Obama is the only candidate who is clean and honest, and because of that, he has become the target of a smear campaign by the dishonest and unclean:
First, Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself. It's one thing to support your wife and include her in in anecdotes of your own success- that's fine- but it's a completely different thing to smear and distort the record of her rival. Bill has become dirty, so dirty, in fact, that SC representative James Clyburn actually had to tell Bill to "chill." The next day, Bill was asked how he was, and he replied, "pretty chilled out." Bill's been a vicious attack dog and a convenient celebrity to hold down SC while his wife campaigns elsewhere. It's disconcerting that we can no longer tell which Clinton Obama is running against (conflict of interest, anyone?)
Second, there has been a vicious chainletter circulating inboxes lately, saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and that he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance. It's disgusting that these lies got so big that Obama had to actually say they're not true. He often the leads the pledge in Congress and he's been attending the same Christian church for 20 years. He's Christian and always has been (and, really, why does it matter?)
update: Feb 2. Hillary said "Obama is a risj just as Bush was a risk." Cheap, Hillary, cheap.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Experience
I didn't write this, but I wish I did:
The Facts: Senator Barack Obama1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)2005-2008 (United States Senator)12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton2001-2008 (United States Senator)7 Years of Elected Office Experience(FYI - George W. Bush had 6 years in office before the presidency)
Barack Obama is more experienced to be President of the United States.
35 - 7 = 28 years of zero elected office experience for Hillary Clinton. Again, what 35 years of experience is Hillary talking about? Here are the remaining 28 years - 8 Years (Lawyer)12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)28 Years of Zero Elected Office Experience Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president? FINAL ANALYSIS Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
Moreover,
check this out, from The New York Times:
Hillary, Barack, Experience
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.
That was Abraham Lincoln.
Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.
They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.
Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.
The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.
Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.
In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.
Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
The Facts: Senator Barack Obama1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)2005-2008 (United States Senator)12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton2001-2008 (United States Senator)7 Years of Elected Office Experience(FYI - George W. Bush had 6 years in office before the presidency)
Barack Obama is more experienced to be President of the United States.
35 - 7 = 28 years of zero elected office experience for Hillary Clinton. Again, what 35 years of experience is Hillary talking about? Here are the remaining 28 years - 8 Years (Lawyer)12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)28 Years of Zero Elected Office Experience Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president? FINAL ANALYSIS Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
Moreover,
check this out, from The New York Times:
Hillary, Barack, Experience
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.
That was Abraham Lincoln.
Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.
They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.
Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.
The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.
Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.
In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.
Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
Immigration
It's not enough to just affirm that illegal immigration needs to be reduced. There needs to be a plan for those who already here, which is exactly what Obama has created: in his plan, illegal immigrants who already here can go through an 11 year path to citizenship. Meanwhile, border security is increase.
Education
Obama plans to reduce the cost of college tuition by creating a tax credit program that funds 2/3 of the cost of public university tuition and makes community college free. He also plans to expand government grants programs to fund the cost of private university costs.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
For the Children
The most horrifying thing about Clinton is that she refuses to apologize for voting for the Iraq war, or call it a mistake- and now she recently voted for what is essentially war in Iran. Millions of innocent children, elderly, and women have died, in addition to American boys, taken from their families and shipped off to death.
Look upon the children: when we drop a bomb, where do we think it goes? Who do we think it hits? While guns can shoot specific people, a bomb explosion hits a large area, injuring or killing all the innocent people around it.
When we build a landmine, who really steps there? Not just one unsuspecting person who was targeted, but all the unsuspecting people who step there.
If someone ever invaded the US under a lie that we have weapons of mass destruction, we'd want them out, so is it any surprise that the Iraqis want the American occupiers out?
Look upon the children: when we drop a bomb, where do we think it goes? Who do we think it hits? While guns can shoot specific people, a bomb explosion hits a large area, injuring or killing all the innocent people around it.
When we build a landmine, who really steps there? Not just one unsuspecting person who was targeted, but all the unsuspecting people who step there.
If someone ever invaded the US under a lie that we have weapons of mass destruction, we'd want them out, so is it any surprise that the Iraqis want the American occupiers out?
The Environment
Obama has taken the lead in environmental issues. He has proposed not only capping greenhouse emissions but in a revolutionary move, making factories pay for any emissions and pollution they cause. Under this plan, emissions would reach 80% of what they were in 1990 by 2050. He would also phase out the incandescent light bulb by 2014.
As for Clinton, while she has said that we must "protect God's creation," the Earth, (a description which I, a separation of church and state advocate, do not like) she consistently opposed funding renewable energy programs. Her excuse according to Mark Daley, her campaign spokesman: back then, we didn't know what we know now.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-08-obama-pollution_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09obama.html?ex=1349582400&en=188e60c7f6bf3845&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
As for Clinton, while she has said that we must "protect God's creation," the Earth, (a description which I, a separation of church and state advocate, do not like) she consistently opposed funding renewable energy programs. Her excuse according to Mark Daley, her campaign spokesman: back then, we didn't know what we know now.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-08-obama-pollution_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09obama.html?ex=1349582400&en=188e60c7f6bf3845&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Economy
Economic journalist David Leonhardt categorizes Hilary Clinton's approach to the econonomy as conservative in that she acts under the premise that "people respond rationally to financial incentives." Following traditional theories of ecpnomics, she proposes "new tax credits for savings, tuition, health care, elder care and renewable energy use."
Obama's plans, on the other hand, can be described as functioning through "behavioral economics." That is, his plan centers on the belief that what happens and what works on paper is not necessarily going to happen or work in real life. Writes Leonhardt:
"The problem with Mrs. Clinton's savings plan, according to the Obama view, is that many people won’t save even when they are offered subsidies to do so. After all, many workers who are eligible for 401(k) matching funds don’t take advantage of them now.
In short, Clinton's plans, while pretty enough on paper, just aren't as substantive and safe as Obama's. She's got the butter but not the bread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/02leonhardt.html
Obama's plans, on the other hand, can be described as functioning through "behavioral economics." That is, his plan centers on the belief that what happens and what works on paper is not necessarily going to happen or work in real life. Writes Leonhardt:
"The problem with Mrs. Clinton's savings plan, according to the Obama view, is that many people won’t save even when they are offered subsidies to do so. After all, many workers who are eligible for 401(k) matching funds don’t take advantage of them now.
So Mr. Obama would instead require companies to deduct money automatically from their employees’ paychecks and place it in a savings account the employee owned. Employees could opt out of the program. But if they did nothing, they would end up saving money. It’s an idea that comes directly from academic research showing that savings rates have jumped when individual companies have adopted such plans...
Mr. Obama isn’t opposed to narrow tax credits, but his agenda isn’t organized around them. Instead, he has proposed an across-the-board $1,000 tax cut for every family in the bottom 90 percent or so of the income distribution. As he notes, the middle-class squeeze is caused by slow-growing wages and the rising cost of energy, education and health care. It’s not a narrow problem."In short, Clinton's plans, while pretty enough on paper, just aren't as substantive and safe as Obama's. She's got the butter but not the bread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/02leonhardt.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)