I Was Too Busy Running for President -Updated-

In last night's debate Hillary mentioned that Obama was Chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over NATO. And that while Chair of that Subcommittee Senator Obama held not a single substantial meeting. Not one. When confronted with this Obama's excuse was that he had only been Chair since 2007 and he has been busy running for President since then. Hmmm... we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Senator Obama is too busy running for President to hold a single meeting? Did I miss something? Surely I need a hearing aid. He didn't just state that the reason he hasn't held a single meeting of oversight was because he was too busy out raising money and running for President.

Say it ain't so O!

While searching through the web I have read some of Obama's supporters come to his defense with the typical bait and switch.
"Well Hillary hasn't done anything while she has been running for President." Oh really? What about The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act?
Just what has Carl Levin said about Hillary's legislative accomplishments?

Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.
And somehow Hillary managed to do this in 2007 when Obama was too busy running for President to spend any time holding oversight meetings of NATO while our young women and men were being killed in Afghanistan. Too busy!

From last night's debate:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

Yes, he has been very clear in TALKING with the American people. What he hasn't been so clear about is what he has done as a United States Senator that is a Chair of the Subcommittee that has actual oversight over the process. Lots of very clear talking. Action, not so much.

Illinois' disabled veterans are at "rock bottom" -- "dead last" -- in benefits and claims processing of applications for disability. But Illinois' veterans take a back seat because their junior senator is running for president. And that senator, Barack Obama, has missed an astonishing number of hearings and meetings of the Senate Veterans committee.

But Obama has skipped 19 of 37 VA committee meetings in the 109th congress. Obama's attendance record was the second worst of all Democrats on the committee. He attended just 18 of the committee's 37 meetings in Washington D.C.

But he really cares and has given lots of speeches to prove it. But that showing up for work thing, the thing he was hired to do (and is paid by the taxpayers to do) he isn't so good at.

On the campaign trail, Obama stresses the importance of providing "the best care" for veterans and their families: "Providing the best care for our service members, veterans and their families is one thing about this war we can still get right."

   * But Sen. Obama has continually skipped hearings on the veterans budget. Chairman Craig opened a hearing Obama missed and said, "we will consider today ... legislation touching on veterans insurance, housing, burial, compensation, and employee benefits." Obama also missed all four committee hearings in a series that focused on the President's proposed 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ranking Senator Akaka noted during the hearings that "we must learn a lesson from last year's budget crisis and do everything we can to ensure that veterans and their family members have access to health care and benefits they have earned." (From the GPO on 6/23/05, 2/28/06, 3/2/06, 3/7/06, March 9, 2006.)

Gosh, it seems that Senator Obama had a problem showing up for work in 2006 when he wasn't running for president too. What's up with that?

Obama stresses the importance of veterans health care: "Long as there are wounded service members receiving substandard medical care, we have failed in our duty to honor the commitment of the brave men and women who chose to serve. We must provide our returning heroes and their families with every resource they need to rebuild their lives," Obama said in a press release on April 10, 2007.

   * But Obama skipped a hearing about expanding veterans' health services. Craig opened, "We also have legislation before us to specifically address the demand for long-term care. As the veteran population ages, the demand for long-term care has increased accordingly." Akaka added that the committee would consider legislation that would encourage "creative ways to help alleviate the burden on caregivers while expanding services to veterans." (From the GPO, May 11, 2006.)

* Obama also skipped a hearing to create insurance benefits for veterans in rehabilitation. Craig announced that the committee would "hear testimony about the traumatically injured protection under service members' group life insurance benefit." Akaka declared that "this insurance program helps ease the financial burden" on a hospitalized service member's family. (From the GPO on September 7, 2006.)

Now if you haven't lost your eyesight or maybe just need to clean your glasses take a look at the dates above. Seems Mr. Obama just has a problem with showing up for work. He enjoys the money I'm sure. And the exposure he gets while being able to tell people he is a United States Senator must be very rewarding to his ego. But actually doing work? Real Harvard men don't work. Don't believe me? Read on:

   *  But Obama skipped the hearing on improving veterans' health care access. "In many cases, VA's facilities are located where veterans used to live, not where they now live," noted Chairman Craig. The legislation under consideration was "designed in part to address the changes in the demographics of our veterans' population and follows America's medicine's transformation from hospital-centric to patient-centric delivery of care." (From the GPO on April 6, 2006.)

* Sen. Obama also missed an "exceedingly important" nomination hearing for the VA's Undersecretary for Health. "Dr. Perlin [has been nominated] to serve as VA's Under Secretary for Health," announced Chairman Craig. "This is an exceedingly important position. The Under Secretary, in effect, serves as CEO of the VA's entire health care system, the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Dr. Perlin, this is a big, big, big job." (From the GPO on April 7, 2005.)

Or how about this:

   *  Sen. Obama missed the vote to eliminate requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation: Obama did not vote for the Levin, D-Mich., amendment No. 2019 to the Levin substitute amendment No. 2011.

     (The Levin amendment would establish a Defense Department and Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office to implement a joint electronic health record system and eliminate the current requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone. It would authorize $50 million for the treatment and rehabilitation of service members with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder and create common disability ratings to determine those eligible for care. The substitute would authorize $648.3
billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $127.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also would authorize $143.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $109.9 billion for procurement; $122.9 billion for military personnel and $74.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation.

     (The Senate vote results: #246, Amdt. 2019 to HR 1585, Passed 94-0: R 48-0; D 44-0 (ND 39-0, SD 5-0); I 2-0;

7/12/07; HRC voted yea while Obama did not vote.)

* Obama missed a vote to provide $109.3 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs: Obama did not vote for passage of the bill that would provide $109.3 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction and military housing. The bill would provide $87.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $37.2 billion for veterans health programs. It would provide $41.2 billion in mandatory spending for veterans' service-connected compensation benefits and pensions. The bill would provide $9.8 billion for military construction, $2.9 billion for military family housing and $8.5 billion for the latest round of base
closures. As amended, the bill would provide $100 million in emergency funding for the Homeland Security Department to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for security and related costs associated with the 2008 presidential candidate nominating conventions. (From Vote 316, HR 2642 (Fiscal 2008 Military Construction-VA Appropriations), Passed 92-1: R 47-1; D 43-0 (ND 39-0, SD 4-0); I 2-0, 9/6/07; HRC voted yea while Obama did not vote.

Sure seems to me as if Senator Obama has a problem showing up for work. He has a real problem. If it were you or I we would have been sacked. But Mr. Obama isn't like you or me. He feels that he is entitled. He feels that he doesn't have to show up for work because, well, he is Barack Obama and he gives a good speech. He has no problem telling people how much he cares about them but when it comes to actually doing something about it he is nowhere to be seen. Or better put, he is out raising money and campaigning for a higher office. And this guy has the audacity to believe that he is qualified to do the job even though he isn't doing the job he was already hired to do. You and I would expect to lose our jobs if we didn't show up and do them. Obama believes he deserves a promotion. Those are some pretty big brass ones. Audacity indeed.

And what about the Walter Reed scandal? Where was Obama then? He sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee but for some reason was totally unaware what was going on. Even though the media apparently wasn't. Of course someone in the media probably showed up for work. The Washington Times was not amused.

The senators' call for simplifying paperwork, hiring more caseworkers and improving their training, requiring more oversight from inspectors general, improved reporting to Congress, establishing facility-repair timelines and increasing psychological counseling. It pains us to cry cynical politics because these measures would be worthy and welcome, but they are too small-bore and reactive to make a significant difference. This is classic scandal legislation which makes the sponsor look good but does little to solve the issue."

Get that? It makes the sponsor look good but does little to solve the issue. Sound familiar?

And just what happened to this proposed band aid fix that Obama touted last night that he passed and everyone should be so proud of him for? Just so happens that the proposal was referred to the Armed Services Committee where it was crafted into better more substantial legislation. You know the stuff, doesn't make anyone look particularly good because that isn't the purpose of it but it actually helps the people it is intended to help, and that substantially.

And who was it on the Armed Services Committee that actually provided substance to the much need legislation? That would be Hillary Clinton. Remember her? She is the one that actually does work. When it came time to pass the Wounded Warrior Act where was Senator Obama? He sure wasn't in the Senate doing his job. He didn't vote for the legislation he takes credit for passing. Nope, Barack was out of town telling folks how great he is and how much he cares about them. I am sure he didn't mention that while he was telling them how great he is and asking for their money he was missing voting on extremely important legislation that he would eventually take credit for. No, they probably wouldn't have liked that. And they probably wouldn't have given him any money. Or any votes. So the subject never came up.

Barack Obama has made a decision that it is more important for him to be out raising money and telling people how great he is rather than stay in Washington and do the job he is being paid by the American people to do. The Sub-Committee he Chairs is responsible for U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee. The Sub-Committee is also responsible for all matters within the region under its jurisdiction with respect to terrorism and non-proliferation, crime and illicit narcotics, U.S. foreign assistance programs, and the promotion of U.S. trade and exports.

Sounds like pretty important stuff to me. But apparently not to Barack Obama.

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests.

So he reserves the right as Commander in Chief but not as the Chair of the Subcommittee responsible for oversight? How can we trust this guy to do something as Commander in Chief when he has not demonstrated a single instance of oversight when it HAS been his responsibility?

Senator Obama has made it the central issue of his campaign that the problem is politics as usual in Washington. But the problem isn't politics as usual, the problem is that the people that are hired by the American electorate are not doing the job they were hired to do. But then again, maybe that is the politics as usual that Obama is talking about. And he is right.

I leave you with a video from someone that is actually qualified to be our Commander in Chief because this person doesn't just tell people that she cares, she takes action and accomplishes it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsIV5keA3yk

Update [2008-2-27 19:24:42 by Fleaflicker]: Russ Feingold has proposed legislation titled: A bill to provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. The bill has 15 co-sponsors listed below. One name notably absent from this proposed bill is none other than Senator Barack I Was Too Busy Running for President Obama.

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 2/25/2008

Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 2/25/2008

Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] - 2/25/2008

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 2/25/2008

Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 2/25/2008

Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 2/25/2008

Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 2/25/2008

Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 2/26/2008

Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 2/25/2008

Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 2/14/2008

Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 2/13/2008

Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 2/25/2008

Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 2/26/2008

Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 2/25/2008

Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 2/25/2008



Display:


Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 8)

Great post. I wish you could get it out to the MSM. We need to wake America up now, before it's too late.


by seattlegonz on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 5)

Thank you. Do you have any suggestions for doing so?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 3)

Make a press pitch and send it to op-ed boards of different newspapers.

Generally, the big news papers want exclusive work, so they have to get it first, and it cant be published anywhere else.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 0)

Thanks. A very good suggestion.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

You can send your article as a letter to Editor.  If you need address contact admin@hillaryresponders.com
They can give you the information.

You can also post your article at the blog listed in this link

http://www.hillaryresponders.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&view=article&a mp;id=39&Itemid=46


by JoeySky18 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

This is a list of newspaper Editor that you can send your article.

http://www.hillaryresponders.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&view=category& amp;layout=blog&id=16&Itemid=48


by JoeySky18 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 0)

Hey, thanks for all the great info. I started posting it on some blogs.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

Do you have any idea how to get the video thing to work? I copied it to my clipboard and then pasted it in the diary. But can't get it to work. And the web address of it isn't clickable. Do you know how to fix that?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep doing what you're doing... (2.00 / 2)

And send links to this diary to anyone you know who's still undecided. Let's make sure everyone knows the facts before they pick our next President.


I agree with Hillary Clinton and canadian gal (!!), so I fully support Barack Obama for President! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep doing what you're doing... (none / 0)

Thanks. Will do. And am.

But how do I get the video to be on the page and how do I get the address to link?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep doing what you're doing... (2.00 / 2)

The problem is that the AutoFormat screws up the YouTube code when it posts.

You have to take the embed code that you have and put it straight into the HTML. You can do this by editing your diary--it should be in HTML Formatted, and just copy the same code you already have there.


by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep doing what you're doing... (none / 0)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean but I will give it a try.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

get it on Ben Smith (Political) (none / 0)

How do you get it to Ben Smith? He may publish it.

Oh of course the famous Drudge.


by del on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get this to CNN (none / 0)

Wolf Blitzer is looking at some of these things. Had a piece today about the committee.


by del on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get this to CNN (none / 0)

Do you have a link to what Wolf did?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get this to CNN (2.00 / 1)

I don't, I had it on tivo. I'll see if I can find it on the web.


by del on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get this to CNN (none / 0)

Thanks, greatly appreciated.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

Guess who else didn't show up to this vote because she was too busy running for President?

BTW, this is a vote that was brought to the floor by the Republicans because they want to squash the Feingold amendment.

It's a vote to say we should debate the bill before we vote on the bill.

Well, shit!  Get on a plane, Barack!  We gotta vote to talk about some stuff before we actually vote on it!


by doschi on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 6)

The pathetic thing is the hordes of young males that support Obama (because he's "cool") don't realize that regardless of who is president, there may come a day when America is drawn into another war and THEY will be the veterans, the disabled soldiers just fighting for basic benefits.... and they idolized and pushed a candidate that was too busy running for president to show up for them.  

They are rejecting a candidate that has a proven record (regardless of the political season) of standing up for the military and getting them the benefits they and their families deserve. Instead they're choosing a guy who "talks to the American people" about what he's going to do.

Haven't we had ENOUGH of the middle-aged men in suits telling us what they're GOING to do??? Time to try something different. How about electing a president who has EXPERIENCE doing what needs to be done? Not empty promises like Reagan, and like Bush, and now, Obama.  


by Catriley sez on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

I find your characterization of Obama supporters to be rather simplistic.

He wins young women as well.


by pastor john on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

40% of women 18-44 do NOT support Obama.

50% of women over 45 do NOT support Obama.

(Source: NYT)

Clearly he's going to need a lot more substance to win their support.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

Are you delusional? This is the weakest argument I have ever seen. Your not even grasping at straws - you are grasping at nothing at all.

The same argument can be used against Hillary, can it not? According to your statistics, 60% of women under 44 DO support Obama. And what about the ~80% of blacks that do NOT support Hillary? Point is, this is a contested primary - do you expect 100% of ANY group to back one candidate? No, of course not, that would be an irrational expectation in a competitive election.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

I couldn't agree with you more. Excellent points. All of them.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he comapres himself with Reagan (2.00 / 1)

Reagan wasn't just known as the teflon president, he was also called the campaigning president, it never sunk in that he had the job.  Obama doens't see the presidency as a job anymore than he took his senate responsibilities seriously. He's proud to say he starting running for prez as soon as he made it to the senate, as if that's good.  And he has the audacity to mis-report her real record, knowing he has no positive record, just a record of ducking and running.  We have the best candidate ever and the media wants McCain?  Well, they're not working two jobs to take care of small kids.  


by anna shane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he comapres himself with Reagan (2.00 / 2)

I think that thinking people can see the truth about Obama. Those that don't really pay attention to politics and are looking for savior are the ones that are supporting him.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he comapres himself with Reagan (none / 0)

Keep insulting Obama supporters.  That's sure to persuade them to become Clinton supporters!

Seriously, if your candidate and her campaign had taken a little less of a similar tack, it might have done better.  Too late now however because the nomination train has left the station.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he comapres himself with Reagan (2.00 / 3)

It was an observation and not meant as an insult. When it is so blatantly obvious that Obama hasn't done the job he was hired to do and goes around the country acting like he is some great leader when he clearly is not, what is a reasonable person to think?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its a common strategy of con men to build some (none / 0)

Your quote about ripped my heart out.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

Great post!  I second that motion to get it out to the MSM.  Perhaps you could lob it over to the Hillary campaign.


by bach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 6)

I caught that comment too. And he said it with a smug look while he was nodding his head, as if it was a legitimate excuse. Unfortunately, nobody called him on it. Not even Hillary. Of course, she didn't get much of a chance, since the moderators quickly moved on to another question. You might have more luck getting her campaign to call attention to it than getting the MSM to report it. If she gives a fire and brimstone speech about it being an example of his being all hat and no cattle, even the media would probably pick up on it and show the clip. You can pretty much bet that the GOP campaign strategists didn't miss it, and you will see him in a campaign ad saying that he didn't have any meetings because he was too busy running for President before this race is over.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 0)

Ok, but how do I get the campaign to do this?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

I wish I knew. Maybe if enough of us e-mail them, somebody will take notice. If your going after the media, try sending e-mails to some of the shows that read them on the air, like Lou Dobbs.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

Smug is the right word for it.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

McCain is just as vulnerable on this line of attack.  No worries!


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 4)

   
  Great post. Please send this along to DailyKos. I think it would put a knot in their shorts.
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:34:33 AM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 0)

I don't post at Kos. But if you are a member you have my permission to post it there as long as it is attributed to me. Please do!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 1)

because she has ALSO missed the same votes as Obama, except the FISA vote.

if you're going to criticize Obama for his missed time in the Senate, you're also going to have to critique Clinton, Biden AND Dodd as well.


by fightinfilipino on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST

Re: Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 1)

Please provide documentation.


by Dave B on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Documentation? (2.00 / 1)

Documentation is not needed - it is a well known and non-controversial fact that a Senator running for president will miss many, many votes and debates. It's not great, but it is accepted by all parties involved.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

Hmmm.  So you are saying you don't need the facts to form a judgment.  That is, of course, what those of us who support Hillary have been thinking must be necessary in order to support Sen. Obama.


by macmcd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

Ok, so that was a nice cheap shot, claiming that Obama supporters must ignore facts in order to support Barack Obama. Basically, you are implying we are delusional or ignorant, or some combination. So thanks for keeping the conversational civil - and yes, that last line was sarcastic.

I am saying that the facts are so painfully obvious and well-known that providing a link is unnecessary. All sitting legislators miss time in their jobs when running for President. You seem to want to squabble over who missed more time, or who missed this or that vote. This seems petty to me. They all miss time in the Senate - it is a price they all pay for running for president. I, for one, would rather discuss something more substantive than waste time nitpicking over something that is both universal and excepted.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (2.00 / 2)

The blog above (if you read the whole thing) actually points out that Obama was missing important votes BEFORE he started running for President.  And also points out legislation that Clinton has been present for.  I'll do more research for you if you want because I am pretty sure she has managed to hold meetings for the sub commitee on Superfund and Environmental Health since starting her Presidential run.


by cloudy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

Thanks for the pointing this out. We need to stick together so that the truth can prevail.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (2.00 / 2)

Did you even read the post you are commenting on?  Your statement is false.  HRC has the better voting record on this.  Obama did not show up, over and over, while she did.  Facts are facts, no matter what you wish them to be.

Frankly, people like you scare me.


by PlainWords on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (2.00 / 1)

Sorry to scare you. My point was simple and, I maintain, non-controversial. When a Senator runs for president they miss time in the Senate. They miss debate, they miss hearings, they miss votes. This is nothing new. And it is true for Dodd, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Obama - ALL senators.
Is it so surprising that the underdog candidate, when facing an opponent with universal name-recognition, had to spend a little less time in the Senate and a little more time on the campaign trail to remain competitive? This seems like such a basic level of logic it is a waste of time writing it down. It's too obvious to merit discussion.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (2.00 / 2)

This underdog thing is old and stale.  He has more money, more delegates, and the media on his side, not to mention that the Republicans want him to be the nominee so bad that they have been voting for him in all the red states with crossover primaries.

Please spend more time looking at the facts and less time making excuses for this No-Change Change candidate who has run one of the dirtiest campaigns in the past two decades.  (If you don't believe me, go over and read http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 for just one aspect of it.)  There is still time to stop him and save the general election.


by PlainWords on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

The "underdog" comment is referring to the VAST majority of this campaign when he was the underdog. Only since Feb 5th has he began rising to frontrunner status. For the ENTIRE campaign prior to Feb 5th (just 3 weeks ago) he was the underdog, in a big way. I think it is very clear from the context of the discussion that I was talking about the majority of Obama's campaign, and not just the last month.

Furthermore, you are just smearing Obama and not offering arguments. You call him the "No-change change candidate". That's really sounds more like you are mocking him and less like you are critiquing him. Telling me I am making excuses? I am offering reasonable explanations. Please, feel free to argue with them on their merits, but don't just dismiss me because you disagree.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (2.00 / 2)

Oh please.  

Obama has been the media darling ever since Iowa, when Hillary was universally pronounced dead, after one latte caucus vote in a tiny non-representative state.  He has never had to answer hard questions.  Even in the debates he has been given the last word on more than 60% of the questions (somebody actually counted after last night), and his gaffes have not been questioned.  He went dirty early and has not let up.  Follow the link I gave you.  Read my earlier diary here (What I Will and Will Not Do).  Or just open your mind.

Obama followers seem to have been given a fact vaccine.  This Diary and the comments by Obama supporters in it show that clearly.  When someone gives you lots of facts about a specific point, you find ways to talk about something else.  When someone gives you lots of facts about a variety of points, you find ways to cover your ears.  It's all out there, you just have to want to know the truth.  Rezko, Exelon, "Present" votes, the thin record, the false claims of passing legislation, the race-baiting.

Obama may have delivered a mortal blow to the Democratic Party, all to satisfy his personal ambition.  This wound will not heal.


by PlainWords on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

The media bias is questionable. Afterall, this is the same media that keeps confusing Osama bin Laden with Barack Obama. But I agree, Hillary has had a much harder time with the press than Obama and it is unfair. Moving on...

Ok, so you list off a big list of problems with Obama. Of course I could just as easily list off a big list of problems with Clinton. Politicians aren't perfect - are you surprised?

But I am more concerned with these statements:


Obama followers seem to have been given a fact vaccine.

That is just an unnecessary and rude attack. You should stop communicating in such an abrasive way. Maybe then people will be more willing to listen to your other points.

Obama may have delivered a mortal blow to the Democratic Party, all to satisfy his personal ambition.  This wound will not heal.

A mortal blow? Please elaborate. How has he harmed the party? He has brought in new voters, new donors and new activists - much of this in red and purple states. He has strengthened the party. As has Hillary. This whole primary has made Democrats MUCH stronger across the country. Good for us. But when you turn it around and characterize a competitive primary as the death of the party, one has to wonder whether or not you actually support Democratic ideals. You seem so eager to watch the party die.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

I think the fact vaccine comment is a fair one.  It's as if Obama's supporters cannot see his record.  It is thin and unimpressive.  The plethora of "Present" votes indicates a lack of political courage and an inability to make difficult choices.  Both are truly dangerous deficiencies in a President.

And then, Obama has actually lied outright, twice that I know of, once concerning the Exelon legislation, and once in last night's debate.  Both times he was claiming to have passed legislation and the claims were false.  That's serious.  And no, those situations are not comparable to anything HRC has said in her campaign and they are not normal politics.  And if Hillary did either, the media would condemn her.

Then there is the race-baiting.  Did you read the link I provided in this very thread?

Even his signature issue is phony.  Sen. Hagel (a Republican) wrote the resolution to force the inspectors back in, not to authorize preemptive war and he was told personally by the Bush administration that that was the purpose.  That's what Hillary voted for.  As for Obama, after his great speech on the war, he did nothing, and later took the speech off his Web site; he said in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution AND that there was no difference between him and Geo. Bush on the war.

There are the dishonest and inconsistent tactics used by the Obama campaign on superdelegates, leaking stories about Clinton stealing his, while actually stealing hers, and pushing through Move-on (after the latter's phony blink-and-you-missed-it vote to choose Obama) to cover his bet if he can't steal enough of her delegates by having Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr. threaten them.  

Why don't these things have an effect on Obama's supporters?  The question is a legitimate one.  And that is what I mean when I talk about a mortal blow to the Democratic party, to its credibility, to its very decency.  And no, I don't think the wound will heal.

You seem sincere.  I give you credit for that.  But you are wrong:  this has not been just a competitive primary.  It has been a very ugly thing indeed.  I know many women who are more angry than I have ever seen them.  The sexist Hillary-bashing in the media, and the race-baiting, happily taken advantage of by the Obama team all the way up to his co-chairs and himself, has done damage that will last for a long time.

As for the people Obama has brought into the party, I'm not as sanguine as you.  The ones who are following him without seeing his real record, and the ones who are shouting down anyone who disagrees with them on leftie blogs, are not going to provide any long-term support to the party.  But the ones he has driven away, women, Hispanics, and people who care about the truth, will begin looking elsewhere.

You are right about one thing, though, I really don't give a damn about the Democratic party any more.  I supported it for forty years after I heard, and saw, in a newsreel, JFK tell the young women of Girls Nation, in 1963, that "I am confident that some day it is very possible--well, it may not be possible for you to be President, but at least I am sure we are talking to a future First Lady."  Evidently that's still how the old boys in the party still see things, and the young boys Obama has brought into the party.  I personally will never give another dime to the DNC.  I throw away their mailers now.


by PlainWords on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

A vaccine to inoculate them from truth?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Documentation? (none / 0)

Yes.


by PlainWords on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 3)

She has not missed the same votes as he has and the diary points that out with documentation. She has a far better attendance record and record of voting in teh senate than he does.

You really should read the entire diary before commenting to avoid looking uninformed.

I think the original poster needs to send this to the campaign and we all need to rec it and send links to everyone we know, blogs and media included.


by americanincanada on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 1)

Cool. Let's get the word out. i will try to send this to the campaign.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (none / 0)

Obama: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xp d?person=400629

Clinton: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xp d?person=300022

huh.  O RLY.


by fightinfilipino on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 3)

How about we look at 2007? Rather than just jan and Feb. of 2008.


by americanincanada on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (none / 0)

How about we pick whichever date you find to be significant, much like how Sen Clintons campaign gets to decide which States and which voters are of significance?
Two riders were approaching...... and the wind began to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (2.00 / 1)

Of course...don't both to consider the dates actually in question. he has been running for president for longer than 2 months so we should look at longer than two months of evidence.

But this diary already did that and Obama pales in comparison...you just don't want to see it.


by americanincanada on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary did not say anything (none / 0)

The Diary asserts that Obama missed important Senate business because of his candidacy. That's not disputable. But the fact remains that this is an expected and widespread phenomenon for people who are, ya know, running for President.

It's not scandalous or even newsworthy.


Two riders were approaching...... and the wind began to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I sit with my head in my hands (2.00 / 0)

Sorry it depressed you. The purpose was to fire you up.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST

Re: I sit with my head in my hands (2.00 / 0)

Cool. Right there with you.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the bag? (none / 0)

I've read so many posts by Clinton supporters who are convinced - without ever giving any reasoning - that she'll be unbeatable in the general and Obama would be hopeless.  So... if she's so unstoppable as a candidate, why is she losing to Obama?  She went into the race with a huge advantage in name recognition, experience and fundraising, a dominating lead in the polls, and now she's fighting for her life.

I don't say that to attack Clinton or boast about Obama's successes.  Just to ask what I think is a fair question - If she can't beat a relatively inexperienced well-financed media darling who's generally running a positive take-the-high-ground campaign, then why are you so convinced that she's a gimme to beat a very experienced well-financed media darling who's going to run an incredibly dirty campaign against her?  

So far, Obama's been able to dodge every smear, rumor and lie that's been thrown at him, whereas Clinton still has baggage going back 10 years.  You really think she's better-equipped to take on the GOP smear machine?  When the Republicans start slinging mud, Clinton's all to ready to start slinging back - which means the campaign becomes about smear tactics and not about issues, which means the Democrats are at a disadvantage.  Obama's consistently been able to rise above this stuff, and smears - whether they've come from the GOP or Clinton's camp - haven't hurt him.  Now, who's better equipped to win in November?  To paraphrase my own tagline, it doesn't matter if you're ready on Day One if you don't make it to Day One.


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 3)

Did you notice John Kerry's last campaign.  It is not the Democrats that sling mud.  It is the Republicans.  Hillary isn't slinging mud against Obama.  It is the Republicans who are voting in caucuses and primaries where they can cross-over.  Democrats who have worked in the party for a long time are not the ones who have been voting for Sen. Obama.  It is the young kids with a crush on him and the Republicans who are voting for him now so they can vote against him in November.  


by macmcd on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 1)

The republicans are hijacking our primary while Howard Dean sits on his fat ass. Figuratively speaking because I have never seen his ass.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (none / 0)

Hijacking the primary? You sound like the Bush supporters when McCain won NH in 2000.

The stats don't bear your "hijack" theory out. When you have to take issue with the established rules (open primaries, caucuses) to make the argument that your candidate is the most electable, you undermine the argument by default. Fair or not, these systems are as arcane as many of the GE systems, and if you don't plan to win on their rules, you might as well not come to play at all.

If you're complaining, you're losing.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 1)

When the Obama campaign asks Republicans to be a Democrat for a day so that they can stop Hillary Clinton, yes that is hijacking our primary and our party.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (none / 0)

First of all, I've spoken to a few lifelong Republicans who say they'd vote for Obama in November because they're so fed up with their party, but would never vote for Hillary.  So this "hijacking our primaries" is nonsense.  The voters are voting for the candidate they like - God forbid.

Second, how come any time Hillary doesn't do well, there's always some conspiracy?  The Republicans are sabotaging our primaries.  The media has it in for her.  The same Democrats who made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House are such incredible sexists they can't bear to vote for a woman.  Etc.  Etc.

If she does win, are we going to get four more years of this paranoia and persecution complex?  I'm certainly not the first person to say this: it seems like Senator Clinton is the kind of person who needs enemies.  She keeps talking about what a fighter she is, but if she had been willing to negotiate instead of fight back in '93, how many millions more people would have health care than do now?  And do we want four or eight more years of a President Clinton fighting against everyone?  When the other option is someone who can bring the other side around to his way of thinking?

Case in point.  Someone brought up a position that Obama took a lot of crap for, which was "if research bears out that school vouchers work, I'll consider them."  Now, that doesn't say he's for school vouchers - it says he is if there's evidence they work, which everyone knows there isn't.  But it's conciliatory.  If he says "I'm against school vouchers and I'll fight you to the death on this issue," then the right comes back with, "we're against Head Start and we'll fight you on that."  But if he says, "let's see if it works, and let's see if Head Start works," then both sides can agree.  Then the evidence shows that Head Start is massively successful, and school vouchers help a small percentage of (rich) kids and hurt everyone else.  So we do what the evidence tells us.  We get what we wanted in the first place, and avoid the big fight that Clinton seems to be so eager for.


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paranoia and persecution complex? (none / 0)

When I was talking about paranoia, I wasn't talking about anything you listed above and you know it.  I was talking about this idea that, if Hillary doesn't do well at the polls, it's because everyone's out to get her.  If people don't like her health care proposal, it because everyone's out to get her.  She seems to have this idea that she can craft proposals in secret, make unilateral decisions, and then bask in the gratitude of an adoring public.  That's not how government works.  It's about compromise, and sharing ideas, and working with everyone, and I don't think someone who's a "fighter" 24/7 is all that suited to govern effectively.

That's what I was talking about.  Now, do you honestly think that a President Obama would look at all of Bush's mistakes and "sweep it under the rug"?  Come on!


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:16:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 3)

Because every time she fights back against Obama she is accused of either whining, race baiting, or both. That won't be a problem against McCain.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (none / 0)

You don't think so?  She'll be accused of a lot worse than whining if she's up against an opponent who refers to her as "that bitch".


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 1)

Right. But she'll be accused of that by Republicans, not Democrats.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 0)

BRAVO


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 0)

Thank you fleaflicker.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (2.00 / 0)

My pleasure.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the bag? (none / 0)

But that was my whole point.  She isn't being attacked nonstop in the primary, but she's still losing ground.  What happens when she is being attacked nonstop?

My whole point was questioning the notion that we're "throwing away" the election by nominating Obama, as if Clinton's a lock to win and he's automatically going to lose.  I said at the beginning of the campaign that we had three really strong candidates, and if one of them rose to the top, I'd have a lot of confidence in their chances in November.  If Obama can beat Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, etc., then why exactly is he supposedly so hopeless against McCain?  And if Clinton can't beat Obama, then why is she so strong against McCain?  When Obama polls better against him that she does?

When I ask these questions, all I seem to get in response is some paranoid fantasy about how the media's setting him up for a fall, or how the Republicans are secretly voting in our primaries in huge numbers instead of their own (the numbers don't bear that out).


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is she losing to Obama? (2.00 / 3)

Well maybe it is:
  1. She is precluded from contrasting to him from the media. Every time she bring up a negative they either ignore it or attack her.
  2. When he attacks he is encouraged.
  3. Sexism is ok Racism is not. so media has a field day attacking her but really can't attack him (yet)
  4. Yes she has baggage, but is is known. And substantially disproven. (By the way how much is hers, and how much is actually Bill's) His will be brought to light. And have to be disproven during GE. Of course that probably can't be done in that short a time.

by del on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is she losing to Obama? (2.00 / 0)

Very good analysis.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is she losing to Obama? (2.00 / 1)

Excellent analysis. I think what bothers me the most is the sexism that has been directed at her by other women.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

You need to post this over at dObama.

I'm sure you'll get skewered, but hey!


by Dave B on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

I am not a registered user at that place. If you are and would like to post it over there you have my full permission. Just attribute it to me and all is well.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

I just posted my one diary for the day:

Hillary and NAFTA!

But if anyone else wants to post it up, I would love to see it there!

Thanks for your hard work.  I know writing and documenting a diary is a lot of work!


by Dave B on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

Yes it is Dave. Thanks for understanding. And thanks for your hard work too.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 5)

I was flabbergasted when Obama admitted that he hadn't convened any meetings of his important subcommittee because he was too busy running for President. That's essentially what he said. And of course Russert and Williams gave him a pass.

Having the title means nothing if you haven't actually done the job.

But I guess we're just supposed to "hope" he knows what he's doing.


by OtherLisa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 0)

I would rather vote than hope.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

EVERYONE is too busy running for president, not just Obama. McCain, Clinton, and the others who had been running - all of them miss important votes due to their campaigns. This is a non-controversial fact.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

Yeah, non-controversial. Yup. Sure.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (none / 0)

Ok - so either NO legislator should run for president, or any legislator can run for president even though it means missing votes. One or the other. Not one way for one candidate and a different way for another candidate.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

This is not about not being present for a vote.  It is about being the chair of an important committee, overseeing an area in which he campaigns frequently on - Afghanistan.  If he is so concerned about our war in Afghanistan and our mishandling of the region in general, especially in light of the recent elections in neighboring Pakistan, maybe he should have convened a hearing on it - AS IS HIS JOB - instead of just talking about what he plans to do there.

Is the world supposed to wait while he runs for President?  


by cloudy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

We need to bombard Russert with e-mails. He has one more MTP before next Tuesday, and he shows up on a lot of the other MSNBC shows as well.


by georgiapeach on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

Great research, thank you!

This does need to get out to the MSM and the so-called progressives although they will probably discount it as unfair to their golden boy. Can you get this on the HuffPo or ??


by bayareavoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

I have no idea about getting it on HuffPo. I don't write there. But if you or anyone else does you have my permission to get the word out. Just attribute the diary to me and go for it.

And Thanks!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

Lets face it, none of the candidates for the nomination have great track records for voting.
Obama was taking on the Giant Inevitable Dominant Frontrunner, starting from scratch. He was like 4 touchdowns behind the day he announced his candidacy.
As a constituent of his, I want public financing like he has almost achieved by getting a million small donors. But we need it to actually be codified in congress and that would reduce the time requirement on candidates. He is a strong proponent of public financing and I think if he sweeps into the white house with a good majority in congress he might get it done.

If HRC comes back and secures the nomination, I will support her as well.

Bottom line here; support your candidate but please do not damage either candidate as either democrat is light years better than McCainBush.
HRC was reasonably positive last nite..please follow her lead.


by hawkjt on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

What you call damage is what the majority of people call facts. If speaking the truth is harmful to your candidate then so be it. He is the one that stated he was too busy to hold a single meeting.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 2)

Amen.

Obama said it and it is our responsibility to call him on it.


by americanincanada on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy Running for President (2.00 / 1)

Have you looked into Clinton's attendance in Congress and similar issues on her side?

Or is it only Obama who has a responsibility to do the business of the nation?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Was Too Busy (2.00 / 0)

Why thank you so very much. You are right about the mind blowing stuff. Best natural high I've found.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy (2.00 / 2)

The thing is, Obama keeps talking about how we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.  Well, NATO Europe has Afghanistan.  How could he have not held a single meeting.

My wife and I caught it.  She's an Obama supporter and she said, why did he take the position if he was too busy?  I said, well, he wanted it on his resume!  She didn't look happy...


by Dave B on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST

Re: I Was Too Busy (2.00 / 1)

It was an amazing admission. Hillary tried to press it. But the "moderators" didn't. I guess it didn't fit into their script.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]