The ‘significant weight’ of Obama is his ability to arouse us, the people.  Plutocrat, oligarch…beside my point.  I’m an old woman, have participated in many protests through the years and I’m dumb-founded that the American people are sitting back watching the destruction of our republic and doing nothing about it.  Perhaps it’s an unrealistic hope, but I think Obama can and will shake us out of this lethargy.

If Hillary gets elected we are looking at, assuming she gets a second term, thirty-two years of Bushes and Clintons running one branch of our government.  By itself it’s unhealthy, not to mention where we are today after just twenty-four years of their management.

Johnny/cyrena:

Hillary and Obama BOTH cast “NV” votes on the Peru initiative.  Stop lying.

Peace.

Johnny,

I think it’s both. Too blind, (and bitter) to be president, AND too beholden to corporate interests, INCLUDING the Oil gang.

THIS is exactly the kind of ‘experience’ that I was talking about, that we don’t need, because it’s the kind of ‘experience’ that has us totally screwed NOW.

And, it’s not just the deal with Peru. She’s hooked it up for unlimited numbers of tech folks to come over from India, (I have nothing against Indians) to do what she thinks needs doing for Microsoft. She says we need their expertise.

Now here’s the deal. I know a whole bunch of UNEMPLOYED American techies.

And then of course there’s the never-ending war in Iraq, and the promise of a hit on Iran. She is NOT leaving the Middle East without the OIL, and that’s that.

Tell me how this is different from what we’ve got going on now?

E.J., You blew it! You were writing Hillary Clinton’s political obit because the polls gave Obama a double-digit lead.

Last night, Obama finished second in a primary he was supposed to win like the Pats beating up on the Dolphins.

Clearly punditry is a lost art.  After last night, this article is truly hilarious to read, hilarious because of how WRONG it is!

Sure, I’d vote for Obama over ANY Re-thuglican, and wouldn’t have a problem with it. Sure, he’s super-bright and on top of things. But haven’t we had 7 long years of a president with NO experience who has been lead around by the nose by his “experienced” advisers, all of whom had an agenda COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the voters (heaven forgive them) voted for?

•  “If you want to know which kind of change we will make,” she pleaded to her Sunday night crowd, “look at what we’ve already done.”

Well, I must be missing something here. BECAUSE, every time she says something like this, (including her ‘experience’) it just seems to me to bring that much more attention to what she’s jacked-up, ever since she got to the Senate. (and at first, I was really glad that New Yorkers put her there).

But jeeze, I just can’t understand what she wants to call attention to. We’re still in a horrible war, (that she wants to continue indefinitely) and the rest of us are getting broker and sicker by the day, and losing more and more and more jobs. And, Hillary says, ‘look at what we’ve already done?” Who does she mean by ‘we’? Is anybody else running with her for the job with her?

I really don’t get why she keeps saying stuff like this. She hasn’t done shit. Seems like she’d do better not to call attention to this stuff.

Like the ‘no child left behind thing”. That’s been an unmitigated disaster. What does she say about that? (I don’t know, so I’m just throwing that out there).

And what about all of this war-mongering, and the Kyle-Lieberman bill that she was so gung-ho about? Nothing like stirring up enemies that don’t have to be enemies, eh? She’s as bad as Condi the Rice with all of the saber-rattling. What’s up with that? Why does she think its good foreign policy, to piss off everybody in the international community, with the exception of Israel? One need not be a political wizard to know that it’s not really a good idea to piss off people that you need some measure of cooperation from.

So, what do we really have here? Another Shrub, different gender?

Seriously, I think she should just stop all of these notes to draw attention to her alleged successes and experience, because she hasn’t HAD any successes, and her experience isn’t really the kind of thing she should be reminding people about.

Maani,

Why do you go on and on about William Jefferson Clinton’s successes as president? He DID have them, (the ones you’ve mentioned, as well as a few others). Besides that, I thought Slick Willie was a very smart dude, and I appreciate that. But still, you’re going on about Slick Willie, and HE isn’t running for the office. Hillary is. And NO…she’s just not impressive, because we’re sick and tired of war mongers.

I think you’re right about the health thing, with there being more people insured under Slick Willie than under GHWB. Matter of fact, I remember when he (or at least his buds in TX) decided to just eliminate all state and federal assistance to those who had been on the so-called ‘welfare rolls’. I remember that so well, because they said that by just cutting off all of the benefits, it would be an opportunity for these folks to figure out ways to ‘get by on less’. Yep, that’s what they said. Get by on LESS than welfare?

So, it was actually an experiment to see if they could ‘get by’ on NOTHING!! And, when I left that god-forsaken place 12 years later, they were still ‘getting by on nothing’ at least until they died from living under the freeways.

But, it was better under Willie.

Speaking of which, I recently read that Hillary has said the first thing on her ‘to do’ list will be to send Slick Willie and the Senior Shrub on a ‘peacekeeping/diplomatic mission’ around the world. (presumably to smooth all the feathers of those world leaders that Dick Cheney and his jr sidekick have managed to thoroughly annoy, to the point of hating us. THAT signals that she has no plans on holding ANY of these criminals accountable for what they’ve done to us over the past 7+ years, and it would appear that she’s never considered that.

Nope, nope, nope. We simply cannot have that. We need some HEALING. That will require putting all of those gangsters behind bars. So, unless she promises to do that, she’s a goner herself.

troublesum:

You certainly live up to your name…LOL.  And you really are a hopeless cynic (obsessed with NAFTA) - and your other facts are wrong.

When Clinton left office, more people were covered under health care than were covered under GHWB.  I will check your other claims later.

However, to say that Clinton did nothing is patently absurd.  He was the first president to leave this country in the black: completely balancing the budget, paying down the national debt, and leaving a surplus in the billions of dollars (which Bush squandered in less than two years!).

As well, you seem to forget that Clinton was completely hobbled during his second term by two things: the impeachment proceedings, and the fact that the GOP took control of the House in the 1994 elections.  Clinton tried valiantly to get legislation through Congress on quite a number of things during this time (including global warming initiatives), but was rebuffed continually by a malicious Congress.

Peace.

The Clintons did absolutely nothing for this country in their two terms in office.  Bill got sucked off a few times in the oval office - that’s about all he did with it.  They gave us Nafta which has thus far cost the country about 10 million jobs; a health care system which is one of the worst in the world; a declining standard of living for the middle class; a growing number of people at and below the poverty level; a continuing and deepening dependence on the good graces of China who owns us; and they did nothing about the global warming crisis when they had the chance.  Bush is probably a better president than the Clintons were.

You like Obama but he has started his down hill spiral and rightly so.  Just one of the many things I could say is, do we want a self admitted drug user who can be president but is disqualified as a police officer, can not be an officer in the military that he is commander and chief of.

Felicity:

Assuming you are using the word “plutocrat” correctly, you are not entirely…correct.

It is true that Obama is the least wealthy of the candidates (~$2 million).  But are you aware that Hillary is actually second LEAST wealthy?  (~15-30 million).  Are you also aware that when Bill first became president, he, too, was the LEAST wealthy candidate?  Are you further aware that both Obama (plus his wife) and Hillary (plus her husband) made most of their millions from the sales of books (with some addition from Bill’s speaking fees), so there is little or no difference between them in this regard?

As for “plutocracy,” I have already stated ad nauseam that, vis-a-vis campaign contributions, Obama is no less beholden to corporate America than Hillary.  As well, you forget that even if Obama were the squeaky clean relatively poor less beholden candidate you apparently think he is, even were he elected, he is ONE MAN: the remainder of Washington - some 600 Congressional representatives - are all (or at least mostly) part of that plutocracy.  Tell me: how do you think Obama is going to be able to change that - at least any more than Hillary?

I have already noted that our role in the political system is electing our representatives based on what they tell us they will do that we agree with, and hope that they live up to those promises.  If they do, we get the government, and the “changes,” we want.  If they don’t, we wait until the next election cycle and vote them out.  We can, of course, lobby (in the broadest sense of that term) for changes DURING their tenure.  But once they are elected, THEY make the decisions.  As noted, President Obama is not going to call you up and ask for your input into something, despite all the pretty “we"s in his speeches.

Given this, I STILL don’t see what Obama is planning to do - or CAN do - differently from Hillary.  Or what WE can or cannot do differently with Hillary as president.

In this regard, your final statement - “We, and only we have the power to wrest our government from the plutocrats who now control it. Obama is the tool we need to move us to act, to protest, to storm the bastille. If that’s all he’s good for, it’s enough” - means nothing.  HOW is Obama the “tool” we need? What makes Hillary any MORE a part of the “plutocracy” than Obama - a few million dollars? What STOPS us from acting, protesting and storming the bastille with Hillary as president?  And finally, why are you willing to settle for “enough” if there is less substance, facts, etc.?

You still have not made a cogent case for Obama v Hillary that carries any real, significant weight.

Peace.

We have the power but we must be moved to exercise it.  Thomas Paine, Zola, Stowe, Dickens…the list is endless, men and women throughout history who have inspired the people of nations to rise up and demand their rights.

Poll after poll has shown that what the American people want is ignored by their elected representatives.  And as long as we sit back and allow our representatives to ignore us, nothing will change.

We, and only we have the power to wrest our government from the plutocrats who now control it. Obama is the tool we need to move us to act, to protest, to storm the bastille. If that’s all he’s good for, it’s enough.

Felicity:

“For seven very long years the American people have been dispirited so when an orator comes along to lift our spirits we follow him.  Substance takes a back seat to inspiring words.  What if Lincoln had said, “Roughly 87 years ago our antecedents decided…rather than “Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth…Big difference that.  Hillary has the facts but she doesn’t inspire.”

Once again I find myself asking: are the Obama supporters here actually LISTENING to themselves?

Are you suggesting that “inspiring words” are more important in making a decision re governance than “substance?”  Are you suggesting that if Lincoln had said it the other way, that he should not have been voted for?  Are you suggesting that you would rather vote for someone who “inspires” you - whether or not that person can deliver on that momentary, if heady, inspiration - rather than one who may not be “inspiring” but has “the facts?”

You have just made the best case for Hillary and against Obama that I have heard yet - and yet I’m not at all sure that you, or anyone else, actually realizes what you said.

Peace.

They’re few and far between and I think Obama is one.  For seven very long years the American people have been dispirited so when an orator comes along to lift our spirits we follow him.

Substance takes a back seat to inspiring words.  What if Lincoln had said, “Roughly 87 years ago our antecedents decided…rather than “Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth…Big difference that.  Hillary has the facts but she doesn’t inspire.

I mostly agree with you, Mary.  Though my real hope is to see John Edwards sworn in as the next Attorney General.  Not that i don’t think he’s presidential/vice-presidential material, but because i think that his talents would shine best as AG.

and how many strikes before the Clintons hit a ball out of the park? 
  It seems like they always get it right in retrospect. We do not have the luxury of their incremental approach to planning to build a barn while the farmhouse is burning down. Healthcare is a case in point. The Clintons should be comforted however that Obama will learn soon enough that you can’t negotiate with these people—then the Clintons will have the last laugh. While Obama rides the wave of hope, the wave that the Clintons rode into power—now written out of history, ironically enough was the abortion issue—-and the question of a woman’s right to control her own body. It could be the kind of issue to propel a woman right to the top in the here and now.

If Obama is the preacher of hope for the future and John Edwards knows what to do to limit Corp America’s influence in our government, this should be an ideal ticket.  Maybe that’s why we’re not getting that from journalists who would love to have another Clinton in office to keep the Repub attack machine well oiled.  Sen Clinton is indeed very qualified for this office.  Unfortunately, she also seems to generate real hate from the opposition and frankly I’m tired of the hate.  Even though John Edwards is my candidate of choice, I certainly would not have a problem supporting Obama.  I just think he could better serve this country as VP this time and President next time around.  Sen Clinton may end up causing more turmoil and set up an opportunity for the hate monger repubs to regain their control, then where will we be.  Obama is fresh, Edwards is a proven winner against Corp America, that’s the ticket for me…...

By Jacks, January 8 at 6:31 am #
(42 comments total)

but, don’t we really want somebody not from the political mold?  This political game is in fact just that.  If we don’t break free from it we will never realize the possibilities  
of a future that truly represents freedom, as in ours.  This is why we need Kucinich and, not or, Ron Paul as our next leaders.  Obama may be okay, but I certainly don’t trust him any more than I trust Clinton.  The Ghost of Politics Past?  WTF?  Isn’t that how we got here?  Jeez, get a brain!!!

I have met her before as in person and she’s (surprisingly) quite charming and witty.  And yet she comes off as totally boring and cold on the campaign trail.  She’s so guarded.  Considering the press hysteria with regards to her, to the point of absolute projection (Chris Matthews is obsessed with her!), I don’t blame her.

She was never my candidate, but it would’ve been great if she could’ve figured out how to let loose out there.