I’ve been wondering!!! Sangemon rushes in where Marion in Savannah fears to tread!

Yeah, out of everything that she said, that really jumped out at me because of the visceral reaction I had and other dems would have to anything Kral Rove

Hey, we all have a lizard brain. You saw that “free speech zone” tickles mine!

I know no one is going to read this, but I’ll respect the Book Salon going on and answer “sixty something’s” question way up there – no, I didn’t ask where the caller was from, but it was quite clear from the similar accents in the background that he was calling from an overseas calling center.

The mods thank you.

omg LOLOLOLOL
help me off the floor here, will ya?
sange?????
lol

i’m still reading here … more interested in this topic than the book salon (not topic-based, just don’t find the book salons that rewarding)

oh they CAN be!
i’ve been to several that were EXCELLENT!
not all tho, i agree.

Hi, noonan. Some of us are still here. I was taken aback by the tone of the question. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that enormous numbers of call centers are located offshore. I’ll not bore you with the saga of my dealings with Dell Computers…

this nyt article is kinda sad … has to be awfully tough to see it all falling apart.

I remember way, way, way back when all candidacies were speculative and Hillary’s name came up. My position then, as it is today, is that she’s becoming a very valuable Senator. I said then that she should continue there where, in a Democratic administration she could wield some real influence. It may yet happen…

i’ve done some work on the periphery of implementing indian call centers. It’s pretty weird … makes me think of my partner’s grandmother working in what we’d certainly think of as a sweatshop as a garment worker in philly early last century. and how proud she was of that job and how much she saw it as an opportunity … no easy answers here. but also, nothing that made me want to do more call center work …

I think that many Independents and Republicans decided to vote for Obama (or other candidates) over Clinton simply because

a) they don’t like Clinton (*and this would be reflected in potential cross-over voters in the General Election, too)

and b) none of the Republicans particularly attracted them in those Primaries. Recall that many Primaries and Caucuses occurred long before it was thought that McCain was going to be the presumptive nominee. There was a great deal of flux in the Republican race…with a range of choices that should have made a Republican WANT TO VOTE in the Primary (or lose their choice on either a fundamentalist theocrat, a war-mongering Goldwater-type, a libertarian isolationist, a somnambulent Reaganite, or a plutocrat).

That means about 7-10% of the voters in the Democratic Primaries that were open were Republican (Independents were up to 20-25%). That’s actually a massive number of “discouraged” Republicans when one considers that the Democrats have been pulling 2-3 times the number of Republicans out to their elections. It works out to be about 20-30% of the registered Republicans that voted that day “jumped” Parties. And the numbers are even worse for Independents…few of whom voted in the Republican Primaries.

Obama has consistently received 40 to >50% of the Democratic voters so even assuming the crazed view that he wioll not receive ANY of the Clinton supporters he would still draw enough support from Independents and Moderate Republicans, plus his Democratic supporters to win. In fact, the whole difference is turn out…Obama has drawn more voters in the Democratic primary, even in RED STATES, than all of the Republican Primary voters combined. Hillary also surpasses one (or sometimes two) of the Republican candidates, but usually in Blue States.

The real advantage (as national polls have shown) is now with Obama over McCain.

Now of course, perhaps all tthose responding to polls are also part of Karl Rove’s secret cabal (and the conspiracy was kept VERY SECRET…so that the Democrats would never see the emails).

I didn’t take offense to the tone, in fact, I like the fact that we have members here that are not afraid to ask hard questions and feel welcome enough to express their views, even though they may be against those of the majority here.

I’ve also noticed more members either coming out of the woodwork, or new members, speaking out. This is part of what makes this place different, and great.

Just noticed that Clinton is live on C-Span right now.

Sorry…my brain must be working on one cylinder today. My apologies.

I’m interested in how many things are being globalized and offshored. I’m a medical transcriptionist and one of the docs in our practice has decided that it’s cheaper for him to have his transcription done in Bangalore rather than to pay his portion of my salary. It is. A lot. However, the docs I transcribe for sign off on what I do without question. He has to go over every note he gets back with a nit comb to make sure they’re okay. It’s not the fault of the transcribers in Bangalore, actually. They belong to the “every word that falls from a doctor’s lips is a pearl” school of thought, and are instructed to transcribe EXACTLY what the doc says. My docs trust me to correct dosages, etc., and Bangalore transcribes what he says. Believe me — if your doc says “25 milligrams of Synthroid” what he REALLY meant to say was “25 micrograms of Synthroid.” It makes a difference. [stepping down off soapbox]

*g* Since 1978 you can count the warrants that the FISC court turned down on both hands. And as Cboldt says, the House is probably posturing before folding like good little Bushies just as the Senate did.

I wouldn’t look for Clinton who couldn’t get her driver to detour to the Senate to vote while she was a few miles from it to contribute anything to the FISA vote; she’s quietly done the robot thing that she doesn’t support immunity but she had a vote; she was in the city and she didn’t lift a finger to get over and exercise it. Obama did show up to vote.

I had a blind call from the DCCC the other night. I politely explained to the caller, who sounded like a very nice young man from somewhere just south of the Mason-Dixon line, perhaps North Carolina or maybe Virginia, that I do not choose to contribute through the DCCC because the folks who are making the decisions about how the DCCC money is allocated to candidates have insisted upon a losing DLC strategy instead of the 50-state strategy that was proven to be a winner in 2006, and that Obama is proving is a winner in the current cycle. I went on to say that I would contribute my donations to Democratic candidates of my own choosing through venues like Blue America and ActBlue, thank you very much.

The guy said, “Oh, I haven’t heard that one before. That was good. Thanks”, and said goodnight.

I like book salons if I have read the book, or if it is a topic I am very familiar with.

My #200 was in reply to you. Am I the only one who is having trouble with the “Reply” button being skittish and sometimes not wanting to work?

Wow! Good on you for a) taking the call (!) and b) ’splaining it to him. Good going!

And this is why pharmacists and pharmacy techs will never get outsourced either. You have to know the meds in question when entering and filling the script. When you can’t read it? You have to call the office and do all that footwork to get the correct information. You can’t do that from Bangalore. There’s also only so much of the work that can be automated in a pharmacy. A good 75% of it has to be done by human hands at the moment.

Call Centers are soul numbing places. They were early adopters of data collection, up to and including how long an agent was at the rest room. The ultimate in a metric driven endeavor-”If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it!”

Alias, my doc faxes typed prescriptions over to the pharmacy.

Oh gods, i remember that! I worked for SBC between 2000-2002.(Before AT&T gobbled it up) Just before I left they’d implemented the timed bathroom break bullshit. i HATED it. As if i could time how much i’d be sick in a day. The pay was great, but the little things completely drove me insane.

Oh, heaven spare us from an automated pharmacy… I’m lucky enough to be healthy as a horse, so I don’t have to deal with a polypharmacy. Even doctors aren’t sure about drug interactions. At least the good ones will admit it…

She used the term Rovian tactics because her campaign is in complete disarray, she’s thrashing about and floundering about angrily. She is still in shock. She expected coronation from Iowa on and that’s not going to happen.

Billiary’s definition of Rovian is “anything that doesn’t support us.”

She had those maxed out donors and she didn’t think Obama could raise money with small donations. Now she can’t go to the maxed out donors, the SDs and pledged delegates are telling her to go home. She knows she’s not going to be able to take the train wrecks in Michigan and Florida and CPR them as real elections.

Clinton wasn’t even bothering herself to talk to any press until Iowa shocked her. She functions like a robot. Even the statement at the end of the debate the other night “We’ll be okay” was liftedright from John Edwards. If I had been Obama, I’d have cut right in and said “Xeroxing that from Edwards aren’t ya Hill?”

That’s okay — as long as your pharmacist knows what else you’re taking and will discuss potential drug interactions with you. In an automated world the pharmacist would be cut out and a machine would dispense… YEEEK!!!

OT:

US may ease national park gun ban
from Raw Story Breaking News
WASHINGTON — In a victory for gun-rights advocates, the federal government is preparing to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks…

We get those too, along with a fairly new thing called E-scripts. We don’t get a lot of those and it cuts down on the errors, but you still have to make modifications to them depending on the drug and dosage in question. Something only human eyes can see, once again. Faxes and called in ’scripts we see lots of, along with the hand written ones dropped off. Or the typed out ones. There’s an insane amount of variables in the job, part of why i like it.

so in other words, you chalk it up to frustration?

no no no thanks!

I read that in the LA times this morning. Ridiculous, last thing I want to worry about is some jerk running around Yellowstone or the Grand Teton Nat’l park with fire arms and itchy fingers. But I love the quote from the bear attack victim who stated that no lil bullet is going to stop a grizzly…now that is the truth

yep. and she did and looked sooooo GOOD! in the debate the other night. I had real hopes that I had been wrong, and she would gracefully accept the outcome of this election. but i was right, it would seem. she’s going to claw and scream and go nuts, and NOT GET IT that this is about We The People who do NOT want OLD WashDC anymore, it’s NOT ALL ABOUT HER.

WHAT’S ASTOUNDING to me is that she keeps on doing the same loosing thing over and over and over, like she’s NOT learning, NOT adapting. She’s getting worse with the attacks, not thinking about that she’s attacking the candidate of choice, and thereby the voters who supported him. sad.

FWIW, SBC gobbled up the old AT&T and took the name.

Well…the partner of my boss. Our second pharmacist basically said eventually a lot of it will be automated but the pharmacist would be able to check things from a home office instead of right in the pharmacy itself. But that would be in like 20 odd years or so. But even then, i kinda beg to differ because of variables like the computer error. Automation only works when its exact. One single variable is off and the machine goes into a conniption fit of hysterics. It also can’t tell things that the best techs pick up on instantly. There’s an advantage to two techs getting a script filled and then the final check by a pharmacist. Three sets of eyes to pick up on errors that a single idiotic machine can miss if the variable is off.

WHAT’S ASTOUNDING to me is that she keeps on doing the same loosing thing over and over and over, like she’s NOT learning, NOT adapting. She’s getting worse with the attacks, not thinking about that she’s attacking the candidate of choice, and thereby the voters who supported him. sad.

Kinda gives that “ready on day one” meme a whole different smell, doesn’t it?

One of the problems when a patient is on several drugs, and a lot of them are as they get older–it’s unavoidable, is that several drugs have many of the same side effects and most of them have some interaction (many interactions that are synergystic or that reduce the time for efficacy to take place don’t stop them from being effective. Side effects can take time to sort out. Any doctor has a ton of resources now in their pocket on line for new meds (a few mouse clicks away), and for most of the frequently used meds most doctors have known the side effects and interactions–they’ve been plastered with resources every day for years on them. Most wouldn’t have any self respect if they didn’t.

It’s just not that difficult. There are tons of resources and after years of reading them they get committed to memory.

Ah. I’d left the company at that time and hadn’t payed attention to the buyout and who bought who. I thought it’d been the other way around because when i was at SBC, AT&T had been the bigger monster at that point. Now it’s a friggen hydra.

PetePierce,

I know a lot of Obama supporters. When I ask why, they’re stumped and unable to articulate any reason for backing him. Just look at this thread which originated with Clinton’s calling out Obama for two claims made by his camp. One claim has been termed bogus and misleading by two sources – including the source cited in Obama’s flier. The other claim, which is accurate, is that an Obama flier is using Republican talking points from the early 90’s in regard to Hillary’s health care plan. I find that repugnant.

Yet 99% of the responses here, one pretty much indistinguishable from another, have been about Hillary’s support of NAFTA. So the real issue at hand – Obama’s negative false claims are ignored by almost everyone here and replaced by a discussion about NAFTA by almost everyone here. That, along with his supporters inability to express why they’re for Obama justifies my description of them as sheep.

Now, I’ve answered 2/3 of you’re questions. I’m pushed for time but will gladly respond in full later tonight if you will respond to my original post (#70, I believe) which NO ONE on this site has yet done.

I am SOOOOO in agreement with you. Possibly it would be okay for “basic” medications like anthistamines… Well, not so much. Will the machine know if the patient has hypertension or BPH? Machines are great for some things, but not this. At all. EVER.

It’s just not that difficult.

Are you a physician or a pharmacist?

It does. Doesn’t she know, or won’t someone close to her TELL HER, we’ve all had quite enough of someone who won’t accept reality, state the truth, or who can’t grasp the facts on the ground. I mean, WHAT is she thinking???!, where are her advisers???? or a friend? ANYONE?????

… While NAFTA isn’t the best solution to the economic disparity between the US and Mexico, it makes an attempt to bring Mexico into the larger US & Canadian economies.

I’m not exactly sure about that. Have you heard of the maquilas which were a result of NAFTA?

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02…..boardroom/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/05…..gh-enough/

Over time, it could, if done right, make for a potent trading bloc like the EU. …

I’m not exactly sure about this either. If I could suggest something else to read, may I suggest “Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism” by Ha-Joon Chang or at least the review by Chalmers Johnson

Majority of the pharmacists i work with? Have a PDA with at least 2 or 3 difference references on them. We also have a shelf full of reference texts to top things off as well. If the Doc doesn’t know it? We do and will tell ‘em as much. The ideal thing is that the Doc persrcibes the medication and the pharmacist is the last check to make sure that the medications don’t interact badly. Hence the final quality check at the end of our process. They check interactions and prior drug history(at least in our pharmacy)to make sure nothing’s amiss. And if it is? We get ahold of the doctor and switch it ASAP.

It’s harder to track a patient’s interactions if they get their medications in several different retail pharmacies. My company has a shared database of what store, what drug and when they’d had it dispensed. Not all retail pharms do this. And of course, we can’t see the competitions records unless we call them(and most times we have no reason to unless tracking a fraud case).

well, considering obama’s trying to run with this kind of baloney, i’d say hillary’s response is more than fair. not to mention he’s using republican talking points to derail our only real shot at universal health care.

Numerous people have responded to your post, and you’re just ignoring it. Do you have any quotes from Clinton before this campaign started where she speaks out against NAFTA? You haven’t dealt with 90% of the Obama response, which is here:

http://factcheck.barackobama.c….._of_na.php

And please answer why Feingold voted for Obama if Clinton is the progressive candidate.

i DON’T hate Hillary. I just don’t want her for president. What I hate is to see her just go down in flames screaming, the damage to herself, and to the Democratic party. Self destructive behavior is so difficult to have to watch.

response to #8, yes Bush Sr. admin did negotiate NAFTA.

Just like your prior admonition that the Clintons have no responsibility for George Tenet when, in fact, it was the Clintons who brought Tenet into their administration as a White House staffer from a Senate staff job and later appointed him to the CIA directorship. You have asserted previously that they had no choice but to appoint Tenet to the CIA because of the repubs. But the Clintons took this flake and made him. Same with the flake Sandy Berger and it went on and on. Sorry if this appears hyperbolic but the Clintons are a menace, not the ordinary course of doing business in DC, far worse.

Just like the Clintons who claim a great economy 92-00 when the US dependence on foreign oil rose dramatically with no alternative energy policy from the Clintons.

When you cut through their facade, the Clintons are real dangerous

It’s harder to track a patient’s interactions if they get their medications in several different retail pharmacies.

Oh, wow. Ain’t THAT the truth. I work for ENT docs, so we see a lot of dizziness and dysequilibrium. If I had a nickel for every time one of my docs has had to dictate a polite note suggesting that the primary care physician take the time to investigate all the medications their (almost always) elderly patient has been prescribed all over town by 8 different physicians I could probably retire.

Do you think that the EMR might be helpful in situations like this, if we ever get there and are ever convinced it can remain truly private? (Which I do not feel confident about — the privacy part, that it…)

Exactly. I don’t hate her either. I just think she’ll do much more good in the long run in the Senate.

That’s a fact!

So I guess calling Obama’s supporters ”sheep” is somehow uncivilized, but saying any insulting thing about the candidates is perfectly OK? Every thread on every web site I go to (including this one) is filled with the worst vitriol directed at Hillary. Now that Obama appears to have it wrapped up, his supporters are trying to portray themselves as peacemakers. I’m not in the business of calling people names, but I happen to like Hillary Clinton, and I really don’t feel an obligation to suddenly be buddy buddy with the people who have vilified her for months. Don’t support her if you don’t want, but don’t try to pretend that Obama’s supporters haven’t been portraying her as shrill, calculating, neocon, Bush lite, warmonger, racist and any other perjorative you can think of, not to mention the many who say they wouldn’t vote for her if she was the nominee. I’ve been engaged in politics for some time, and I can’t remember when a candidate’s supporters declared such open war during a primary. There’s wounds that will take a long time to heal.

EMR? Refresh my memory on that? *blinks* Not something i’ve come in contact with as a pharm tech.

As for privacy? That’s not so hard to keep to, even though i pretty much spend my entire workday up to my ears in HIPAA law stuff. Most of it’s kept in check by the NAPB,DEA,NPI number aspect. The rest is simple judgement and in a lot of cases figuring out how to keep the info private. Hard to do in a public pharmacy, but possible and we do it every day.

Here is Hillary’s Record regarding Free Trade Agreements. She was also the co-sponsor of an African Textile/Agriculture FTA with Spector that failed to reach the Floor.

Here’s an article about the Debate regarding the China Trade Agreement ratified the last year Clinton was in Office. That Treaty was the complete responsibility of Bill Clinton.

So I guess calling Obama’s supporters ”sheep” is somehow uncivilized, but saying any insulting thing about the candidates is perfectly OK?

nothing sexist or racist, but otherwise – yeah. i think we ought to have a different standard for how we treat each other…. but for the candidates, given the constraints of no allusions to bigotry, i think they are fair game.

when the candidate you support is criticized – it’s not a personal attack. i wish we could get past that (me too).,

Siri, please give it a rest. It’s a contested election. She has a ton of delegates, with the prospect of winning a ton more. Obama’s not going to go to the convention with enough delegates. Yes, Obama will likely win. But can you please stop with the body language reading and faux concerns for her mental health? She’s not Harold Stassen, for Christ’s sake.

Now, I’ve answered 2/3 of you’re questions. I’m pushed for time but will gladly respond in full later tonight if you will respond to my original post (#70, I believe) which NO ONE on this site has yet done.

Obama’s negative false claims

I’ve responded to you and Texas and Ohio will respond to you to. It’s over for Clinton. I don’t see any place where you’ve answered any of the 13 questions I posed.

Hillary’s ranting and screaming about Obama’s flyers is more desperate flailing and it’s going no where. They are the bitter words of someone who has spent millions of dollars on Penn and Grunwald, and still owes them money she’s having a hard time paying.

I’m still waiting for any of your posts to be explicit and specific.

I don’t know who you’re talking to as Obama supporters Juan, but the ones I know personally and the ones here aren’t stumped about anything.

2/3 of 13 is close to 9. I don’t see where you’ve answered the questions. I want to see you get Bill and Hillary to release their tax returns and the answers tot he questions about the large infusions of cash from people like his jet pal Ron Burkle, and the large contributions to the Clinton library from people he swung lucrative deals for. The hundreds of millions to the library should have been transparent; that’s money to influence two people who wanted to (and now know they won’t be ) be the co-president of the US in 2009.

EMR = electronic medical record. Possibly, if done right (and I have MAJOR concerns) could help with the following:

The one case I remember extremely vividly is a woman in her 70’s who was referred to us for dizziness and imbalance. I guess we were supposed to do all sorts of vestibular testing on her. Our doc took a history and determined that she was on more pain killers and anti-depressives and sleeping medications than you could shake a stick at. Six different physicians had been prescribing, and apparently everyone just wanted to get this complaining old lady out of their office. To make a long story short, she was taken off about 80% of her medications and *POOF* she wasn’t dizzy any more. I doubt she’s an isolated case.

i was the person that took issue with the ’sheep’ name and Obama supporters and as you don’t know me and I don’t know you, I can only assume that your venting as I have never called Hillary out of her name (it’s just not my thing) It is really too bad that over zealous supporters on both sides have left so much damage in their path but I for one am not going to let a few folks ruin what has been (mostly) thoughtful discussions. Sure it has gotten out of hand here but it is not nearly as obnoxious as over at Kos, Mydd or taylor Marsh.

Thanks. Here is the corresponding link to Obama’s votes on trade, which are identical to Hillary’s where they overlap.

http://www.votesmart.org/votin…..038;go.y=8

Ah yes. I can see how. I think it’s possible then, and could help. But a lot of it depends on the offices and the pharmacies sharing information as well. A lot of times as long as we have a regular with us? We can make sure that situation doesn’t come up. Since we’ll have who all their physicians are and what they’re taking. Privacy is a big thing for sure with that kind of access as well. Only us employees can see that information in our database, and we dont’ allow anyone else access to it beyond the occasional auditor that comes by for various reason.

A universal one could be an advantage, but also a gold mine for thieves. Double edged sword, that.

It is rather amazing to see how little it takes to get some folks all worked up, isn’t it?

probably not. i was talking to someone here specifically, not meaning to be on any soapbox. I don’t mean to offend anyone and I respect those who support her. but, no. i won’t stop analyzing her or any other of the candidates, and any concern i have for what I’m observing, believe me, is not faux.
how can you say THAT? you don’t know me.
And my apologies if you were offended. Is it beer-thiry yet?????

Absolutely and I think as the primary comes to a close, it may only get worse. I just hope folks rise above it

well, since i’m one of the people who’s gotten worked up… i think i should invite suggestions for what to do about that….

thank you, that’s very helpful.

I don’t know what country you’re watching. She doesn’t have a “ton of delegates” and she sure doesn’t have the prospect of “a ton more.” She mathematically needs to win about 65% of most of the coming states. A lot of polls are even and some in Texas have Obama ahead. He’s closing on her fast in Ohio–she’s not going to win any of these states by substantial majorities.

She’s over and it’s best for the Democratic party that she and her husband get out of the way. The earlier the better.

Bill Clinton stepped on his thing big time when he tried to relegate Obama as just one more “Jessie Jackson” black candidate in South Carolina. The Clintons are going to munch on those words for a long time.

Clinton should have no trouble beating the law breaking clown Jeanine Pirro who is dumb enough to try to run for her Senate seat after failing so many times, and should have gone to prison with her husband. Lets see if she can work to pass some of President Obama’s legislation.

A universal one could be an advantage, but also a gold mine for thieves. Double edged sword, that.

My concerns exactly. Of course, it would be helpful if people would try to become more involved and informed about their own medical care. It would be helpful to actually have the name and dosage of a medication, rather than to hear about a “high blood pill” and a “sugar pill.” Sigh.

i think that was more a response to my response to a member that seems to be a wee bit upset.

We can all agree that policies, positions, votes, etc. should be challenged but when it disintegrates into name calling, maybe it’s time to take a step back, and take a few deep breaths

Maybe Mike Bloomberg will run against her for her Senate seat. Maybe anyone competent will run against her in New York. No more Lazios, Spencers and Piros.

Here’s a statement from Clinton after her vote rejecting the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The way I read it she supports NAFTA but blames the Bush Administration for not implementing or following its terms. That would seem to me to call for legal action, support for impeachment, or, at the very least authoring laws to create independent institutions to monitor and implement the law.

She also notes that she did pass laws similar to ND-CAFTA but only after “assurances” that the workers in those nations would not be adversely affected. Ironically, the Singapore FTA Treaty allows Indonesia’s Riau Islands (Singapore’s equivalent to Saipan/Guam in terms of cheap labor without fair union practices) to be in the Singapore Zone.

“Bill Clinton stepped on his thing big time when he tried to relegate Obama as just one more “Jessie Jackson” black candidate in South Carolina.”

What a pleasure to see that events have proven the Big Dog monumentally wrong! Talk about not understanding the spirit of the time.

was referring to my reactions in a different thread… even a different day.

Are there any articles (I’ll go google but I’m asking anyway) where the question of her stance/support of NAFTA is questioned?

okay, wasn’t sure. no harm.

Hey cinnamonape

I clicked on your Free Trade agreements link and one of the yea votes was for the “U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act” in which one of the high lights of the act was …

- Eases trade barriers between the United State and Singapore, especially financial.

Don’t know what that means exactly and I’m not saying there’s a correlation but it reminds me of the wikileaks shutdown where they were looking into the Bank Julius Baer and their alleged money laundering for … don’t know who

Wikileaks files mirrored here

will they call her someone who fights hard, a bitch, or desperate?

They have to choose?

It’s past vs. future and Hillary has committed to being part of the past. She’s sooo over.

The web allows any people who have access to it a plethora of resources to become informed on issues relating to their medical care. There are thousands of sites that enable them to do this, and there are many many sites that list medications, dosages, side effects, interactions and discuss diseases and treatment modalities.

I don’t count myself as an Obama “supporter”, really. I just prefer him to Clinton. Can Obama supporters point to examples of Obama speaking out against NAFTA before this campaign started?

Ian’s up!

i don’t know how one can ever justify the nafta chapter 11 – like parts of our trade policy. or excluding the advocates for labor rights, human rights, environmental rights,…. from the drafting of our trade policies – especially when the multinationals get a seat at teh table.

I found an article from TIME magazine from 2007 where the question was put to her point blank. Need a sec to read

Way better to make the free-trade argument and then try to say that the implementation was flawed and should be improved than to try to pin the whole thing on someone else …

Yes absolutely. If she could create an argument for smoothly transitioning from the past to the future, then she could use her ‘experience’ as a booster. But, by defending the past without even referencing the future is just as pointless as digging a hole in the ground.

And now we have arrived at the nub of why I’ve opposed Hillary from the jump.

She’s running on her ‘experience’, some of it experienced vicariously.

Well, part of that experience was her old man signed NAFTA over the vociferous objections of labor and Perot (the little bastard was right about NAFTA, wasn’t he?).

Before that, she CHOSE to work for a labor busting law firm AND sit on acquiesently on the board of a labor busting corporation.

During her campaign, she CHOSE anti-labor assholes like Penn to work for her.

How the hell she garnered progressive support defies rationale thought. OK, she’s a woman. So’s Hutchinson and Dole, and you wouldn’t vote for them, would you?

I am an Edwards guy, and I’ve given strong consideration to writing him in come primary day. IN the end, I’ll probably vote Obama. We can hope he’s progressive – we know Hillary isn’t.

The only reason she’s bucking NAFTA now is she in OH and in the fight of her life. If she were well ahead in the polls, she wouldn’t say boo about it.

Leading me to my second gripe about both Clintons. It’s always been about them, rather than the Democratic party. Hillary will happily run a 50%+1 campaign against McCain, even if Obama could pull 60%.

Over time, they’ve both shown the back of their hands to us little people. I’ll gladly respond in kind.

Absolutely it does. But we must remember that there are lots of people out there with either no web access or no idea how to use it. The younger folks are coming in with pages of questions they’ve Googled up, but the older ones still talk about their “water pill.” My mother, an otherwise extremely intelligent woman, was one who didn’t have a clue what medication she was taking or why. “The doctor gave it to me.” Doctor as God… Even after discussing it with her she would shrug and say they knew what they were doing.

Thanks. Here is the corresponding link to Obama’s votes on trade, which are identical to Hillary’s where they overlap.

http://www.votesmart.org/votin…..038;go.y=8

Yes, agreed they overlap on the rejection of the Dominican-Republican/Central American Act, and both voted FOR the Oman Act (what are its provisions)…though I doubt we obtain much competition from them?

Hillary’s earlier “Yes” votes on things like the Chile Act, Singapore Act, and a couple of others came before Obama entered the Senate. We can’t know how he would have voted on these.

Her own statement regarding these earlier votes was that she had “assurances” that the lack of labor protections in the bills wouldn’t hurt their workers. She had voted AYE on a Jordanian Free Trade bill with similar labor protections as “those in the 90’s” (i.e. China and NAFTA). I presume from that she considers NAFTA a good Treaty, but that the implementation of it by the Bush Administration has left workers exploited and environments ravaged.

Well, part of that experience was her old man signed NAFTA over the vociferous objections of labor and Perot (the little bastard was right about NAFTA, wasn’t he?).

yeah, and so was nader.

I don’t see either of them (BO,HRC)untroducing legislation to renegotiate any of the terrible trade agreements.

That might be one of the best issues to use as a litmus test of whether a candidate is a progressive. Ask ‘em if they’d renegotiate world trade treaties and what they would seek in the way of improvements.

Can’t the next president NEGATE Bush’s signing statements and EO’s with signing statements and EO’s of his or her OWN?

Signing statements have no legal meaning or weight to start with. EOs can be reviewed, rescinded and revised by any president at any time.

PetePierce, I’ve got to go and start doing something in the kitchen to feed us. I did want to let you know how much I’ve enjoyed our discussion. It’s been a real pleasure chatting with you. Have a grand evening.

Singapore is actually more of a major financial center than a producer of goods. It uses regional suppliers to manufacture electronics, textiles, processed foods, etc. Generally the financial system there is regarded as very “corruption free”. Perhaps this refers to easing barriers between monetary transactions between the countries…allowing two-way investment. For example, Singapore’s State-run financial corporation recently bought a large share in several banks heavily involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal. Essentially they bought up the paper for these loans at bargain prices, as well as shares when these firms were struggling on the market, and thus provided much needed liquidity to the banks. I’m not sure if such transactions would be allowed without the Treaty.

Thank you. That’s the general sense I got from the responses to that question.
:)

Here is the link but there isn’t much there. She says basically that the intent was good but that under Bush 1, the negotiation was a failure. When she was asked wasn’t that under her husband’s administration she says,

But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

She then goes on to say:

For me, trade is who we are. We’re traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

As we look at trade today, I don’t think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don’t think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we’ve kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

Here is the link http://www.time.com/time/natio…..49,00.html

Still doesn’t tell me about her position so I continue on my google quest and will try to find Obama’s position as well

“Hillary may have a record that you don’t much care about, but at least she has a record; which is more than you can say for the blank slate onto which some people project every unreasonable fantasy that they have.”

Actually, no, it’s not “more than I can say.” I’ve been doing the research. What evidence do you have to support “your” claim that Obama has no record? I know this charge against him is being repeated endlessly, and is a Clinton campaign talking point. But that doesn’t make it true.

If you think that President Obama is going to end NAFTA or change it in any significant manner, you have drunk way too much of the messiah juice.

Yes yes, but you forget Barack has magic dust that can fix everything. And, his messiah juice has lots of magic dust in it. You might say it’s full of it. Heh.

Can’t you just see Obama wearing a Merlin the Wizard costume with the big pointy hat with stars on it and a magic wand and all? Teh funny.

It should be clear the old capitalist paradigm doesn’t work any more. NAFTA was the best deal available since the multi nationals were going for cheap labor anyhow. If you can’t beat them and you can’t join them, there’s not much left.

Thanks, like I said, it just reminded me of BJB and wikileaks

BTW I just emailed a link to some Suharto docs you might not have seen yet

Here’s the link for anyone else interested

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N…../index.htm

I am going to guess and say that Bill’s continuing support for NAFTA is not helping any, or?

I guess “sheep” is now politically incorrect

Yeah, it’s offensive to sheep to equate them with cult members.

Are we still free to say what we want in America so long as we don’t offend the sheep?

Hugh made an excellent point recently saying that these traits that she’s exhibited would be there as well as president. Disturbing…

Yeah. I only only see a few physicians for my own conditions and as a side effect of my job? I know exactly what i’m on and how much my dosages are. Wouldn’t believe how much that helps all of us in my own care! We do our best to educate our patients at my store, but there’s not a lot we can do if they don’t want to.

We get no end of calls for side effects and issues when too many of the same medication types. There are some that can be taken at the same time, but a helluva lot of others that can’t. That’s where the all the Pharmacist’s schooling/training comes into play along with the access to the many databases. Part of our job is to make sure those questions get to the pharmacist.

i don’t think edwards was much of a progressive either, at least not while he was in the senate.

that said, he did sound like one while he was on the campaign trail.

True. That was, I believe, his weakest point aside from scaring the Rich to the point where they wouldn’t even mention his name on t.v.

However, he had some following from his 2004 campaign and he was a heck of a great campaigner, so why not take a chance on someone who at least talks the talk? Who knows he might’ve walked the walk.

I’d like to see people waving the vague phrase that “Obama followers are sheep” qualify it.

At the time that NAFTA was being debated under Bill’s administration (92-93) Obama was directing voter registration drives (early 92) and was later hired as an associate attorney. But he says that he was against it then. Still searching to see what was up from 93 on

Why don’t the people who call you either

a) ask their doctors when they’re prescribing the meds
b) since 95% of them have internet access why aren’t they using the websites that do this admirably?

that would probably have been my choice.

but i really don’t think i have enough info or am smart enough to really know who would make the best president. the certainty of some supporters (of any of the candidates) astounds me.

I think the Obama website has a ton of statements suggesting that she thought NAFTA, as written, was a good Treaty, and that it was successful during the years of her husband’s Presidency.

Barack Obama apparently ran as an “Anti-War, Anti-NAFTA progressive” back in 2004. At least thats what this article from that period stated

Barack Obama

And Obama’s attacks on Hillary regarding this issue should not have gob-smacked her. It was hardly “Rovian” in the sense of her not hearing about it. John Edwards has raised the same issues regarding her, and Obama has said much the same thing going back to November in this campaign.

Quite a few of them do that in our area. There’s a lot more of them that don’t though. I think it’s trust in the medical care from the Doctor and also in us. But i can’t see being that lazy anymore. Especially in my case where i have to keep chronic pain of my own under control. There’s also a startling amount of seniors without ‘net access. Some have taken to it like a duck to water, many more? Don’t even bother, or don’t ask their kids to help out. But we also have many that ask their Doctor lots of questions as well, which helps all of us out in the long run. Then they double check with the Pharmacist too.

Part of the whole transaction is to ask of they have any questions for the pharmacist and we say it pretty much EVERY time. Unless they start the question line themselves.

When it works? It works great.

Given that the NAFTA Super Highway is proposed to roll through Texas supported heavily by the Bush Administration and the state of Texas plans to use eminent domain to seize farm land that has been in families for generations, and Clinton has used maximum donor money to pay Penn and Grunwald’s teams millions of dollars to research issues, the NAFTA issue and the NAFTA Superhighway come as no surprise for NAFTA flip flop Clinton.

couldn’t have anything to do w/ real appeal to independents, now could it?

I’m curious, and have been for some time, how exactly could Obama appeal to independents and even some Republicans when he’s got one of the most Liberal voting records in the Senate? It doesn’t make a lot of sense on the face of it.

Aren’t Independents and Republicans (who might lean Left) by definition a bit more Conservative than most Dems? Why wouldn’t they have been more inclined to vote for Edwards or Biden or even Richardson?

What exactly has Obama offered Independents and Republicans aside from vacuous ‘hope’ and ‘change’?

Thanks I also just read that his opinion on free trade is in his book, Audacity of Hope. Here is a link to a blog that does a side by side comparison of both Hillary and Obama’s positions on trade http://blog.noslaves.com/hilla…..-on-trade/

In a perfect world people would get their information in their physician’s office, but there are many reasons why this doesn’t happen perfectly. Docs feel time pressure but most try to explain the major side effects, what they Rx and what their goals are and give handouts they make themselves or get from the web.

It’s true that many seniors don’t use computers who weren’t using them years ago–cost is one factor and sadly they are intimidated by them which is a shame–this could be fixed in a lot of situations.

Pharmaices are valuable in helping educate and answer questions.

Obama on Clinton’s support of NAFTA in November 2007

Odd that she is making this out as a “new charge” or distortion. She hasn’t said that she would revoke NAFTA; or even that the Treaty itself is inherently flawed. Her point has been that it isn’t being enforced by the Bush Administration.

To be fair both Obama and Clinton voted against the C. American Free Trade Agreement; both “voiced” support for some sort of Andean (”Peruvian”) FTA (with strong labor and environment clauses), and both voted in favor of an Omani FTA.

Clinton has recently supported a “time out” on future Trade Agreements since the Bush Administration wasn’t “enforcing the laws”. She did, however, vote in favor of such agreements with Jordan, Singapore, Australia and Morocco. Some had labor and human rights protections, some did not.

Sorry to cut in but I have such a hard time believing that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records. Chris Dodd, Kucinich, Kennedy, Feingold are just a few that have more liberal records than Obama. Could you tell me where you saw that information? I’d like to see the source.

It may sound silly, but thanks for being fair. It really helps us see where the candidates overlap and where there are real distinct differences in policy

she was in the city and she didn’t lift a finger to get over and exercise it. Obama did show up to vote.

How did he vote on the final FISA bill?

Exactly. We’re there to augment the Dr’s office. Sometimes able to take even more time than a Dr in some cases. But the best care is often coordinated with calls to the Dr.

We get a lot of calls when the physician’s offices are closed over the weekends as well. Which is a major factor. The nurses don’t often know the medication interactions in local places. There are common warning signs to get your rear to the ER though. But sometimes they aren’t so bad, and a call to the pharmacist can help figure out those problems. I’ve only been in pharmacy for about 4 years, and its amazing what i’ve seen.

Even the statement at the end of the debate the other night “We’ll be okay” was liftedright from John Edwards. If I had been Obama, I’d have cut right in and said “Xeroxing that from Edwards aren’t ya Hill?”

Pathetic wasn’t it. Without Edwards writing speeches those two have hardly anything to say.

Nevermind, I see Media Matters did a piece on it…hmmm it was from the National Journal, who coincidentally had John Kerry ranked as the most liberal in 2003 and in another study (Poole?) he was ranked 10th (tied with Biden) in 2007. sounds like a repug talking point, but I will go searching…ahhh a grad students work is never done

Obama ranked 10th with Biden, I mean

forgot to give link… http://mediamatters.org/items/200802110008

I don’t know what was so deceptive about stating what she has, in the past, said about NAFTA. During the 1990’s Hillary did think that NAFTA was a good treaty. She supported it, and supported expanding it as a model elsewhere.

Statement by Clinton on NAFTA in late 1990’s.

Her issues with it have been more recent. She has said that it was Bush’s failure to enforce it that has resulted in the major catastrophes in US job-loss and exploitation of Mexican workers. She suggested recently she would amend it (although she hasn’t introduced such revisions in Congress).

Obama’s not immune from criticism on these issues himself (though indirectly and less substantively), because he has supported one FTA (with Oman, which I don’t know the details about) and enunciated support for one that never reached the floor (the Andean FTA…which he did insist be revised). But he DID criticize NAFTA, and its impact on US job loss, back when he was running for Congress in 2004.

You know well that when the final vote was taken, there was no way in hell that it could be defeated. Obama stayed for the amendments and she didn’t and you knew that before you asked me.

And the point of your question since you knew the answer was….?

Obama showed for most of the votes on the amendments that were all set up to fail and he knew it. Clinton chose not to vote on any of them. They were both in the heat of the campaign and it wasn’t clear that she was defeated as it is now.

Unless you’re not reading any of the scores of EW’s blogs and the comments, you also know that every amendment vote was set up to be defeated, particularly since most of the votes were made to extraordinarily require 60 votes.

Obama was there for most of the amendments and Clinton chose not to set foot in the Senate that day. She was just miles away.

Amendment and Debate Links

Senate by Cboldt

Clinton will basically say anything and promise anything relative to the venue and what Penn, Mandy, and Maggie, and Patti before they fired her tell her to say. She’s a wary and confused about what Bill tells her now.

Bill Clinton stepped on his thing big time when he tried to relegate Obama as just one more “Jessie Jackson” black candidate in South Carolina.

Wow. I hadn’t heard that before. Do you have a cite?

The problem with the Clinton campaign has been their indifference to issues and reliance on tricks. Maybe it worked in ‘92, but with the Internet and blogging I can’t see how that will get far today.

Of course, Hillary’s ‘experience’ albatross isn’t helping her and her position on the issues isn’t so spectacular either.

Perhaps Hillary’s biggest problem is that if you rely on tricks, then they’d better be good ones and she just isn’t that great in debates. She relied on ‘inevitability’ and that didn’t pan out, so she’d let months go by without laying a glove on Obama. Then, after Iowa she was stuck.

I wish Edwards had been more inclined to pound on Obama earlier. He took the high road and talked issues, but didn’t compare & contrast as forcefully as he might have. He did pretty well at knocking Hillary off, but not Obama. Most of the arguments against Hillary now are ones which came from Edwards or the blogs.

Has Obama really made even one original argument against Hillary? He seems lost without a speech writer.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL…..q.hillary/

Wow! Thanks John! That should be interesting esp. regarding the stuff we chatted about the other day. Some of the Ford, Kissenger, Suharto materials had been released but this should be interesting to “close readers” of the events that led to Suharto’s rise to power and his role in invading Irian Jaya and Timor L’Este.

sigh…thinking that the topic is getting away from facts and is getting a wee hysterical. Thanks to all that are putting up sources to back up their points

the certainty of some supporters (of any of the candidates) astounds me.

Me too. I support any candidate only with a great deal of trepitude and consideration. This year the choice of Edwards was a matter of elimination. Of all the ‘progressives’ he had the biggest following and was pretty unobjectionable as a candidate. During the campaign I became very impressed with his statements (always on target I thought) and fantastic speeches & debate performances. If only his voice were a bit more distinct. The Southern accent is hard on my ears.

I was looking for character and leadership and I saw little character from Clinton and little leadership from Obama. If you could take the leap of faith that Edwards was sincere, then you can see his leadership qualities and feel good about voting for him.

I guess some people just didn’t believe he was sincere (his senate voting record didn’t jibe well with his campaign speeches) and felt Obama might be more real.

Oh well, there’s always next season.

liberal records than Obama. Could you tell me where you saw that information? I’d like to see the source.

Hmmm. I read so much It’s hard to say. Maybe t.v.’s McLaughlin Group. I’m not sure. There are probably several rating outfits which we could check.

Frankly I was surprised after his campaign speeches and the call to Independents and Republicans.

I thought early in the campaign they were Left-to-Right Edwards, Obama, Clinton. But, then I saw some surveys which said people viewed them differently and then I saw the info that Obama was quite Liberal. It has all become quite confusing.

From Obama’s speeches I’ve heard it’s hard to tell what he is.

Well, my horse in this race (Dennis Kucinich) pulled up lame a ways back. So I’m trying to decide on what I feel are nuances in policies. Dennis would likely have struggled to get anything through a much more centrist Congress. I’m leaning towards Obama, simply because a) the real distinctions between policies (other than supporting the Iraq invasion) are shades of difference.

Yes, even healthcare (which is NOT Universal for either)… both use an existing insurance system rather than something more like SSI or Unemployment (contra Hillary’s claim). Make people pay via taxes and you avoid all of the issue of how one is going to “enforce” or “subsidize” certain groups. But THAT would be a European/Canadian style plan…one that has worked for generations. Why even consider THOSE!?

BTW While browsing through articles I came upon this funny coincidence.

The very day in 2000 that Hillary was nominated by Democrats in NY for her first Senate campaign, Bill was out and about marshalling support for his China Trade Bill

And the point of your question since you knew the answer was….?

Just checking to see if you were hypocritically criticizing Hillary when Obama didn’t vote on the final bill either.

Unless you’re not reading any of the scores of EW’s blogs and the comments, you also know that every amendment vote was set up to be defeated, particularly since most of the votes were made to extraordinarily require 60 votes.

I haven’t been reading that blog, though I did know the amendments were strawmen.

Obama was there for most of the amendments and Clinton chose not to set foot in the Senate that day. She was just miles away.

Pathetic lack of leadership from either of them. Soooo, who are ya gonna vote for? :-)

“Its going to be a hard fight…..but we will win……When the facts are presented to the American people, the advocated of progress will always prevail…..It would be absolutely crazy to allow the opponents of NAFTA to prevail. It would hurt the environment. It would hurt jobs. It would hurt our country. It would hurt our relationship with our neighbors-not only Mexico and Canada, but throughout Latin America…..So for all of those reasons, I predict we will prevail.”

Al Gore, 1993

I think NAFTA is too complicated for Obamicans to comprehend. You have to understand what was going on in 1993. The entire picture. Look at the people who were opposed to NAFTA….Jesse Helms, Srom Thurmond, Ross Perot…..as well as Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone.

The Clintons were being opposed from all sides, the mainstream Democrats who resented them as DLC outsiders, the Republicans who hated them beyond anything rational, ….. Yet still Clinton was able to get us out of a hole that 12 years of runaway Republican economics had put us in. I believe Obama would have done exactly the same thing as Clinton and Gore. However, since we do not know what Barrack would have done back then, it is intellectually dishonest to suppose otherwise. 15 years later it is obvious NAFTA needs some work, but to hold Hillary hostage to the NAFTA vote in 1993 is far fetched at best.

Wow. I hadn’t heard that before. Do you have a cite? Has Obama really made even one original argument against Hillary? He seems lost without a speech writer.

Clinton compares Obama to Jackson

He doesn’t seem lost to me and the people who have voted for him more than Clinton. Do you have a cite that demonstrates he’s lost without a speechwriter. I thought he demonstrated that he can talk on his feet thousands of times. He isn’t using a prompter now for most of his appearances and hasn’t used a speech or a prompter for many months. You are proposing that a speechwriter is channeling the words into his head by some means?

In other words the thesis is that this guy who came up from poverty to complete Harvard Law School is an empty suit or a wind up toy without a speechwriter to put words into his mouth–LOL–is that your premise?

The people who support him are delusional–supporting instead a speechwriter for some numb brained idiot. That sounds like a great line– like the stupid xeroxing change line that she used to dive flat on her face and draw all the boos in Austin.

I wish Edwards had been more inclined to pound on Obama earlier. He took the high road and talked issues, but didn’t compare & contrast as forcefully as he might have. He did pretty well at knocking Hillary off, but not Obama. Most of the arguments against Hillary now are ones which came from Edwards or the blogs.

I think Edwards problem is that if he attacked more forcefully his own Senate record would be revealed. “I regret that vote” would wear a little thin after it was pointed out that he voted for the China Trade Bill, Yucca Flats Nuclear Repository, Iraq (and against all the restraining amendments to limit the resolution), against the Wellstone Amendment to restrict trade benefits to human rights on the Sub-Saharan and Caribbean Trade Act, against Wellstone and Grassley Amendments on Mad Cow Safety (re. “downer livestock”), against travel and remittances to Cuba, etc.

Edwards was a “centrist” in Congress (though a liberal in the South), attractive to those who wanted a wedge into the Red Southern voting bloc. But by his voting record he was hardly a member of the progressive wing. He regularly joined with the Blue Dogs to pass legislation that 60-70% of the Democrats voted to oppose (from the estate tax and Bush Tax Cut qualifying “schedules” to blocking campaign financing regulations).

At some point, if Edwards was doing well, his founding of the Senate New Democrat Coalition (NDC) with Joe Lieberman would have been raised. That caucus consisted of such “progressives” as Mary Landrieu and Jim Breaux (LA), Bayh (Ind), Bob Graham (Fl), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Bob Kerrey (Neb) and Chuch Robb (VA). The House version of that group included Ellen Tauscher (CA) and Art Davis (Alabama).

wow, really interesting that this discussion is still going on… i stepped out to get dinner (stuck in nyc unexpectedly over the weekend or i’d be home cooking dinner for my sweetie) and i get back and see 110 comments! on a dead thread! gosh …

sorry for dropping people in the middle of the conversation earlier.

If Obama had voted against the Peru deal, there might be a point–but they both stink on Trade.

Dennis was my first too then i hobbled over to Edwards and after that crawled over to the Obama camp with bloody knees. I’m going to have to go check that article out you linked (I should bring a healthy does of humour with, right?)

Make people pay via taxes and you avoid all of the issue of how one is going to “enforce” or “subsidize” certain groups. But THAT would be a European/Canadian style plan…one that has worked for generations. Why even consider THOSE!?

Don’t even start me on that. My husband is english and I am sick to no end that we don’t have a similar system. I have a sneaky suspicion that upon the completion of my PhD, we’re headed across the pond.

Look if you want to talk policy and such, great but leave the ‘Obamincans’ crap and any equally negative hillary crap out on the doorstep. Emotions are already running high and no need to insult people.

so, what does not stinking on trade mean?

key thing is to have the free trade deals require equal protection on all sides.

folks, jobs that don’t add significant value aren’t going to be any good here in the states. They’re all gone. so, it’s either really shitty jobs (would you like fries with that) or jobs where the people are really doing something. there’s nothing in between.

trying to do trade protectionism is a loser deal.

so, we gotta find a way to create a place where people can do good work. maybe it’s work w/a lot of touch (boutique fabric work — real different from sweatshops), maybe it requires unique skills. but the vanilla jobs that we had 15 years ago or that our parents had are gone.

done, dead.

holding back trade agreements isn’t going to help this.

so, we need leaders who will work to open markets but make sure everyone’s playing by the same rules. *And* won’t just be pawns of the multi-nationals.

among clinton, obama, and mcstain, who do you think will do a better job there? i’ve written two of the three off — they’re clearly bought and paid for. the third, i dunno. might be disappointed, but at least there’s a chance ….

Wow, I had no idea. Yet another topic to add to my ever growing google list . I have to copy and paste your comment…i’m just feeling all kinds of ignorant right now.

The main source for this appears to be the http://mediamatters.org/items/200802110008">National Journal which oddly appears to change its arbitrary criteria for ranking in a manner that always produces Democratic Presidential candidates as “swerving to the left” and becoming “the most liberal Senator” in the election year.

The same thing happened to Kerry in 2004.

Obama More Liberal than Feingold?

So could it be that the National Journal decides what votes it will select in order to make candidates swerve leftward and become “the most liberal” when it defies any credible examionation of their overall record?

PeterPierce,

I answered 2/3 of your question with specifics. I’ve no intention of responding to the 13 other questions as they’re not yours (you’ve simply cut and pasted form another site).

You’re either unwilling or incapable of answering my questions despite the fact that I answered yours. You’ve posted nothing original but merely cut and pasted the thoughts of others including and repeated typical Republican talking points.

Like Obama, you’re an empty suit. I’ve no choice but to vote for Obama next fall, but I need not waste time bantering with sheep.

Adios

adios juan,
ojala que puedes llegar la proxima vez con tu mente intacto. sera mejor tener una conversacion contigo. (y te pido solamente una cosa pequenita — que no traigas las ovejas la proxima vez)

excuse any implied ‘dis here … but, really let’s try to not insult each other. and not get into pissing matches about who responded to whom. and stalking off saying “bye — f’you” is to engage in one of those pissing matches.

(thanks to the folks who tried to calm things here. an example i’m trying to follow. just no very well.)

He doesn’t seem lost to me and the people who have voted for him more than Clinton. Do you have a cite that demonstrates he’s lost without a speechwriter.

I realize his followers don’t see a problem. My opinion is not one which requires a cite. It’s my opinion.

I thought he demonstrated that he can talk on his feet thousands of times. He isn’t using a prompter now for most of his appearances and hasn’t used a speech or a prompter for many months. You are proposing that a speechwriter is channeling the words into his head by some means?

No, of course not. But, if you repeat the same speech grafs long enough, then you can say a lot without giving it much new thought. The better test is the (very imperfect) debates where he is hardly impressive.

In other words the thesis is that this guy who came up from poverty to complete Harvard Law School is an empty suit

What does his track through life have to do with his current abilities? I’ll bet Karl Rove could out debate him and Rove didn’t even go to college.

or a wind up toy without a speechwriter to put words into his mouth–LOL–is that your premise?

As I wrote above, after repeating the same speech(es) many times it becomes easy to appear to speak extemporaneously. Hey, even Bush can do that.

The people who support him are delusional – supporting instead a speechwriter for some numb brained idiot.

I didn’t say ‘delusional’ and I don’t think he’s a ‘numb brained idiot’. There’s no need to misquote me.

No, what I’m saying is his ability at giving a set speech is great, but his debate performances don’t match that — and that is a bit worrisome. What does it indicate? To me it indicates he’s fine giving rote memory speeches, but not so quick on his feet.

Perhaps it won’t matter. The presidency isn’t about quickness. I hope that’s the case.

But, looking at his policies I don’t see much progressivism either. Is that a lack of ‘quickness’ or a lack of leadership or a lack of will or what?

The cocaine thing, the Rezko thing, his ‘present’ votes, whether Iowa was stolen and the ‘racism issue’ after Iowa indicate problems. His policies are not so super appealing. His debate performances are just so-so. I don’t see any leadership coming from him except in the speeches (written by someone else). So, what’s all the excitement about? He just seems like another run-of-the-mill Dem politician except for the great oratory and the very nice suit.

Another question I wonder about is his political background. We know Hillary came from a Republican middle-class background. We know Edwards came from the South, but has a very pro-union sensibility. But, where (politically) does Obama come from. To me he’s a cipher.

As to his followers, have they got a very clear view of him? I wonder. Last year I discussed the candidates here and elsewhere a lot and only 2 or 3 Obama supporters ever spoke up. They didn’t seem to be the type who were interested in discussing issues. I don’t get them and I guess they don’t quite get me either.

Hey, even Bush can do that.

well, i’m pretty sure that dear leader is not speaking extemporaneously.

ever …

seriously, everything he says in public is managed. and fed into his earpiece.

otherwise, not worth arguing about this.

we’ll all vote for the dem nominee. and at this point, that’s pretty much guaranteed to be obama.

so, the questions surround how to keep pressure on him so he does the right thing. and where clinton can do her best to be a serious public servant.

I answered 2/3 of your question with specifics. I’ve no intention of responding to the 13 other questions as they’re not yours (you’ve simply cut and pasted form another site).

That’s simply untrue, or a false statement. Quick where’s this site you claim I “cut and pasted from? *g*

Of course you don’t intend to respond to the 13 questions. You can’t. And you need Clinton for some of the answers–and she’s refused to respond to them when asked by the press. You continue to make me smile Juan. I wrote those questions–every last word of them over a period of time–starting with the charges LHP made but could not back up and hasn’t backed up to this date. When lawyers started diving into the comments of her post that was labled “swiftboating” on KOS and drew the attention of many other sites on the web, she declined to respond and hasn’t since.

In fact, I wrote parts of those questions a few hours ago–they weren’t cut and pasted from anyone’s site–although some of the topics linger from the Clinton’s time in the White House.

I have posted them in their original form in the comments section at FDL but I redid parts of them and didn’t even (LOL) cut and paste from a site.

Show us the site that you allege I cut and pasted from for my 13 questions. This should be good. Don’t hold your breath while you’re looking. *g*

Thanks for trying, its all any of us can ask

At some point, if Edwards was doing well, his founding of the Senate New Democrat Coalition (NDC) with Joe Lieberman would have been raised. That caucus consisted of such “progressives” as …

Yes, the senate record didn’t coincide with the campaign speeches. However, in my opinion you shouldn’t confuse ‘Progressive’ with ‘Centrist’ or ‘Liberal’ in that one can be an incrementalist or a progressive and while he might’ve been more Conservative than Obama or Clinton in the senate, as president he might’ve been a very aggressive legislator and more Centrist. If you just want a more Liberal guy, then say Liberal. Why be squeamish?

There is another point which is somewhat important. If we are ever to have Liberal or Progressive Dem presidents do we have to pray someone comes up in a “Liberal” state? Can’t we ever get somebody from a more “Conservative” state who becomes a Progressive or Liberal president? How are we to ever get a Liberal president without them always being called a “Massachussetts Liberal comrade” by the Republicans? Are we never going to have a Liberal Dem from the South? It seems a bit self-limiting to close off the South entirely.

Edwards was a Conservative Dem senator from NC. Does that mean he was lying on the campaign trail? I’ll bet he campaigned for the senate the way he ended up legislating. Why couldn’t we trust he would govern as president the way he campaigned? Would YOU call him a liar to his face? Do you not believe he would’ve legislated for the things he gave countless speeches on?

I know I’m not going to convince you. These kinds of arguments don’t convince anyone. But, I wonder if Obama were from Arkansas would he have been a Liberal senator? Would we have to write him off as a potential candidate simply because he came from the South?

Here’s the trend of Obama’s ratings by the National Journal as indicated by Vote Smart.

It’s pretty obvious that National Journal is gaming the system. They did the same thing with Kerry and Clinton during their Presidential election/re-election campaigns. In fact it would be interesting to see if the consistently rate candidates lower in non-election years and “liberalize” them in years in which the taint can be used against them.

More useful would be the Americans For Democratic Action rating. It shows that Obama was one year (2005) very liberal, but his rating has dropped a bit with this campaign. But he wasn’t as liberal as 2005 earlier. I suspect this depends on the issues and how other people vote. This is a real organization, and truly involved in pushing progressive issues on Capitol Hill.

And then there is this mysterious survey cited in a major newspaper (SF Examiner) by some group calling itself Americans For Democratic Reform. It also says that Obama is the most liberal Senator. But when I did a computer search for the group I could find only some things about Ethipians calling “Americans for democratic reform” of the immigration policy and…recitations of the SF Examiner article. Does this group even exist outside of some Republican political action groups computer?

to make candidates swerve leftward and become “the most liberal” when it defies any credible examionation of their overall record?

Sure, “most liberal” is probably propaganda. But, isn’t he ‘one of the most liberal’ senators? Is he, by any measure, one of the 25% most liberal Dems? What would that be top 13 Dem Liberals?

so, just to be straighforward, i want obama to win. but, i can’t believe he’s one of the “most liberal” senators….

well, maybe i can. but that’s a measure of how disappointed i am in congress, not a measure of how liberal obama is.

what i’m hoping for is a game changing move. time to get on to the next chapter …

and then we’ll fight the progressive / liberal good fight. all over again.

He isn’t one of the most liberal. Feingold, Kucinich absolutely, but Obama not so much. A more cerdible poll has him tied at 10th place with Biden.

“What exactly has Obama offered Independents and Republicans aside from vacuous ‘hope’ and ‘change’?”

Just a thought, but I suspect they are not basing their support of Obama based on his voting record. My impression is people across party lines are responding to an appeal that transcends the negatives of partisanship.

I wouldn’t minimize the power of hope and change. As far as change, it’s obvious people want the Bush presidency to be over and to move on.

As far as hope, beginning in 2004, half of the country was deeply disillusioned and disappointed with Kerry’s defeat. Also, the country has suffered trauma, a policy of sustained fear mongering by the Bush Administration, economic instability and uncertainty, Katrina, etc. Disillusionment with government. Obama represents a new beginning, an end to the national nightmare of the Bush presidency. As someone said, Obama represents the future and a return of idealism. No wonder he’s turning out the youth vote.

i want obama to win. but, i can’t believe he’s one of the “most liberal” senators….

well, maybe i can. but that’s a measure of how disappointed i am in congress, not a measure of how liberal obama is.

Hey, I believe Edwards was a Conservative Dem senator from the South. What’s so hard about believing Obama is a Liberal black senator from a Liberal Illinois with lots of black voters? Seems obvious to me.

What’s troubling is that one of his supporters can’t even tell from the speeches that he’s Liberal. Sheesh. Tell me now, who was the bigger liar among those 3: Edwards, Obama or Clinton? maybe Clinton is the most authentic! Not that I would vote for her. I don’t care for her triangulating corporate DLCish Goldwater-Girlishness.

If you open your eyes enough to see they are all a big inauthentic, then you have to choose between them (at least 2 of them now) on some other basis.

I’ll vote for Edwards in the primary, if he’s on my ticket. But, come general election it’s probably “the least of the evil stupid bought sons of bitches”. Like usual.

He isn’t one of the most liberal. Feingold, Kucinich absolutely, but Obama not so much. A more cerdible poll has him tied at 10th place with Biden.

Quantify please. what exactly do you mean when You say ‘one of the most’? I’d say top-10 is ‘one of the most’.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind him being this Liberal. That would get tempered a lot in dealing with Congress. My only problem is that his supporters don’t seem to know exactly what he is or that he is a human being with flaws.

What does his track through life have to do with his current abilities? I’ll bet Karl Rove could out debate him and Rove didn’t even go to college.

When are you setting this one up? I’ll pay to watch it. Rove v. Obama You can catch the Rovster on Fox news? One of your faves?

Obama seems damn quick to me. So I don’t agree with your assessment of “quickness” whatever it may be.

I’m surmising what you seem to be saying. When I quote you I use the quote button.

The cocaine thing, the Rezko thing, his ‘present’ votes, whether Iowa was stolen and the ‘racism issue’ after Iowa indicate problems.

Boy are you out to lunch here. “The cocaine thing” doesn’t mean diddly squat shit. He says he tried it when he was a kid–and the people closest to him when he said he tried it have no recollection of his using coke. They said he took a toke of a joint once in a while. That’s really a fucking big deal isn’t it? Ammo for Tuesday’s debate to be sure for.

Rezko–I’ve dissected that until I’m blue in the face. I suggest you go back and read the comments after an utterly ridiculous post by LHP, particularly for someone who worked at DOJ’s Public Integrity unit.

And obviously you didn’t read a detailed explanation that I made and linked above on the “Present” votes did you? Psssst–every time someone raises the “Present” votes in the Illinois Senate, they are sending up a huge flare that says they don’t understand the Illinois law on yes votes in the Illinois Senate. Once again, and this time make sure you read it. It’s explained by a current Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago who was not only on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for years, but a member of the Illinois Senate and in fact, was White House Counsel to Bill Clinton when Hillary lived there too. He is now a strong supporter of Obama, as is one of their long time friends starting with Yale law school who quaterbacked Clinton’s impeachment defense from Williams and Connolly.

Present Perfect by former White House Counsel to Bill Clinton Abner J. Mikvah:

Further, numerous women’s organazations requested that he vote “Present” for purposes of advancing their anti-violence towards women agenda or abortion rights.

Wash. Post’s Solomon ignored Planned Parenthood support for Obama’s abortion votes

But, where (politically) does Obama come from. To me he’s a cipher

Get his books and read them or google using the words “Where does Obama come from” That was easy wasn’t it?

Last year I discussed the candidates here and elsewhere a lot and only 2 or 3 Obama supporters ever spoke up. They didn’t seem to be the type who were interested in discussing issues. I don’t get them and I guess they don’t quite get me either.

We discuss issues at FDL and have been on this thread for some time.

bye folks … gotta move on … new threads and all … great discussing this with you.

I know I’m not going to convince you. These kinds of arguments don’t convince anyone.

Nope…but Edwards rhetoric did convince many people.

Would I call him a liar to his face? No. But I would point out that his record repeatedly was counter to his current stands. If he had a “Shawshank Redemption” he should be able to explain why he had one and convince people he had some real epiphamy rather than simply trying to stake out a position to become President.

But, I wonder if Obama were from Arkansas would he have been a Liberal senator?

Probably not. He wouldn’t have been elected. In fact he may not have been in an environment where he would have had liberal ideas. I believe that Condi Rice is from the South. And there was some African-American DLC guy running for Governor of Tennesee (I forget his name, sorry) who was decidely moderate-conservative.

Would we have to write him off as a potential candidate simply because he came from the South?

Who do you mean “we”? Progressives? The Democratic Party? In the Primary or in the General Election? I’d vote for an Democratic moderate over a McCain/Romney/Huckabee any day of the week in a General Presidential Election.

I’m would not vote for Obama in a Primary simply because he’s the black candidate. Fortunately his votes in the Senate are Progressive-Liberal with a few Centrist oddities. Edwards, in terms of his voting record, was far more Centrist (I would not say he was a CONSERVATIVE, as you suggest). A moderate would be more like it…which in his geographic region is “liberal”. He was “populist” in his rhetoric on the Presidential campaign trail.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you stated earlier that he was the most liberal.

I hit submit too fast.

I was responding to the post that he was the most liberal and that is simply not true. The same outfit that named him the most liberal did the same to Kerry the year he was running. Cinnamon and I linked to the Media Matters article.

Correcting myself, you stated one of the most

Mrs. Clinton is telling voters in Ohio who have lost their jobs to
NAFTA that she feels their pain, while dressed in designer clothes and expensive jewelery…

That speaks volumes, doesn’t it. Gandhi could have taught her that lesson.

I just wrote a comment that includes this. My business was the first to go. It was the apparel industry. The year was 1981 under Ronald Reagan. He made a deal with China that they could have the US apparel industry in exchange for multinational corporations like IBM, Coca Cola to go into China. China sent workers into Hong Kong, taking away jobs from Hongkongese for a fraction of the wage. Cheaper apparel was shipped to the US duty free and within one year small US manufacturers were totally out of business. Larger manufacturers moved their operation to Hong Kong.
______________________________

it’s called CLASS WARFARE …….