RSJ —

I understand why you object to comparing the Senate voting records of the two candidates. It's because it quickly becomes obvious that Hillary is far more progressive than Obama. Or, if you like, it becomes obvious that Obama is far more right-wing than Hillary.

I also understand why you want speak rhetorically about the two candidates. It's the only way that you can make Obama appear preferable to Hillary.

Your argument that examining the candidates' Senate voting records is futile — because such things are too "complicated" — is a real loser. First of all, it insults people's intelligence. Don't you think we're smart enough to understand why it's important to vote AGAINST Bush's nomination of a right-winger to be Secretary of Interior, or FOR a 30% cap on credit card interest rates, or FOR the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq (to name just a few)? Hillary voted the right way on all these issues, and Obama voted the wrong way.

But, your futility argument is more than just insulting. It's ridiculous. You could use the same logic to argue against book stores and libraries: "These are complicated places and people can't possibly know which books to read, so they shouldn't even try." You could actually use the futility argument against public education: "The world is a complicated place and trying to understand it is just futile." Here's another logical conclusion of your argument: "The senate.gov website should be shut down so that voters aren't confused by candidates' voting records. Information is dangerous to the democratic process." Needless to say, I disagree with you. I believe that in a democracy voters have more that just a right to be informed and educated, they have an obligation.

Next you tell us about all the supposedly-progressive bills that Obama has introduced. But you don't actually examine any of them. If you did you would see that many are of the whitewash and window-dressing variety, much like the "Office of Public Integrity" amendment that Obama co-sponsored with McCain and Lieberman. Blackwater, for example. Obama introduced a bill that would leave it up to the Pentagon to decide whether or not to prosecute mercenaries who commit rape, torture and murder. That's a whitewash bill. Hillary is co-sponsoring Sen. Bernie Sanders' bill to end the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a substantive bill (which Obama opposes, by the way).

Onto Hillary's proposal to tax the oil companies' windfall profits (and use the money to replace the federal gas tax and cut gas prices). I like the proposal. It's sounds like something Nader would do. Very progressive. Again, you use your futility argument, saying it can never happen. You prefer Obama's approach of allowing "free-markets" to determine gas prices. I think this is an issue that reveals just who the candidates really are, and what their core values are. Hillary is standing up against corporate domination, while Obama defends the status quo.

I pointed out that your list of Senate votes was deceitful in several respects, and it was. I was right, and you were wrong. And now you accuse me of smugness for pointing it out. Actually, my posts have been quite courteous compared to yours.

Briefly, yes I do think that Hillary's campaign has exercised restraint by not making an issue of Obama's Illinois corruption and terrible voting record. (The record is there, in spite of your denials.)

As to fanaticism, I think any objective reader can compare your tone to mine and determine who is more fanatical.

As to helping McCain get elected, we should all remember that presidents are elected by electoral votes, not popular votes or primary delegates. Anyone who has paid attention to the last two presidential elections knows the Democrats must carry at least two of the three big swing states — Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio — in order to win the presidency. The current polls show that Obama is LOSING TWO OF THE THREE, and Hillary is winning all three. Thus, if Obama should become the Democratic nominee it is likely McCain will be the next president. If Hillary wins the nomination, she most likely is the next president.

(In total electoral votes, Hillary is currently ahead of McCain by 55 votes and Obama is ahead of McCain by 1 vote. However, these numbers are less important than those in the big swing states.)

Since you're the one pushing Obama, if anyone can be accused of helping McCain it's you.

See current electoral-vote details here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May02.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May02.html

Bob K. (April 29th, 2008 4:40 pm) wrote: "I'm interested comparing the two candidates for the Democratic nomination. Describing the frying pan without mentioning the fire is not constructive."

I know you're interested in framing the debate your way – that's obvious by the way you endlessly hype your silly test (look at how many times just in this thread that you have given the URL). You are trying to impart a patina of scientific evidence to make a 'test' you devised prove that Hillary is more progressive than Obama, to the point of fanaticism. In fact, there are many complicated reasons a senator votes for or against a bill, or different versions of a bill – i.e.: According to the Washington Post in "Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes," Jan. 1, 2007: "…Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton voted for the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in the legislation's final form." -- but on the two most important and clear-cut bills, the Iraq War resolution and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment on Iran, she voted with Bush, undercutting her claims that she wants to get out of Iraq. You also shy away from considering her comportment in the campaign as indications of what kind of president she'd make, returning to the comfort and safety of your self-serving 'test,' an indication that you are trying to frame the argument to mislead readers into thinking Hillary is a progressive in any sense of the word. How do you know that she didn't calculatingly cast some 'progressive' votes with the knowledge that she would be running for president and wanted to shore up her left flank? You don't, which is one big problem with your bogus test.

In a much better and broader comparison than your test of the two candidates records at the Daily Kos, compiled by Grassroots Mom and Kos, Grassroots Mom notes, for example, that the bill Obama proposed to get lead paint out of toys "risk[ed] pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing." She also delves into the energy bills Obama has sponsored:

"S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil; .S.115: A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and .S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes."

As Roadkill Refugee wrote in "New Hillary Energy Ad: Cleary False and Misleading," April 16, 2008: "As for the energy legislation he [Obama] voted for, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it was a complex bill that contained a lot of tax incentives for development of alternatives to fossil fuels, energy efficiency and conservation. The bill also contained some things Obama did not favor, and he tried to amend it. But the Democrats were the minority party at the time, and his amendments failed to gain a majority. Sometimes that how it's works in the Senate -- some compromises have to be made."
http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/obama-hits-back-on-hillarys-misleading-energy-ad/

Meanwhile Clinton only had one bill, S.701, to amend the tax code and impose a temporary oil profit fee for a Strategic Energy Fund, along with a few other tax incentives. Notice that it is only a 'temporary' fee on the oil giants.

As Grassroots Mom writes, going through Obama's record, she was "blown away" at the number of progressive bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored during his short time in the Senate. As well as bills on health care and energy, she notes that he has "introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education."

While not perfectly progressive, this is a pretty good record for a first-term senator. Grassroots Mom concludes:

"Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. …
"In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year."

Here's the URL for this article: "I Refuse to Buy Into the Obama Hype," The Daily Kos, Feb. 20, 2008. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

While we're on this matter, you wrote on Hillary's recent proposal to suspend the Federal Gas tax for the summer: "We know that Hillary is NOT 'in the back pocket of many of those energy corporations' as you claim. She just announced her 'Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies' plan, which would 'impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months.' Her plan is 'fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.'"

To the last first: Just because she announced a plan is inconsequential. She hasn't proposed it in a bill, Bush would likely never sign it, and it wouldn't pass at any rate before this summer. It's all just empty campaign rhetoric to convince voters she's 'on their side' without any teeth nor any downside for Hillary – the oil companies don't give a damn what she spouts on the campaign trail as long as it doesn't affect their profits. Beyond that, even if this were somehow to pass, what would keep the oil companies from simply keeping the prices at what they is now and taking 18.4 cents per gallon for themselves? This is just pure bunk and it's telling that she basically adopted McCain's plan as a temporary 'fix' for the gas price crisis, a 'fix' that amounts to one free tank of gas, if it ever passed. Gee, Bob, you wouldn't be trying to mislead us here, would you?

Meanwhile, Obama didn't pander to the crowd on this issue as Hillary has, which, again contrasts the integrity of the two candidates and doesn't show Hillary in a good light.

As far as her contributions from energy corporations, Hillary has collected nearly a million dollars total from various energy businesses, which is about the same as McCain and Obama; however, she has gotten $353,723 from oil and gas corporations to Obama's $266,097, and she's received $850,315 overall from industry lobbyists, compared to Obama's $141,933, according to the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. It might also be noted that Obama doesn't take money from oil industry Washington lobbyists or PACs; Hillary does. And Hillary's senior campaign staff is rife with corporate PR flacks, lobbyists or former lobbyists as well, such as Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Maggie Williams, Harold Ickes, and others; Obama, meantime, has no lobbyists among his senior staff. (The last is from Thomas B. Edsall, "More Lobbyists on McCain Staff Than Any Other 08 Candidate," The Huffington Post, June 27, 2007.)

Moving on, you show something unappealing about yourself in your last post, Bob, as you use the editorial 'we' and 'us' that demonstrates a smug arrogance and pomposity. Excuse me, Queen Victoria, but I am not trying to convince you of anything, just to provide an opposing viewpoint. The ardent propagandist that you are, you also accuse me of dishonesty and a willingness to deceive – one of the examples you use is my mentioning Vote 5, regarding the capital gains tax cut without adding that the bill provided some tax relief to the middle-class. If I were trying to deceive anyone, it would be pretty dumb to try and do so in this context since in a previous post in this same thread you mention the middle-class tax relief part of the bill and anyone reading the thread would read your post first. Rather, it seems, anyone who questions you is eventually accused of being a liar as you try to make the case that only Bob K. has access to the Ultimate Truth through his (drum roll, please) 'Test of Knowledge.' (In your response, don't forget to post the URL of the updated test again, Bob – just in case anyone missed it the first five times.)

Politically, Bob, you've turned into a one-celled animal, pathetically waving around your test as if were the Rosetta Stone to decoding how progressive the candidates really are. That's just plain simplistic and stupid – votes on twelve isolated issues prove very little, especially when you deride Obama for voting for the Energy Policy Act of 2005, while omitting subsequent energy bills by the candidate, such as Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133), co-sponsored with Harkin, Lugar and Salazar, to provide increased tax incentives for alternative energy providers. As often happens, a senator may vote for a bad bill with some good aspects, and then propose another bill to ameliorate the bad portions of the initial bill. Your test doesn't allow for that common practice. In perusing some of your other comments on Common Dreams, I also notice that you never address any other issues, just your tedious Hillary-Obama test. That leads me to believe that you are either working for Mrs. Clinton's campaign; a bigot; or so fanatically anti-Obama that you are beyond reason. As Winston Churchill once said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Your obvious obsession with your test and your hatred of Obama fit well with that quote.

Most revealing, however, was this final paragraph from your post of April 29th, 2008 4:40 pm:

"I'm not going to debate your anti-Hillary rhetoric. I could dispute it line by line, and tell you about Obama's horrible voting record in the Illinois legislature, his Illinois corruption, his recent pro-Walmart/anti-jobs stand in Chicago, his lies on the campaign trail, etc. But that's off topic. It's all going to be front and center at some point anyway. Hopefully that point will come before a general election fight when the Republicans would destroy him with it."

Do you see what you did here? You are not going to debate Hillary's integrity, because you can't – you know she lied about Tuzla, NAFTA, and other things – and then you go on to damn Obama without providing any facts, just a smear that you 'could,' if you wanted to, dispute me, and then the kick below the belt before you dismiss it as being off-topic. That is the slimy work of a propagandist, Bob, trying to deceive his readers by leaving the impression that Obama is corrupt and a liar without providing any specifics. Listen, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have been combing through Obama's record since he entered politics. And Hillary's 'oppo research' team, until recently headed by corporate PR man Mark Penn, has thoroughly investigated every accusation ever made against Obama. The two Chicago papers have found nothing – no corruption, not a particularly 'horrible' voting record – and do you seriously think if there were the sort of sleaze and malfeasance that you allude to, Hillary's campaign would restrain themselves from filling the airwaves with it right now, ad nauseum? And, please, don't even try to use the laughable excuse that there are some things Hillary's campaign will not stoop to in pursuit of the nomination.

Again, I can only conclude that you're either an employee of Mrs. Clinton's campaign; a bigot; or so fanatically anti-Obama that you're beyond reason. Well, there is one other possibility: You're actually a Republican who would like to see McCain elected.

Have a nice life, Bob.

I see a kind of desperation in Bill and Hil's zeal - note their willingness to manipulate citizen's basest fears and prejudices, particularly xenophobia and racism, to stop Obama.

In addition to the Clinton's vast egoism-narcissism (finally visible in raw form), I would not be at all surprised if on another level they both fear prosecution for both their own deeds, and for their silence about the deeds of others of which they were well aware.

It seems likely - unless the puppeteers create a more obvious tyranny in the next few years - that revelations concerning the depths of corruption in our "Power-Elite" will emerge in earnest between 2010-2015.

Well, Bob K., as any good propagandist would, you're trying to reframe what I posted on your own terms as a 'who's more progressive, Hillary or Obama?' argument, rather than examine her entire record, as she has invited her critics to do.

If you notice, I did not mention Obama once in my posting on Hillary's Senate votes but, just to be more than fair, we'll play in your ballpark for a moment before moving back to mine. It shows you have been doing some fancy footwork in misleading and distorting her votes, and ignoring other votes more telling of Sen. Clinton's center-right positions.

For example, while you cite her vote for the Oman Free Trade Agreement, you artfully ignore her votes for the other seven free trade agreements I mentioned. This from a woman who has been campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and now Indiana as a friend of the working class. That's not progressive.

You also cite the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006 (1.), noting only that both Hillary and Obama voted for it without examining its implications. This is another Bush handout for his rich cronies, and Hillary was right there onboard with the GOP. That's not progressive.

Then you go on to the Cloture Motion on Dirk Kempthorne (3.) which, I confess, you have me on. I initially misread the information on the bill. My apologies -- that's not progressive either, on my part.

Moving on to (4.), the Collins Amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity, I disagree with your evaluation. The Senate Ethics Committee has been an ineffectual sham and a joke. The Collins Amdt., by instituting a separate office, would have potentially put some teeth into the enforcement of Senate ethics and pressure on the Ethics Committee to do its job. Hillary voted against it, and, again that's not progressive.

On (5.), Tax Relief Extension [and] Reconciliation Act of 2005,
you admit, "I'm no tax expert, but apparently this bill extended reduced tax rates for (both) capital gains and the alternative minimum tax (AMT)." Capital gains tax cuts have been a major part of the Bush tax-cut windfall to the wealthy, and being worth over $100 million, Hillary would qualify as a member of that rarified group. By voting for it, she was helping her own financial bottom line. That's not progressive, that's downright neocon Republican. Obama, as you noted, voted against it.

On (4.), the Tax Relief Act of 2005, you correctly mention that part of the bill was intended to provide "Tax Benefits for Areas Affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma," but guess who got those tax breaks? Hint: It wasn't anyone with a flooded home in New Orleans' 9th Ward. It was another gift to contractors and developers, courtesy of their good friend Junior. As you cite, Hillary voted for it and Obama voted against it. What progressive thoughts must have been racing through her mind to help the Halliburton's and Blackwater's with even more of our money? So I was correct: Hillary did extend more tax breaks to Bush's wealthy supporters.

On (7.), an amendment to provide workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site with health care and other benefits, you wrote parenthetically, "It may be that Hillary voted the wrong way on this. Without more information I just don't know." If after reading the Senate floor debate you still don't know, let me set you straight: There was little in the way of 'employer benefits' from private contractors and, aside from that, this is a dangerous government site containing toxic substances. (You should read more on Rocky Flats.) Sen. Graham was right -- workers there were getting sick and dying and needed full health care to save their lives. As you note, Hillary voted against providing such care, while Obama voted for it. I would call this an important vote that gives an insight into the candidate's progressive tendencies, although, for your purposes, I can understand why you would dismiss that notion.

Then there's (8.), the Durbin Amendment to enhance automobile efficiency. As you mention, this was an amendment to Cheney's Energy Bill to make it more environmentally friendly and Public Citizen supported it. Hillary voted against it. You seemed to be flummoxed as to why Hillary voted against Durbin's Amendment, but there's a good reason -- she's in the back pocket of many of those energy corporations who have been high-dollar contributors to her campaigns. Again, that's not progressive.

On to (9.), the Domenici Amendment. I'll agree that this was a wash as far as MTBE, although the bill also included improving the nation's energy independence and increasing the use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol. While ethanol is no saving grace as it consumes more petroleum-powered energy to make it than it saves, it would have been a first step conversion to other biofuels more kindly to the environment. Hillary, once again, voted against it, but it remains to the imagination why, when the majority of her party voted for it.

Your comment on (10.) to reduce funding for Camp 6 at Gitmo doesn't address why Hillary would to continue funding illegal incarceration and torture at our base in Cuba. I don't know why Obama voted for this and, apparently, you don't know why Hillary did.

Here's what you also failed to address in Hillary's voting record before Obama was in the Senate, aside from her steady support for free trade agreements from the woman who has claimed repeatedly, "I believe in pro-American trade": Why did she vote against Barbara Boxer's eminently sensible amendment (12.) to allow realistic tests of Star Wars components? Why did she vote against expanded Medicare benefits (15.) for those rural working folks she so dotes on now? And why did she, even after casting her vote to invade Iraq to 'protect America from the threat of Saddam's WMD,' not at least sign on to Durbin's amendment (16.) to withdraw our forces once the, as it turns out non-existent, WMD were rendered harmless? All of this doesn't add up to the picture of a progressive president.

If you want to go back to the Hillary-Obama comparison, let's look at their careers: Obama's first real job after college was volunteering to help organize unemployed steelworkers in a poor section of Chicago's South Side for low wages; Hillary's first real job, outside of politics, was with the Rose Law Firm and her first court case was defending a company from a lawsuit involving a rat in a bottle of the company's product; she used the novel defense that the rat actually enhanced the product by providing additional protein. She later earned $100,000 in a cattle deal that some experts say had to be the result of insider trading. And the current 'populist' and steadfast supporter of union workers also sat on Wal-Mart's board from 1986 to 1992 and not once did she bother to speak out against W-M's notorious union-busting tactics, poverty-line wages and lack of benefits.

As to the most important vote she has cast as a US Senator, to invade Iraq, she has refused to apologize, as did John Edwards, and added to her 'progressive' record by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which frees Bush to attack Iran by designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, part of Iran's army, as a terrorist organization. After her mistake on Iraq, how could she make another such blunder -- unless, of course, she's not really that progressive at all, and she's lying to us, as she blatantly lied about sniper fire in Tuzla and her support of NAFTA, et al.

While it's true that Obama could not vote against the Iraq War in 2002, he did openly oppose it when it was very popular with the public, a stand which, if the war had been successful, would have affected his political ambitions. He also tried to vote against Kyl-Lieberman but was too late returning to Washington; he did, however, put his objections to the amendment in the Congressional record, which he didn't have to do. Can you name a single unpopular stand Hillary has taken that might have adversely affected her political ambitions, because I can't think of one.

Frankly, rather than the bland minutiae of Hillary and Obama's voting records, the subject of their honesty is more important to me as a gauge of what kind of president either one would make, and Hillary has failed that test abysmally.

"Obama has been accused of being all flash, and of not having done much in the Senate. His record in the three and a half years he has been there suggests someone serious about the job: he worked on a nuclear nonproliferation bill that passed and backed a number of policy changes to help veterans, including more medical care for those with post-traumatic stress disorder, assistance for homeless veterans, and the extension of tax credits for military families. He pushed through the Senate a major bill on ethics reform; and introduced legislation in January 2007 to stop, or if that failed, limit funds for the surge. He also worked with the conservative Republican Tom Coburn in a successful effort to get Congress to impose transparency on government expenditures so that anyone can look them up. The criticism that he hasn't done more also overlooks the fact that during his first two years in the Senate, he was ninety-ninth in seniority and in the minority party."
-- Elizabeth Drew, "Molehill Politics," The New York Review of Books, March 30, 2008. [This article is posted at Common Dreams.]

KEM PATRICK (April 28th, 2008 12:00 am) wrote: "It's not bogus at all that Obama just endorsed Betraus as Commander of Cintcom and he also gave a speech in Indiana Tuesday, saying we needed nuclear power for clean energy."

I don't know why he endorsed Betrayus, unless it's because he had enough media scandal balls in the air at the moment and didn't want to add another one, but his support for nuclear energy has always been to use it as a transition to solar, wind and other safer power sources. (Read his website http://www.barackobama.com/issues for more info.)

According to current polls (in all 50 states) Hillary defeats McCain by 44 electoral votes. Obama LOSES to McCain by 26 electoral votes.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr29.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr29.html

ABOVE. . . RSJ'S REASONING IS CORRECT AND APPLICABLE! Hear the others howl?

Most of you here seem to beating a dead horse with the "electability" problem of Obama! Once this woman is stopped from defeating the Democrats, the people that Obama will surround himself with will be a great team to implement change. Even Rev. Wright proved himself to be light years ahead of the press that were riding both he and Obama down.

You will begin to see a stronger Obama as the time goes on and you will see two victories shortly that will unleash many delegates to the Obama camp. The leadership of the Democrats understands fully the unsuitable and insatiable power-grab going on by the Clinton's, at any cost even if it be the election! Truly they are showing who they are as time unfolds.

Obama was clever this time in avoiding being blindsided by the proposed Hillary debate. Now it is necessary that he get a really good economic team of advisers moving on an American economic plan to attempt to right the economy! The effort spent on that work would serve him in much greater stead than anything else he could do! He must continue to show the orator he is in speeches directed to her core constituency.

However, very few are talking about the new voter rules that will require photo ID to vote. this was implemented by the Supreme Court that will impact most on the poor and black voters. Another Republican scam to outflank the democratic voters. Yes, this is a country of
de-facto ballot box stuffers as was seen in Florida, again using the courts.

I've been saying since February that Hillary is significantly more progressive than Obama, based on their Senate voting records. I posted the twelve most important and revealing votes taken since 2005, and found Hillary cast a progressive vote 8 of 12 times, Obama 4 of 12 times, and McCain 1 of 12 times. No one has disputed the accuracy of this information.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8284/
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 1:28 pm

However, RSJ — a longtime Obama supporter — now challenges my conclusion. (April 27th, 2008 8:46 am) He offers a different list of votes as evidence that Hillary has often "voted with the Republicans and against the Democratic and/or progressive position."

I checked into all the votes listed, beginning in 2005. (Before 2005 Obama was not in the Senate, so no comparison is possible.) It turns out that much of RSJ's information is misleading or just plain false.

Did Hillary often vote against her Democratic colleagues? No. Most of the time the Democrats were fairly evenly split, with between 50% and 59% voting the opposite way as Hillary. On two votes Hillary and Obama voted the same way.

Did she often vote against the progressive position? No. There are only two or three votes where that could be debated. On one vote (#3) Hillary voted the progressive way against 70% of her colleagues, including Obama. There are a couple of other votes listed here that also reflect badly on Obama (see #4 and #6).

Remember, I never said Hillary is a pure progressive. I said she is significantly more progressive than Obama. There's nothing here that changes that conclusion, although a couple or these votes may be significant or revealing enough to be added to my comparison list. You tell me. (Update: I'm considering adding vote #3 and vote #8 to my comparison list.)

(1) 8/1/06 Vote 219: S 3711: S. 3711; Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no."

Bob K says:
Passed: 71-25-4 (Hillary-Yes, Obama-No). 52% of Dems voted no.

(2) 6/29/06 Vote 190: S 3569: S.3569; A bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no."

Bob K says:
Passed: 60-34-6 (Hillary-Yes, Obama-Yes). 66% of Dems voted no.
Note: Hillary and Obama voted the same way.

(3) 5/26/06 Vote 161: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.
RSJ said: "Details: Kempthorne is a Republican with close ties the religious far right. Hillary voted against the motion; Democrats voted to block Kempthorne."

Bob K says:
Passed: 85-8-7 (Hillary-No, Obama-Yes). 70% of Dems voted yes.
Analysis: A vote for Cloture is a vote to END THE DEBATE and let the nomination go forward. Hillary voted with just seven other Democrats to BLOCK Kempthorne's nomination. Obama voted to allow right-winger Kempthorne to become Secretary of Interior.

(4) 3/28/06 Vote 77: S 2349: Collins Amdt. No. 3176; To establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted against it with GOP; Democrats voted for it."

Bob K says:
Failed: 30-67-3 (Hillary-No, Obama-Yes). 50% of Dems voted yes.
Analysis: Amendment No. 3176 was sponsored by Republican Senators Trent Lott and Susan Collins, and co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Barack Obama. The bill being amended (S. 2349) was sponsored by Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) with no co-sponsors. Hillary voted against a Republican amendment to a Republican bill. Obama not only voted for the Republican amendment to the Republican bill, he co-sponsored it (along with those paragons of "integrity" Trent Lott, John McCain and Joe Lieberman).

More Information: Senator Lott's bill (which Public Citizen called a "sham") never became law. As to the "Office of Public Integrity" amendment, leading Democrats have more recently said it would only duplicate the Senate Ethics Committee. The League of Women Voters calls the proposal a "whitewash" and the Campaign Legal Center calls it "window dressing."

(5) 2/2/06 Vote 10: H R 4297: H.R. 4297 As Amended; Tax Relief Extension [and] Reconciliation Act of 2005.
RSJ said: "Hillary joined the GOP in voting to extend Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy; Democrats voted against."

Bob K says:
Passed: 66-31-3 (Hillary-Yes, Obama-No). 59% of Dems voted no.
Analysis: "Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy" usually refers to the 2001 and 2003 tax bills that lowered INCOME tax rates for all Americans, but gave the majority of the cuts to the richest one percent. Those bills have a sunset provision under which the cuts will expire on January 1, 2011. H.R. 4297 did NOT address these "Bush tax breaks." I'm no tax expert, but apparently this bill extended reduced tax rates for (both) capital gains and the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

(6) 11/18/05 Vote 347: S 2020: S. 2020, As Amended; Tax Relief Act of 2005.
RSJ said: "Hillary once again joined the GOP in voting to extend Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy; Democrats voted against."

Bob K says:
Passed: 64-33-3 (Hillary-Yes, Obama-No). 64% of Dems voted no.
Analysis: This bill also did not address "Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy," it addressed "Tax Benefits for Areas Affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma" and "Charitable Giving Incentives."

(7) 11/7/05 Vote 304: S 1042: Allard Amdt. No. 2423; To authorize a program to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such benefits because of an early physical completion date.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted with the GOP against health care for government workers; Democrats voted for it."

Bob K says:
Failed: 38-53-9 (Hillary-No, Obama-Yes). 55% of Dems voted yes.
Analysis: I read the Senate floor debate about this amendment. It would have provided $15 million in retirement benefits to about 70 unionized employees of a private employer (not government employees), who felt shortchanged because the job ended before they became eligible for benefits, under their union contract. (The estimated 60-year job was completed in five years.) The amendment would replace employer-provided benefits with taxpayer-provided benefits: about $214,000 for each employee. While co-sponsor Sen. Graham (R) stated that many of the workers "have suffered serious illnesses and many have died," I searched for confirmation of that and couldn't find anything at all. (It may be that Hillary voted the wrong way on this. Without more information I just don't know.)

(8) 6/23/05 Vote 157: H R 6: Durbin Amdt. No. 902; To amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the system for enhancing automobile fuel efficiency, and for other purposes.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted against improved fuel efficiency with the GOP; Democrats voted yes."

Bob K says:
Failed: 28-67-5 (Hillary-No, Obama-Yes). 50% of Dems voted yes.
Analysis: This was an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, otherwise known as the "Dick Cheney energy plan." (Remember all the outrage about Cheney and the oil company lobbyists secretly meeting in the White House to write that legislation?) It was a horrible corporate-welfare bill that gave billions to big oil, big coal and big nuclear. I don't know why Hillary and 50% of Senate Dems did not vote for the Durbin amendment (Public Citizen supported it), but Hillary ultimately voted (7-29-2005) against the bill, and Obama voted for it. (It's #4 on my CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED list.)

(9) 6/15/05 Vote 139: H R 6: Domenici Amdt. No. 779, As Modified; To eliminate methyl tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the nation's energy independence.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted against it; Democrats voted yes."

Bob K says:
Passed: 70-26-4 (Hillary-No, Obama-Yes). 70% of Dems voted yes.
Analysis: This was another amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (see #8 above). There's no clear-cut correct vote on this amendment. MTBE is an "oxygenate" that makes gasoline burn more completely and reduces harmful tailpipe emissions and smog — thereby contributing to clean air and good health. (MTBE replaced lead in gasoline in 1979.) The problem is that old storage tanks leak gasoline, and MTBE and other chemicals contaminate groundwater. The EPA is studying the potential negative health effects of low-level MTBE groundwater contamination. So, apparently, it's a balancing act: less MTBE means more smog but less groundwater contamination. Current law calls for a phase-out of MTBE, and that is a big reason for the boom in ethanol (another oxygenate). If anyone knows more about MTBE, please post.

(10) 4/13/05 Vote 93: H R 1268: Byrd Amdt. No. 367; To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for "Military Construction, Army", with the amount of the reduction to be allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
RSJ said: "Details: Reduced funding would have curtailed Bush's illegal incarceration and torture of prisoners in Gitmo. Hillary voted against reducing funds with GOP; Democrats voted yes."

Bob K says:
Failed: 27-71-2 (Hillary-No, Obama-No). 57% of Dems voted yes.
Note: Hillary and Obama voted the same way.

(11) 4/6/05 Vote 85: S 600: Motion To Table Dorgan Amdt. No. 284; To prohibit funds from being used for television broadcasting to Cuba.
RSJ said: "Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no."

Bob K says:
Passed: 65-35 (Hillary-Yes, Obama-No). 73% of Dems voted no.
Analysis: Hillary voted to kill an amendment to end the U.S. propaganda-TV broadcast into Cuba. (This is one vote on which RSJ is correct: Hillary voted against a significant majority of Dems, and against the progressive position.) I disagree with her vote on this one. However, whether or not we spend $10-$12 million/year broadcasting TV Marti (which Cubans can't receive because Cuba jams the signal) isn't one of the more important votes taken in the Senate these past three years.

My post has disappeared? I'll try again.

This article and most comments are a real low for Common Dreams - the site and the idea.

Issue Green Party Demopug Republicrat

National Health Insurance Support
single-payer national health insurance Oppose Oppose
Clean Water Support Oppose Weak Support
Death Penalty Oppose Support Support
Labor: Wages and Unions Support Oppose Workers Minimal Support
(Global) Corporate Power
Trade Agreements and Institutions (NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, WTO) Restrict Expand Expand
Real Campaign Finance Reform & Publicly Financed Elections Support Oppose Oppose
Electoral Reforms & Democracy Support Oppose Oppose
2000 Florida Election - Congressional Investigation Support Oppose Oppose

Reform the Presidential Debate Commission Support Oppose Oppose
Strict Standards on GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) Support Oppose Oppose
Corporate Agriculture Oppose Support Support
Drug War Oppose Support Support
Telecommunications Deregulation - Giveaway of public broadcast spectrum to private companies. Opposed to Deregulation Supported Supported
Bank Deregulation and Banking Reform Opposed to bank deregulation. Supported bank deregulation. Supported bank deregulation.
Increased Accounting Oversight
Always Supported Oppose Opposed until the Enron scandal broke.

Other issues on which most Republicans and most Democrats agree -- and Greens
disagree Plan Colombia
The bombing of Iraqi civilians
Refusal to ban landmines
Privatization of prisons, other public services and resources
Severe penalties for marijuana
Big corporate mergers and Wall Street bail-outs
Forest logging giveaways
Powerful agribusiness lobbies instead of family farms
Uncontrolled bio-engineering
Increased wiretaps and other surveillance
The Defense of Marriage Act

Fact of the matter is that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the status quo and for war. All three canidates are going to keep us in the Middle East to the tune of very many tens of thousands of troops to fight and die for world domination and profit. This, you Democrats absolutely cannot deny. Niether Clinton nor Obama would commit to having all the out by 2013. This murderous war has been allowed by both of the Democratic candidates who have a RECORD OF VOTING TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ! Any true progressive anti-war voter would never vote for any of them.

It is high time to dump both parties of corporate America. They are both bought and sold by the powers that be and are beholden to do their bidding. Indeed if it were not true and they actually presented even the most timid of challenges to the status quo they would have met the same fate as Nader, Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney and even Ron Paul. They are where they are out because they are sold out establishment candidates that have been vetted by their masters.

You Democrats need to finally realize we need to join and build a third party like the Greens who have a trully progressive agenda. But you won't vote for them becAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUSY SUPPORTING YOUR DLC PRO-WAR DEMOCRATS! Please WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Issue Green Party Republicans Democrats
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Oppose Support Support
Patriot Act Oppose Support Support
Invasion of Afghanistan Oppose Supported Supported
Kosovo War Opposed Supported Supported
Israeli Occupation of West Bank Oppose Support Support
Death Penalty Oppose Support Support

Yes, Bob K. (April 26th, 2008 12:55 pm), let's look at Hillary's 'progressive' voting record:

As well as voting for Bush's Iraq invasion in Oct. 2002, and against the Levin Amendment to curtail the president's power to make war, and handing Bush an oil tanker-sized loophole to attack Iran by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which designates a part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, Sen. Hillary Clinton has voted against her own party 120 times between January 30, 2001 and March 13, 2008. Here are 16 key votes where Clinton voted with the Republicans and against the Democratic and/or progressive position. And note how often the woman who supposedly had her doubts about NAFTA has voted for free trade agreements that help multi-national corporations, but not workers.

1. 8/1/06 Vote 219: S 3711: S. 3711; Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no.

2. 6/29/06 Vote 190: S 3569: S.3569; A bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no.

3. 5/26/06 Vote 161: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.
Details: Kempthorne is a Republican with close ties the religious far right.
Hillary voted against the motion; Democrats voted to block Kempthorne.

4. 3/28/06 Vote 77: S 2349: Collins Amdt. No. 3176; To establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity.
Hillary voted against it with GOP; Democrats voted for it.

5. 2/2/06 Vote 10: H R 4297: H.R. 4297 As Amended; Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005.
Hillary joined the GOP in voting to extend Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy; Democrats voted against.

6. 11/18/05 Vote 347: S 2020: S. 2020, As Amended; Tax Relief Act of 2005.
Hillary once again joined the GOP in voting to extend Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy; Democrats voted against.

7. 11/7/05 Vote 304: S 1042: Allard Amdt. No. 2423; To authorize a program to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such benefits because of an early physical completion date.
Hillary voted with the GOP against health care for government workers; Democrats voted for it.

8. 6/23/05 Vote 157: H R 6: Durbin Amdt. No. 902; To amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the system for enhancing automobile fuel efficiency, and for other purposes.
Hillary voted against improved fuel efficiency with the GOP; Democrats voted yes.

9. 6/15/05 Vote 139: H R 6: Domenici Amdt. No. 779, As Modified; To eliminate methyl tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the nation's energy independence.
Hillary voted against it; Democrats voted yes.

10. 4/13/05 Vote 93: H R 1268: Byrd Amdt. No. 367; To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for "Military Construction, Army", with the amount of the reduction to be allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Details: Reduced funding would have curtailed Bush's illegal incarceration and torture of prisoners in Gitmo.
Hillary voted against reducing funds with GOP; Democrats voted yes.

11. 4/6/05 Vote 85: S 600: Motion To Table Dorgan Amdt. No. 284; To prohibit funds from being used for television broadcasting to Cuba.
Hillary voted yes with the GOP; Democrats voted no.

12. 6/17/04 Vote 124: S 2400: Boxer Amdt. No. 3368; To allow deployment of the ground-based midcourse defense element of the national ballistic missile defense system only after the mission-related capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing.
Details: A bill to prevent the Pentagon from squandering money on a 'Star Wars' missile system component until it has been thoroughly tested under realistic conditions.
Hillary voted against it; Democrats voted yes.

13. 7/31/03 Vote 319: H R 2738: H. R. 2738; United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
Hillary voted for it; Democrats against.

14. 7/31/03 Vote 318: H R 2739: H. R. 2739; United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
Hillary voted for it; Democrats against.

15. 5/15/03 Vote 156: S 1054: Grassley Amdt. No. 594; To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to enhance beneficiary access to quality health care services in rural areas under the Medicare program.
Hillary voted against better health care in rural areas.

16. 10/10/02 Vote 236: S J RES 45: Durbin Amdt. No. 4865; To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Details: If implemented, it meant that our troops, after ensuring Saddam Hussein had no WMD that could threaten the United States, would have come home, shortening the Iraq War and saving tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives.
Hillary voted against it.

Clinton also voted with John McCain on Free Trade Agreements with Jordan (voice vote, Sept. 24. 2001); Vietnam (Joint Res. 51, Oct. 3, 2001); Australia (roll call vote 156, July 15, 2004); Morocco (roll call vote 159, July 21, 2004), and Bahrain (voice vote, Dec. 13, 2005).

(Data Source: "Hillary Clinton Votes Against Party" (From Votes Database)
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/votes/against-party/)

No doubt Hillary had her qualms about every one of those eight free trade agreements she voted for, just as she did about NAFTA.

"Back when Clinton was the Democrats' presumptive nominee, she wasn't saying much about trade. And in amassing her much-vaunted 'experience' in Congress, she never led a fight to reform NAFTA."
—David Sirota, "Hillary Clinton's NAFTA U-turn says something about her—and us," Seattle Times-Intelligencer, Feb. 25, 2008.

"A recent analysis of key votes by The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate's most liberal voting record in 2007; Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th."
-- Robin Toner, "Obama's test: Can a liberal be a unifier?" NY Times, March 24, 2008.

"Officials at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation have contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and Murdoch himself has held fund-raisers in her behalf. Lawyers at Kenneth Starr's law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, have donated more to Clinton than they have to all of the Republican candidates combined. ...
"Hillary Clinton appears to be the favorite Democrat of Republican haves and have-mores."
—Dr. Ernest Partridge, "Hillary Clinton: The GOP's Favorite Democrat," Common Dreams, Aug. 8, 2007. [Because those notorious progressives Rupert Murdoch and Ken Starr just want good government.]

"Some veterans of the health-care wars [of 1993] shudder at the notion of 'President Hillary.' One former Democratic senator who attended the meeting in which Clinton denounced [Rep. Jim] Cooper and would speak only anonymously for fear of angering Clinton says he is still 'astonished' by Hillary's conduct in the health-care drama. 'Those instincts and impulses are just not the ones you want in the Oval Office.'"
-- Jonathan Darman, "How Does Hillary Clinton Make Decisions?" Newsweek, Sept. 17, 2007.

KEM PATRICK (April 26th, 2008 7:57 pm) wrote:
"Uh-uh TAILCAP, actually there is a 'major' difference, check out their voting records. The media says there is little difference."

See above.

KEM PATRICK (April 26th, 2008 7:57 pm) wrote: "Obama's terrific speeches are not Obama. He's very much like McCain in his actual record and he at times says things that indicate his true opinions. Check it out."

Uh, Kem, actually Obama writes most of his own speeches, as well as his books. BTW, on another thread you told me to 'check out' that Weathermen connection to Al Qaeda's 1993 bombing of the WTC. I wasted my time Googling the story and there was not one article that made this assertion. Next time, instead of telling people to 'check it out' why don't you provide the source and where it can be found.

I am a Kucinich Supporter. I got attacked mercilessly for supporting Kucinich in 04.. saying I needed to get on board with someone who was more "electable".

I supported him as long as I could until I held my nose and voted for Kerry. People DO like to have scapegoats for their political issues.

But something I have become more aware of. Each election is a bit different. The situations are a bit different. The urgencies .. are a bit different... While I can be PRETTY stubborn (I still have my Kucinich signs)... I recognise things have gotten way out of balance.

If folks voted logically instead of emotionally... if they actually LOOKED at voting records, statements to the public, actions etc.. they would be able to make more powerful voting choices. But humans tend to vote and allow themselves to be manipulated far too easily by the opposition and the media.

I am supporting OBAMA NOT because of his supposed "charisma"... that is something the media has perpetuated... Not that there isn't anything wrong neccessarily with getting caught up in the emotion of a candidate.. I think speeches are POWERFUL THINGs.. Look at MLK... his speeches moved and inspired.. and we DO need to have that inspiration and morale building type of personality. That of course being said.... go back and actually look at the voting records. Obama is NOT perfect... but comparing them side by side... logically... Obama may be a bit better on policies than Hillary.. so then you see the other essential part .. which is how he inspires... I mean. Look at BUSH.. he makes me CRINGE when he opens his mouth... He couldn't inspire anything...

Emotionsl don't neccessarily have to be illogical... just understand why you feel moved to support someone.. look at the facts and then see how you feel when they speak.

Hillary.. doesn't have the policies.. and personally. I think she has been irritating and mean spirited. I don't like her personality.. and while SOME would take that as some anti feminist bs... it isn't.

We can't afford to have McCain in the whitehouse. We will be doomed. WE have serious problems facing us.

We don't need the same old solutions. We HAVE to make change now!!!...

Just keep in mind to look at your LOCAL officials.. who in many ways are MORE important than even the presidency. WE have to clean up Congress. Get rid of outrageous lobbying.. and elect politicians who once and for all represent US instead of corporate interests.

The time is now.

Let's quit quibbling over post feminist bs and race and antichrist crap and move FORWARD!!

Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama?
Who would you rather have one bullet away from the presiduncy?

The four year old ones were the Kerry versus Bush polls Kathy. They were 98% accurate, Kerry won by those polls except for the "stolen" states of Florida and Ohio.

There are current ones BobK posted, I'd believe they're as accurate as the ones were four years ago.

Bob K your polls are full of holes. Some of them are four years old, some are from last February, some while Hillary was throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, and all of them do not take into account the fact that McCain is running and saying whatever he wants unchallenged - being that the Democrats and the Propaganda Machine are busy elsewhere. One advantage of Hillary's campaign is that she's vaccinating Americans against the Republicans using the same kitchen sink. No more shock value.

As we have seen in the past, the electoral picture can change rapidly and the election is still 7 months away, with little to expect in the form of good news for the Republicans regarding the economy, jobs, Iraq, and the housing crisis. If Bush had been smart, he would have held off a little longer on his "stimulus" - it will be a flash in the pan. If that.

kathyodat

Looks as if we'll have president McCain Bob K. Obama is the best speaker I have ever heard and he outspoke Clinton, Edwards and Kucinich. He's not a bad person, but he's not presidential. that's why the polls show he'd lose and come Novenber, McCain will win. Know what's really scary. We MIGHT all wish, Bush was still the presdent then. Hard to fathom, but we MIGHT.

I'll fully support and vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

Looks like we've been wallpapered.

Nevertheless, check it out for yourselves. Obama is losing to McCain by 26 electoral votes. He's losing all three of the big swing states, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Democrats need to carry two of those three states to win the White House. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr26.html

Hillary has a 40 electoral vote lead over McCain. She is carrying all three of the big swing states.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr26.html

Presidents are elected by electoral votes. Popular votes and primary wins don't count for anything in the general election.

If the general election were held today, Hillary would beat McCain. Obama would lose to McCain. Those are the facts.

Did anyone catch the story that 6% of Hillary voters in Pennsylvania said they had no intention of voting for her in November? All of a sudden her Pennsylvania "win" over Obama is 4%.

Given that she's got the Democratic electorate so polarized that many of them refuse to vote for other candidate, it seems likely to me that when push comes to shove (McCain), quite a few will recant. They usually do. I'm not one of the recanters, being that I hadn't planned to vote for any Democrat in the general election anyway, knowing that Kucinich was a lost cause from the start.

kathyodat

I think this is all a waste of time. Rove hasn't retired, and will orchestrate the theft of every "close" state for McCain. Watch and see. It's worked every time so far, and the gullible American voters have come to accept the thesis that exit polls are valid everywhere in the world except here.

kathyodat

Bush didn't "WIN" Ohio or Florida ~RSJ~. If Obama is the Dems choice, McCain will win them. Check it out, ~Bob K~ is correct.

Uh-uh TAILCAP, actually there is a 'major' difference, check out their voting records. The media says there is little difference.

Obama's terrific speeches are not Obama. He's very much like McCain in his actual record and he at times says things that indicate his true opinions. Check it out.

As has become increasingly clear, as the primary season wears on, the Devil wears Prada, or, at least, pastel pants suits, after all.

Contrary to Bob K's (April 25th, 2008 12:07 pm), predictably porous electoral logic (Massachusetts, New York and California will stay Blue and votes for Hillary in Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania won't necessarily translate into her winning those states in the general election, as they haven't in previous Dem primaries), iowablackbird's (April 25th, 2008 12:06 pm), perceptive nod to Shakespearean tragedy is apt, as it appears Hillary Clinton is wandering through the cold North Country castle right now, consumed with her own ambition, and lately I can imagine a President Hillary, under the pressure of impeachment, as she no doubt will be when the GOP regains a majority in 2010, Nixonesquely drinking tumblers of whiskey and conversing with the presidential portraits in the West Wing, all the while blatantly lying to save her hide and dismissing those around her advising her to resign for the good of the country. In those circumstances, I would not be surprised to hear her utter the all-purpose magic RMN incantation, "If the president does it, it's not a crime," to defend her unprovoked attack on some Middle Eastern country to prove her toughness, her refusal backed by troops to let Congress convene, or her order to illegally confine war protestors incommunicado in Halliburton-built camps in the deserts of Utah or the wilds of Wyoming.

Her comportment during the primary season is instructive of the sort of president she'd make: Regardless of her supporters' glee at her unsavory anxiousness to deceive, distort, and hit below the belt, erroneously believing it demonstrates she is a scrapper mean enough to beat John McCain, she has shown her ugly side as she tries to scurry up the Dem primary ladder. The Hillaryites never seem to pause and ask themselves how much lower is she prepared to descend in the general election, or in the White House, to get her way?

Isn't the conduct of her primary campaign by itself a tip-off to what's in store, should she be elected? She's spent her money profligately, shifted her staff as if they were temp employees, didn't have any plan to campaign beyond Super Tuesday, and has continued to depend on advice from corporately-connected insiders and advisers who have not served her well thus far. All she has left now, in the final analysis, is her famous name, her indomitable sense of entitlement, her overbearing obstinacy, and her shameless abandonment of any shred of decency in pursuing her goal. She obviously thinks the end justifies the means, but when the end is simply the fulfillment of a lifelong personal lust, what happens to the country? Whether it's Oedipally besting your accomplished father, or achieving office as the first woman to run the World's Remaining Super Power, as our crumbling country is still comically designated by ignorant lapel-pin wearers and careerist military brass like Gen. Petraeus, either one is insufficient reason to allow someone access to presidential power, as the continuing curse of the current occupant has shown.

But that's a moot point: Her negatives were already high when she entered the race and they've only gone further south as she's abased herself with a Karl Rove-inspired 'Toss All the Mud and See What Sticks' strategy. If she somehow deludes the remaining Superdelegates into picking her and succeeds in nailing down the nomination, every bit of mud -- every nasty remark, every 'misstatement' that most would call a lie, every word of praise for McCain's qualities of leadership -- will be featured in tape loops endlessly featured in both GOP ads and free Corporate Media -- the 'Dean Scream' will seem a model of restraint compared to the Lizzy Borden hatchet job awaiting Candidate Clinton in the fall.

Implausibly, an elderly, wretched Keating Five confabulator representing a party that has destroyed the American economy; placed us into generations of indebtedness; promised decades of unaffordable war while touting increased tax cuts for the wealthy; and has openly aligned himself with the worst chief executive in our history, will take the oath of office as the 44th president of the United States as Hillary loses even her Senate seat in New York, a fitting and poetic denouement for the Tracy Flick of national politics.

Like a Mobius strip, our Long National Nightmare will finally be over as it begins anew, and Mrs. Clinton will only have herself to blame, although, in the blind narrow madness that has possessed her and her husband, she will never accept it.

Rich Griffin (April 25th, 2008 12:39 pm), it doesn't matter how great your policy positions are if you can't get elected. Neither McKinney nor Nader can get elected in 2008 unless, by some miracle, both major parties disappear before November. Not that that would be a bad thing, but it's not going to happen.

RichM (April 25th, 2008 1:41 pm), your anaylsis is correct, as far as the Clinton-founded Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party, AKA 'Republican Lite,' is concerned. Not all Democrats, however, are also DLC members -- Obama being one of them.

Angry Kraut (April 25th, 2008 5:09 pm), you didn't cut the mustard with your comment -- McCain will win in 2008 if we vote for Ralph Nader or another third party candidate. I voted for Ralph in 2000 and look what happened.

Latest poll results --

As of today, April 26, OBAMA IS LOSING TO MCCAIN by 26 electoral votes -- Obama 243 - McCain 269.

Hillary is maintaining her lead of 40 electoral votes over McCain -- Hillary 284 - McCain 244.

More importantly, Hillary is carrying all three of the big swing states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama is losing all three! (Recent elections have shown the Democratic candidate MUST carry at least two of these three states in order to win.)

When will Obama drop out of the race for the good of the country?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr26.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr26.html

What is Senator Clinton waiting for? She is waiting for the rest of the primary season voters in the remaining 8 states to cast their vote and definitely select a nominee for the Democratic party. The American citizens in these 8 remaining states have the right to have a say and a choice in the matter. I know that frustrates all of you Obama people and chicken-little types, but this is the system and how it works and it has worked just fine since the late 1960's when it was first designed. As long as Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have the money, the people, the desire and the energy to journey on in this race. . .let them continue the fight for the nomination. The more we see of them in the different settings, the better "feel" we have for them as our next leader. The next President of the United States is going to have a hugh mess to clean up and WE ALL need to see just who we think can do the better job. I doubt McCain is up to it. . .maybe Obama and I know Clinton is. So be patient, say your prayers and best yet, vote if you haven't already and please discourage these naysays, like the writer of this dribble from trying to short-circuit the process for their own selfish reasons.

To me David Michael Green is living proof that just about anybody can be a professor of political "science". It amazes me how he is constantly pointing out "differences" when between these two dogs (Obama/Clinton) in terms of policies, there is hardly any. I stopped reading about halfway through the rant. Sure, I dislike Hilary as much as Professor Green, but Obama is hardly any better. I really enjoyed the part when he had the nerve to bring up the war in Iraq as if Obama had done anything about it except deliver a 6 year stale speech in opposition when he was a state senator and didn't have to vote on it. His record after becoming a US Senator was to support the war by funding it. Can the good professor point to any major anti-war speech lately that doesn't call for the shifting of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan instead and the maintaining of many thousands of troops in the area? Obama also wants to increase military spending, add 100,000 troops and supports Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians. Nice try. And that's the truth - Professor Tailcap.

Have you ever compared ALL of their votes when U.S. Senators? ____ It surprised me.

Sorry ~Kathy~, if that's so, I misunderstood what I read here yesterday. I understand she voted for the use of cluster bombs but voted they not be used in populated areas and Obama did not vote agaist that ammendment. I'll check it out before I err again if I did.

Kem she did not vote to ban cluster bombs in populated areas, she voted against the ban. The ban was an amendment added on to a defense bill and Obama voted to keep it in and Hillary voted to strip it from the bill. A "yes" vote would strip the ban from the bill. No one has ever asked her why she did that. She also voted for the bankruptcy bill which has really punished people with overwhelming medical bills.

kathyodat

Excellent posts, Chessgames and unionave. Interesting conundrum. Hillary's behavior in this campaign is toxic, polarizing the Democrats. She's distracting the party from what should be the object of it's attention, McCain, who is getting a free pass at present. The damage she is doing to Obama is no more than the Republicans would do later on - a plus, in that it's being faced earlier on. But the damage she's doing to the party is something else.

From a practical standpoint, I look at how her campaign has functioned in terms of organization, financial management and strategy, and suspect a Clinton presidency would probably be as disorganized and chaotic. It's true, the last Clinton presidency was high drama and circus, well fertilized with right wing vitriol, and facilitated by the Propaganda Machine (media). It ended up being pretty much dysfunctional with all the distractions, originated both internally and externally. So how would another Clinton presidency be different? Bill would be on board, and clearly a loose cannon, as he has demonstrated. He can whine that Obama played the race card, but he has lost the African-American vote, which she actually had until he went to South Carolina with his snipe comparing Obama's campaign to Jackson. I don't think it's realistic for Hillary to take credit for anything Bill did right, and distance herself from what he did wrong (NAFTA, Telecommunications, Glass-Seagall, and all the rest). She's voted the wrong way on enough bills herself to make her progressive credentials shaky, as has Obama.

JOSO posted a link to a Carl Bernstein article which makes some valid points, that she prefers to fight, is energized by fighting. Obama offers an opportunity to come together, to find common grounds to solve our problems. Also, she keeps talking about what "I" will do for "you", and Obama says "we" can change and it must come from pressure from the people getting involved. He's right. Running this country from the top down doesn't work. We've seen that. We need citizen involvement, and he inspires that. That's actually my main attraction to him.

A year ago, my oldest son said only the Democrats could lose a slam dunk election. Unfortunately he's generally right in his predictions. I'm hearing from more and more people that if Hillary can't win the nomination, she will poison the well in order to be the 2012 candidate against McCain. I began to suspect that myself a few weeks ago. I hope I'm wrong. She can prove me wrong by no longer - as she termed it - throwing the kitchen sink at Obama and running a more civilized campaign. Party elders could assist her in that by threatening to put an end to her fratricide, although I also believe voters are entitled to make their preferences known. I do know more super delegates are moving to Obama because of her behavior and I suspect some - many - are holding back because they actually prefer to vote for her, but don't dare while Obama is the front runner. So maybe this party deserves to destroy itself and Hillary is the anointed grave digger. Too bad, because I think Obama is the person we need at this time.

kathyodat

She also voted to ban cluster bombs in populated areas, Obamn voted did not for that that ammnendment. ___ She embraced McCain? He apologised to the Clinton's for his horrible and very hurtful "Joke".

I do believe she said they are on friedly terms, or friends, but she does NOT embrace his viewpoints on issues. Brutus was Ceasears friend. At times in politics, it's prudent to be on good speaking terms, __ publically at least.

as far as disenfranchisement goes, i voted on january 15 for a democratic presidential candidate. over 600,000 of us voted that day for a democrat. but the party will not seat our delegates.

everywhere you go people say "obama's name was not on the michigan ballot." they should use the active tense: obama took his name off the michigan ballot.

on the daily show, obama said he has campaigned in 47 states. i live in one of two populous states where he did not campaign. is that supposed to encourage me that he somehow hears me better from afar?

the democrats have to live down their discriminatory rules and allow delegates from both michigan and florida to participate in the democratic national convention. obama's essential veto of a do-over in michigan gave me a strong sense that he would throw me under the bus in a minute if he wanted something i didn't like. why would a civil rights lawyer do something like that? (disenfranchise a whole state)

Common Mr. Greene. Hillary is in the race because the Democratic Party rules allow it. Your sacred party put together a primary process that is both undemocratic and archaic. Stop moaning about the rules of YOUR party because you don't like the outcome for your candidate. Hillary is no more evil nor opportunistic than, Obama, you or your party are.

Give it a break David Michael Greene. The folks who have yet to vote in the remaining Democratic primaries, as is their right, want the opportunity to vote. Who in Hades are you to tell them to put their ballots into the bit bucket by demanding their candidate, Hillary, drop out?

Give us a friggin' break. ALL POLITICIANS ARE AMORAL. This is a necessary resume component to run for president under the Democratic and Republican Party, i.e., the Corporate Party banners.

Common Dreams, Buzz Flash, and many other self-proclaimed progressive websites are nothing but factional (Obama that is) fronts for the Democratic Party. They are about as Left as my right arm is. And they are part of the same attack dog mainstream mentality that they rail against. So then Common Dreams, Mr. Greene, and "progressives" which Ralph Nader positions do you actually disagree with? Or, is it that your candidates Saint Obama and Hillary, could not hold their own in a head to head with Ralph Nader? I say, sue 'em Ralph and get yourself into the "debates", you know those controlled and staged events put on by a combined Democratic and Republican private corporation. Leaving Nader out is undemocratic, but it is what the Democratic Party is all about, i.e., stifling democracy.

As I said above, Hillary is not Bill and 2008 is not 1993.

You guys who do nothing but complain about the frying pan should tell us where to jump. If you're jumping to Nader I'm with you. If you're jumping into the fire with Obama, you're sadly misinformed.

I do not support Hillary Clinton because of her votes on Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman and the vote not to ban cluster bombs. If she wants to take credit for her husbands administration then why not take responsibility for the bad. It was Bill Clinton who put the coffin nail in bank regulation when he overturned Glass-Steagall. It was Bill Clinton who did so much to deregulate media ownership and we can see what has happened there.

I also think she is unprincipled. During her husband's administration John MCCain said the following "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father" This comment is absolutely despicable and I do not understand how Hillary Clinton could ever embrace the man who attacked her innocent daughter. It is one thing to attack an opponent, it is outrageous to attack one's child. I have always said "attack me and I will get over it. Attack my son and you are my enemy for life."

There is a reason Mrs W.J.C. is behind . That family has been with us for a long time and we know them for what they are . We know that every word that comes from the mouth of either of them may not be the truth . Even while his wife is trying to convince the voters that she is going to bring jobs here , Mr W.J.C. is out making deals to send more jobs away from our country . While in office at the insistence of the big pharmaceutical companies he halted the sale of AIDS drugs from Argentina to South Africa and threatened poor Argentina with sanctions if they continued the sales . Once out of office and as a lobbyist he made a deal for the African nations to borrow one billion $ per year to pay him and the giant pharmaceutical companies . The AIDS patients had to wait until he was out of office before they could get the medicine . Lobbyist influence has ruined our country .

the article says: "Obama is a team player, and has provided little evidence whatsoever of being so absorbed with himself that he has turned this election into his own personal quest for glory."

it is not glory obama seeks; it is the presidency. it is not glory hillary seeks; it is the presidency.

now look over obama's past. the recognition grabbing on legislation. the house a man he claimed to barely know helped him to buy. the legislation to save excelon's corporate reputation by not having to report a nuclear leak. no, obama isn't absorbed with himself, just with his quest for power. if he had already won, you would not need to tell hillary to take a hike.

When people say Hillary is too Republican and that's why I'm voting for Nader, I understand and respect that. Why compromise when you can vote for the real deal?

But when people say Hillary is too Republican and that's why I'm voting for Obama, it feels like I've walked into an insane asylum. The lunatics don't care, but Obama is much more Republican than Hillary. Compare their voting records: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8284/
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 1:28 pm

Conflating Hillary 2008 with Bill 1993 is another manifestation of delusional thinking. Hillary is not Bill, and 2008 is not 1993. To hear the the lunatics talk, everything that Bill did wrong in the 90s (according to their foggy memories) is equally Hillary's fault. At the same time, there's nothing that Bill did right in the 90s for which they give Hillary equal credit -- or any credit. The lunatics must have their cake, and eat it too.

But folks, Hillary and Bill are two different people -- as shocking as that may be to some -- each with their own record, agenda and point of view.

The concept of change is also beyond the intellectual capacity of many. No, not the campaign-slogan "change." I'm saying that people can change their minds.

It happened to John Edwards. When Edwards ran in 2004, his agenda was more Republican than that of Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean or even John Kerry. When Edwards ran again in 2008, he had moved to the left on many issues. Many here celebrated and supported Edwards' bid, and only a few said "leopards don't change their spots."

Hillary has moved to the left also. And, unlike Edwards (who left the Senate in 2004), she has the voting record to prove it. It's there for anyone to examine. I did! I was very surprised to learn how different her voting record is from her public image. Again, check the link above.

Of course, lunatics are irrational by definition. We can blame CommonDreams for much of this insanity. They have been using their reputable brand name to shill for Obama, and we see the power of that here in the forums. There are many, many articles published which take sober, critical looks at Obama, and CommonDreams hasn't published one of them . . . I think in about a year.

Neither do we see anything favorable (or even objective) about either Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader here on this supposedly "progressive" site. It's a shame.

RE: preznit_boushe (I consider voting for Iraq war funding to be a war crime).

So then, you must consider Sen. Obama a war criminal as well.

Yea! HRC has too much baggage: 6,000 of male oppression, dominance and violence. Crawling out of that muck takes all she has learned and experienced at their hands.

Well ~GLAXIA~ you are actually showing your ignorance on this subject, like several others here have done, when you post comments like you just did. Take the time to read the link ~Bob K~ just offered and perhaps you will be amazed to discover, just how ignorant you are on the subject.

Another one who needs to smarten up is ~YARI~. For your information Yari, it is Obama who's in Lieberman's hip pocket, not Hillary. It is Obama who has stated he supports Bush's policies regarding Iraq, not Hillary. Check it out before yuo display your ignorance also.

There is no crime or disgrace to be ignorant about things, we all are. I don't understand the math formula E=Mc squared, and don't know beans about heat expansion of burning coal versus peat moss. So I don't offer stupid and misinformed opinions on those subjects and display my ignorance for all to witness.

Then some people are not only ignorant, they intentionally spread lies in the hopes that some who are ignorant and unwilling to check the facts, will be misinformed and assist them in spreading falsehoods.

I'm amazed at the tendency in human nature to "worship" figures like the Clintons, and their willingness to ignore reality. Look at the facts - early in Clinton's presidency he (and Gore) advocated the "escrow" system for encryption. The deal was, phones, internet traffic, whatever could legally be encrypted. But, the Government would get a copy of your key to be put in escrow - they could only get it upon a court order. You can trust the government, right? What they were advocating was to make having a secret illegal. Then it got worse - let Kyoto die, NAFTA, the illegal war in Yugoslavia with gross violations of International law (destroying infrastructure essential for civilians, for one). Then Rwanda (sp?). Clinton ALMOST went to war with N. Korea, possibly stopped by one Jimmy Carter in another "unauthorized" diplomatic trip. Remember the sanctions on Iraq, when the UN estimated that 500,000 Iraqis had died, most women and children? I recall that Jeanne Kirkpatrick said something like, "well, it was a great sacrifice but it was worth it". No lie. Remember the bombing of that pharmaceutical factory in Sudan? Thousands died because of that. No apology, nothing. That was in the middle of the Monica crisis I think - the movie Wag the Dog had just come out too.

The man was a Fascist, so is Hillary. Bill at least is a war criminal, and Hillary due to her militarism is one too (I consider voting for Iraq war funding to be a war crime). The Supreme court has ruled that voting for funding is tacit approval of a war - can't recall the details.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued Imperialism which is going to come back and destroy this country.

The problem–as I see it–is that each of the democratic candidates is looking increasingly unlikely to be able to beat McCain, something I would have found astonishing a year ago. The DP may well be on its way to receiving its most humiliating defeat in recent memory.

--It's an odd situation, here, isn't it? Many, many now realize that NEITHER party represents their interests. Rather than turn to McKinney or Nader, the American people seemngly prefer to vote for McCain out of fear or spite and put in the final coffin nail? MSM is not reporting AT ALL on Nader or McKinney. Wouldn't it be great to see Nader and Limbaugh face off live, for example. Nader would crush him like a bug, if say, Moyer was moderating. Why not Nader and Clinton, or Nader and Obama?

I'd like to see Nader and Limbaugh with Moyer moderating because then Limbaugh in all his hate speech would be exposed for everyone to see. Not just on PBS, but on ALL the networks combined. Limbaugh and Oberman would be great too, and great for ratings as well. Well, one can dream.

On a more realistic level, though, it's time we all showed integrity in our own lives, even if it means losing our supposed 'respectability." This means when you go to a PTA meeting, or are talking with friends and family just don't sheepishly agree with their misconceptions. Sometimes this means saying firmly, "I'd rather not discuss it..." when a hardcore, vitriolic, Rush Limbaugh-worshiping republican makes some insane assertion. They will quickly get the message that you are not on their team, and realize that you deem it futile to even discuss such things with them. How often out of fear do we nod in agreement with these individuals? We must stop it.

Perhaps this seems like a small thing, but if we begin to stand up for what is right in our own lives, then we are being the change we want to see. Our 'battle cry' should be: "integrity above all."

Quit your silly political, triangulating, calculating. Seek to transform not to manipulate. And let the chips fall where they may. Above all, don't meekly cave in to what you KNOW in your heart to be wrong. Stand up for what you know is right, regardless of the consequences to your 'friendships' because these people will never do anything but pull you down [to their low level], meaning they are not your true friends.

Especially if you live in a 'red' state, you konw what I mean.

She is very obviously a Republican (still) in Democrat clothing. Look at her voting record - it's Republican. Voting for war and continually funding the occupation - Republican war-monger thinking. It's no wonder she has received so much Republican support - she's really one of them!

The basic point- that Hillary's focus is her ambition, not any commitment to any issue- seems accurate to me.

As a Senator, she never voted against any military appropriation (no matter how wasteful and foolish). Either she is a committed militarist, or just wants to appear 'tough' (by voting against Boxer's amendment to the Missile defense -Star Wars- appropriation that would have required testing the system to make sure it actually worked before allocating another $50 billion for it.

Sure, Obama plays politics, too. But, he does not attract the venom that Hillary does. When he disappoints me, I'm disappointed, but I don't despise him.

I think there's more hope for progressives being welcomed to participate in an Obama administration- the Clintons exclude us and seem to consider us to be their enemies.

As a constituent in NY state, I have NEVER gotten a straght answer to any question I've asked Hillary's staffers.

There's something pathological about the Clintons and power.

It probably makes more sense to focus on supporting progressives running for Congress and locally and let the chips fall where they may in Denver. A stalemate could be interesting. Unity behind Edwards or Gore could be good for the Dems.

Hard to imagine Barack and Hillary working together in a campaign vs. McCain. But, we'll see.

elmeztisogordo,

If Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were running for president in 2008 it would be useful to compare their records.

Since Hillary and Obama are running for president in 2008, it is useful to compare their records. I have done so. Hillary is indeed much more progressive than Obama. In fact, there is very little about Obama's record that is progressive at all. See the link below for details.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8284/
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 1:28 pm

If CommonDreams were a progressive website, it would not be publishing lies about the more-progressive candidate (Hillary) and shilling for the less-progressive candidate (Obama).

common_cracker: Get bent

It is obvious
she is whoreking for the
repiglickins party of the
filthy rich
Like Lie berman

the political bigotry of the dems knows no limits--they even attack themslves.

Kernel: Running well for most people? What reality are you living in? NAFTA?
Bosnia? Somalia? Hillarycare? Give me a break!

BobK: Who empowered you to define progressive? Bill Clinton was the best
Repuglican the "Democrats" ever put in office...three shades to the right of Richard Nixon(look at the record). If "progressive" is embodied by
Hillary Clinton I need a new label(but, in fact, I don't...you do).

By the way, the obliterate Iran remark was based on the assumption that Iran attacked Israel with nukes. What would any politician say in response to such a hypothetical question? She could have ducked the question, or waffled in her answer, as she has always been accused of doing. She's damned if she does / doesn't. Why isn't Obama treated like this? Why did it take him 3 minutes to answer a simple question about a flag pin?

The Republicans already had all that Jeremiah Wright business in their kitty ready to unleash if Obama got the nom. Hillary didn't do that to him. Obama chose to have Wright as his spiritual advisor on his campaign. Should she have ignored this? Should any of us have ignored this? Obama would've been wise to let Hillary have her moment as he got his ducks in a row, got his chops in the Senate, created a record worthy of leadership and distanced himself from the incendiary Wright. It was Obama's folly to jump the gun instead of waiting eight short years to become the leader of a super power. Hillary would've handed him the Presidency on a silver platter after she fixed the economy during her two terms. But ego and ambition and poor advice led him into the political fray before he was ready. Personally I think Hillary should've gone negative much earlier. Obama would've been out of the race before Edwards, if Hillary's misguided campaign team had not tried to take the high road for so long.
Super delegates exist for a reason. It is very possible for Sen. Clinton to win the nomination if the SDs decide that Obama is not strong enough to defeat McCain. If in good conscience they give the nomination to Obama's opponent, they are doing their job. Those who bleat that this would be undemocratic and unfair just don't understand the system or the Democratic Party. How democratic is the caucus system, where the knight in shining armor picked up most of his so-called "pledged" delegates? If the convention were deadlocked, and after the 20th ballot the party turned to Al Gore, would that be democratic? Well sir, in my opinion, it would be divine justice, and it would certainly be in the best tradition of the DEMOCRATIC Party.

The Clinton administration tended to try to outflank the Republicans on their own issues- Welfare DE-form, NAFTA and others.

Hillary, early on, allowed Rupert Murdoch to hold a fud raiser for her. She cozied up to Newt Gingrich.

Her continued defense of her vote giving away the power to declare war, her "obliterate Iran" remark, her campaign's easy descent into attack mode make her unqualified.

The majority of wage earners didn't do well under Clinton. Their slide was less steep, that's all.

Doesn't matter which of the 3 get elected to finish off the destruction of the US. Might as well let the Republicans take the credit.

Tune out this farce of an election, and wake up. This is all a distraction to prevent you from waking up. If you believe those in power that did 9/11 are going to walk away and let you elect someone who might investigate and prosecute them, you are nuts.

And if you believe the official version of the events in 2001, you are brain dead. Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, it's not your fault. The education system, brainwashing by the MSM, chemicals in your food and water to make you docile, your overworked, distracted with economic woes or job worries, etc. But while you nod off on the highway driving 66 mph, your only hope is to wake up. Start with 2001, and it becomes clear.

If the title of Green's article had instead been "Get Out Hillary AND Barack", it would have been worth reading.

KEM- I think you might be right about Bojangles / Riverman ~ the writing "style" is the same.

What a discraceful article by DMG,this is a professor ????????
DELUDED WRITER,DELUDED COMMENTORS AND MOST OF ALL DELUDED SO CALLED DEMOCRATS !!!!
OUR US ELECTIONS HAVE EXCLUDED THIRD PARTIES THEY HAVE REDUCED US TO TWO PARTIES OWNWD BY THE SAME CORPORATE MONEY,AND NOW THEY HAVE EVEN EXCLUDED A ONE PARTY SYSTEM,VOTERS IN EITHER PARTY HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY PREVENTED FROM HAVING ACHOICE IN THE EXTREMLEY NARROW POINTS OF VIEW WITHIN THE PARTIES,BEFOR SUPER TUESDAY A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED SO THAT EVEN WITHIN THE PARTIES
WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE A CHANCE OF COMMING UP WITH A CANDIDATE THAT WOULD HAVE THE SECURITY AND WELL BEING OF AMERICA RATHER THAN THE SECURITY AND WELL BEING OF THE ZIONIST GANGSTERS !!!!!!!!!!

Pretend for a few minutes there were only two bloggers here, ~BOB K~ and ~BOJANGLES~ and we had to decide whom to vote for based upon their opinions. Which makes the best sense?

Bob K is 100% correct, Obama cannot defeat McCain. That's how it is. Read his 12:07pm post and actually think about what he's written.

Oh, BTW. ~BOJANGLES~ is actually our own ~RIVERMAN~ in disguise. And ~Canuckchuck~ is lying that Hillary says she will nuke Iran.

"President John McCain - Obamaniacs will be to blame!"

Rich Griffin,

Man, you just lost all respect I may have had for you.

Blaming something on a whole segment of the population for voting their beliefs and conscience is about as low as one can get. You must have a working crystal ball. Fear not, you're in very good company here.

Try something completely different. Don't vote. It only encourages them.

eRiCjD:

I see it, you do not.

yep.

scurvybro:

but could you manage to set that aside for just a moment and answer the question posed by Mr. Green?

The question is irrelevant. Why waste time arguing over something that is not- as in their positions ARE not reversed.

The process is working itself out as it should.

What a revealing piece of misogyny. "Prohibitive lead" - my foot!

Yes, let's turn it around: So if that male candidate had won all the major states, would a chorus of women make him quit because their champ wants to win the nomination??

The editors of Commondreams are clearly taking sides. This piece should never have been published.

Folks over there, the workings of a democracy is nothing you are familiar with, it seems. Why don't you just take your ubiquitous guns and fight it out instead. It seems like the natural thing for you to do. Then at least I wouldn't have to read pieces like this any more.

Those who think Mr. Green is unfair to Senator Clinton can locate more favourable coverage from the following excellent progressive sources:
Rush Limbaugh
Faux News and other Rupert Murdoch outlets
Various Mellon-Scaife publications.

For those who think Green is being hard on Hillary, read the article by Carl Bernstein, her biographer, on what he thinks a Clinton presidency would be like:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/

When I look at the Clintons, I have a sense of sorrow at a tragic loss of potential with both of them. There seems to be some deep flaw that exists in their mutual psyches that has caused them to fall short of what they could have been in their service to our national journey. Maybe it can be summed up by that sense of entitlement to lead that they both seem to possess, which is obscuring their ability to see the transformation in our politics that the public is really yearning for now. Yes, they suffered much from those who have, often unfairly, attacked them in the past, but they seem to have allowed a deep bitterness to somehow seep into their perception of all around them who are not with them, and it has colored their ability to see what they could contribute to our recovery from the disastrous Bush/Cheney administration.

I think that the most responsible move for Hillary and Bill to make, if they truly wanted to care for their party and our country, is to admit that the people have by now spoken sufficiently with their votes, that there is no way for her to overcome this lead in delegates, and that it is Obama's call for unity and change that represents the dominant spirit of the times. Sure, he's not perfect as a candidate, and there will be much for his campaign to overcome once the Republicans start their slime attacks. But neither will she be any better off in the general election, given her huge negatives. The Clintons now should put their considerable energy and skills into uniting the party, and ensuring his movement for change can build in strength across the country. Once the internal attacks on him end, we can unite around our understanding that we face huge challenges in the coming few years, and it will require a united public to face them. Without the coalescing of the obvious passion in these two great campaigns, setting a new direction for our country will be weakened, and a divided party will fail to overcome the regressive agenda once again. Divided, we once again fail.

I worry, as I see the tenacity of their hanging on, that their resolve may have instead hardened into an almost vindictive posture towards their own party. If she can't win, then they may be employing those gifts in these next months to ensure the party pays for their failure to see that she should be their nominee. They may end up making sure with their attacks on him that a Democrat can't possibly win in November. But maybe next time, they may be hoping, the party will see the light, after 4 more terrible years of the Bush agenda under McCain, and will turn again to her in 2012. Hope I'm wrong, and they come to their senses, and lead the effort to unify our energies in this crucial election.

No, Hillary, it's too late. Stay in, please.

The best thing that can happen at this point is President McCain.

Because he'll speed up the destruction of America. And the sooner we're destroyed, the sooner we can start over.

forbes magazine says the top 400 rich has a NET wealth of 1.6 trillion dollars..... that tax rebate coming to people averages about 500 dollars.. and that is HALF of 1 billion.. so americans NEED to tax this obsene wealth that has come at the expense of WE the people tax it had 50% and mail it to the people..

instead of 500 dollars coming .. it will be 800,000 !!

all americans should get together and demand this NOW.. do not vote for ANYONE unless they make a pledge and if they don't impeach them...

americans WAKE UP!!!!

Amen, GET OUT! Hillary and Limbaugh are ruining our chances.

It's telling that the Clinton supporters excoriating Mr. Green conspicuously avoid addressing his core question:

If Clinton's and Obama's positions in this race were reversed, would the Clintons and the Democratic party's machinery be clamoring for him to drop out?

Look, I know you Clinton supporters fervently believe that she is entitled to the nomination because of -- What? Inertia? Legacy? -- but could you manage to set that aside for just a moment and answer the question posed by Mr. Green?

re: standard divide and conquer strategy sLiMsHaDy wrote:

I see it, you do not.

sLiM, sOrRy fOr mY eArLiEr cOnFuSiOn aS tO yOuR iDeNtItY.

yOu'Re nOt bIlL cLiNtOn, yOu'Re nEo!!!

So won't the real Slim Shady please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?

All you Obamaniacs and Hillarions may as well hold your tongues, because it's too late.

Every four years you repeat the mantra, "Maybe some day we can afford to vote our consciences, but this time we must prevent the Republicans from winning." And so you argue over which primary candidate is the most "electable".

Let us be clear on this: There is no such thing as an unelectable candidate. A candidate is electable if you vote for him or her and persuade other people to do the same. If you render a candidate unelectable by withholding your vote on the grounds that he or she is unelectable, that's your choice, but don't complain about it afterward.

So in 2000 and again in 2004 you chose a colourless but "electable" twit, and cursed Ralph Nader as a "spoiler". And what did you gain? Bush won anyway (by means which have been adequately described elsewhere), and you taught the Democratic Party leadership that the Party doesn't have to do a damn thing for the people -- they need only refrain from some of the evils of the Republican Party, and you'll always come back for more. Now they're about to find out whether they can be shameless enablers of the Republican Party and you'll still come back for more.

If you had voted en masse for the Green Party in 2000, you would still have gotten Bush, but at least you would have given the Democratic Party a salutary shock. The purpose of a "third party" (a uniquely American creature, existing nowhere else that I know of) is not to win elections. Third parties cannot win elections, largely because the Americans have decided in advance that they cannot win elections. Their function is to inspire in politicians the one motive that will cause them to pretend harder to serve the public: fear of losing their power. What has the Democratic Party to fear now?

So, as the "unsinkable" Ship of State USS Barbaric raises its rear end to the world prior to gurgling into the abyss, you may as well find yourself a comfortable deck chair.

Billary is a spoiler trying the Tonya Harding trick. We all know Bill will not die if he is not returned as co-president to the White House, where he can pick up on his old habit of chasing interns.

Hillary is just like Mc Cain: inflicted by old age, which creates serious problems in differentiating fact from fiction - case in point, Mc Cain on Hamas and Hillary on Bosnia.

It time she left the race with the little dignity she has remaining.

This thread is so interesting - first a post for one candidate, then one for the other. And the vitriol! The harsh words! Who needs Republican slime-mongers when the Democrats do this to themselves?

Again and again I call for unity in the Democratic party. This two-way firing squad tears the party apart, slur by slur, doing Rove's job for him.

After the convention the time span will be so short till election that Rovain tactics will predominate. Now is the time for a strategical uniting, a voluntary collaboration, so that both candidates' supporters will be 'winners' and will stand together against the common enemy.

Hillary 2008-20016, then Jeb 2016-2024.

By that time, Chelsea will be of the minimum constitutional age of 35.

Followed, of course, by Barbara or Jenna.

Please, people. Keep it simple. We're Americans.

Let both of the candidates finish the primaries, please. We don't need even more people feeling disinfranchised like the people in Florida and Michigan.

I can't help but remember Bill saying---"I'm only going to say this once"---the rest is history. We need some new rules that apply for those relocating to other states and running for political office in that state. While on the subject of serving, how about some term limits? Let some new people get in there. Politics should be more of a duty taken on for a short time, not a career spanning decades. Why are we funding these people with "The Real Lifes of the Rich and Famous"? Are we going to have this "All in the Family" routine again and again? One other thing, it is my opinion that any candidate for office, that is already serving in an elected capacity, must resign that office to seek higher office or lateral office, unless they have already completed their original term. While all these guys and gals are out there running for the big job, who is minding the store? Oh, I forgot, they are staying in touch by cell fone. By the way, does anyone know how many days out of the average month, the congress is actually there and working?

Finally all in one place. I think it's remarkable that people are saying Obama hasn't beaten her, so she should keep doing all of the vile things she's doing. Hasn't beaten her??? We're talking about the woman with a 30% lead in national polls a year ago! Now she's behind. She has completely LOST a sure-thing lead...why? Not because she did anything particularly wrong or dumb, but because people don't like her, don't trust her, and he came along with a refreshing idea of what politics COULD be in this country. Her hate machine has kept people confused enough that she's not out, but look at the reality, the larger picture, she's in an almost unwinnable position after being a virtual LOCK and now she's selling herself on "not quitting", it borders on the absurd.

Im not defending anybody, I am just saying that I have to thank Mrs. Clinton for getting my boyfriend to register to vote.

He believes in her health care plan, and her ability to get things done because she has a decent track record as first lady. Then again, he is studying to be a doctor... *spare me the failed hilarycare stuff, I know and don't care--everyone fails*

I am in agreement that she is being an incredibly poor sport about the election, and i fear that she'll pull a Roosevelt (which got Wilson elected--not that Wilson was a bad president, in fact I think he was a pretty good one), but she isn't playing dirty--she's still in the limitations of the game, just because other candidates weren't willing to foot the bill, doesn't mean that that she's a bad person.

Really, if it you dream when you were a little kid to some day be president and then all of the sudden you had the opportunity to do it, would you want to fight the "inevitable" or would you deny yourself your dream? So what she's had a good track record, she hasn't fullfilled her "self-actualization" and I don't think it is actually admirable that we have a candidate that is determined to really follow her dream. That kind of dedication... isn't that a good thing for a president to have?

People say her dedication is selfishly motivated, but I have a more sneaking feeling that it is aimed at her real care to improve A)the livelihood of our children B) reducing outsourcing to keep the stability of employment...

Words are Important- I am on the same page as you are.

oh- and the "edit" function on this site McSucks!!! LOL

people need to understand whats going on here....

the world is being CLEANSED of their greed types by america.. america has set up a system where they can make people be slaves and live in misery but they will get rich from doing so..

and more and more the wise will leave to canada as the greed types of canada come here....

all this makes canada and the other countrys much better for we the people.. and makes america closer to a total destruction episode from the greed exploding an area..

its like how an explosion works... once the greed level gets so high there is a explosion...

Fleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Eric J-D, and others-

You miss the point entirely. Apparently caucasians that do not vote for Sen. Obama are racists according to the Obamarama crue because Barack really is the new Jesus and he knows everything and he doesn't have to spell anything out- it must all be assumed on faith.

While I can readily understand the support of african-americans for the first viable african-american candidate, I feel it is just a trick by the PTBs to further marginalize the african-american and likely democratic party vote at a time when it can not be afforded. And SOOoooo many are falling for it.

Just as I was left gasping in disbelief that ANYONE could even mildly support another bush in office way back in 2000, I stand absolutely dumbfounded that the people/sheeple are being led by the nose AGAIN so that everything continues on the McSame insane path that we have been put on.

Similarly, regarding the sexism and the victimhood statement, it is all a distraction doing as it was intended, to divide and conquer. I see it, you do not. I will blame "you" and your ilk for the debacle to come.

And finally, to answer the two stupid questions you put forth, no, no I am not. and NO.

Eric J-D, and others-

You miss the point entirely. Apparently caucasians that do not vote for Sen. Obama are racists according to the Obamarama crue because Barack really is the new Jesus and he knows everything and he doesn't have to spell anything out- it must all be assummed on faith.

And finally, to answer the two stupid questions you put forth, no, no I am not. and NO.

While I can readily understand the support of african-americans for the first viable african-american candidate, I feel it is just a trick by the PTBs to further marginalize the african-american and likely democratic party vote at a time when it can not be afforded. And SOOoooo many are falling for it.

Just as I was left gasping in disbelief that ANYONE could even mildly support another bush in office way back in 2000, I stand absolutely dumbfounded that the people/sheeple are being led by the nose AGAIN so that everything continues on the McSame insane path that we have been put on.

Similarly, regarding the sexism and the victimhood statement, it is all a distraction doing as it was intended to divide and conquer. I see it, you do not. I will blame "you" and your ilk for the debacle to come.

the wise will now be moving out of the usa.. mostly to a conservative province in canada.. big harm is coming to the masses of americans..

americans have been dumded down by the robber barons and now the masses could care less if they vote for monsters or hitlers just so long as they satisfy their brainwashing feeling..

the democrat party the robber barons came to brainwash the feminists and abortionists.... women are given a quality of unconditional love cause they must love all their children each TYPE of child.. the robber barons has brainwashed them into taking feminism and abortion as THEIR CHILDREN and now they give unconditional love for people who seem strongest on these 2 issues...

on the right christians have been brainwashed about sociaism and equality.. both are the foundation blocks of true christianity.. socialism is true christianity!! so these people vote for people agaist equality of benefits and respect...

america is a magnet for the worlds GREED.. we will cleanse the world of its greed types.. they will come HERE.. a chance to become rich IF one makes slaves out of the people .. this

so america is becoming the bulls eye of the worlds greed and then destruction will come HERe.. just part of the natural law process.. but will be very painful here so best to move to canada and then come back after the destruction..

the clintons with a PROVEN record against the interests of 95% americans getting that many votes tells you people are just so dumded down that there is no hope or chance to save america... and let natural law work its natural way of destruction.. then we can move back...

time to FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

the wise will now be moving out of the usa.. mostly to a conservative province in canada.. big harm is coming to the masses of americans..

americans have been dumded down by the robber barons and now the masses could care less if they vote for monsters or hitlers just so long as they satisfy their brainwashing feeling..

the democrat party the robber barons came to brainwash the feminists and abortionists.... women are given a quality of unconditional love cause they must love all their children each TYPE of child.. the robber barons has brainwashed them into taking feminism and abortion as THEIR CHILDREN and now they give unconditional love for people who seem strongest on these 2 issues...

on the right christians have been brainwashed about sociaism and equality.. both are the foundation blocks of true christianity.. socialism is true christianity!! so these people vote for people agaist equality of benefits and respect...

america is a magnet for the worlds GREED.. we will cleanse the world of its greed types.. they will come HERE.. a chance to become rich IF one makes slaves out of the people .. this

so america is becoming the bulls eye of the worlds greed and then destruction will come HERe.. just part of the natural law process.. but will be very painful here so best to move to canada and then come back after the destruction..

the clintons with a PROVEN record against the interests of 95% americans getting that many votes tells you people are just so dumded down that there is no hope or chance to save america... and let natural law work its natural way of destruction.. then we can move back...

time to FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." ~ Hillary Clinton February 2007

No one should be telling Hillary to get out. The fact that the convention is in August and there are still primaries, no one should be forced out.

Of course, she didn't speak up (nor Obama) when Kucinich and Mike Gravel was excluded from the debates. Interesting.

Don't mistake me for a Hillary supporter, I think that she is the worst candidate of them all (even McCain) and how she became a democratic contender would be a mystery until I remind myself what the democratic party leadership is about.

Who will the democrats vote for? There are some of us who won't accept the "Anybody but McCain" as a reason to vote for a democrat. And the democratic party leadership should remember that 'Anybody but Bush' didn't work in the last two elections.

PS - Bill Clinton was not a noteworhty president. The fact that some people were better off financially should not be translated automatically to mean that he was a better leader for prinicples of peace and justice. Far from it.

so it goes...

Eric J-D, I really like your posts. Especially your point that Presidents do not dictate economic policy. That comes from above the Presidency. The Gini quotient has been rising for 30 years, although admittedly most rapidly during the Clinton administration. So I would say there is some Presidential influence involved.

Hillary Clinton comes from the privileged class and Bill has made every effort to forget his roots. Obama hasn't forgotten or abandoned his roots. Of course he hasn't been in politics very long either. Maybe time is a factor. So maybe we should elect him before he has time to be corrupted. Of course, some people don't get corrupted. Names like Lincoln come to my mind.

jgabree, the Democrats may be free to pile on McCain, but so far, Hillary has been interested only in piling on Obama, much to the detriment of the Democrats. McCain's been getting away with redefining himself, much to his advantage. I do agree the nominating process should go on to the last primary, but I would much rather see the Democrats turn on McCain instead of each other, and let the electorate decide which one is better at going after him instead of which one is better at going after another Democrat. Who is the real enemy here? Is that all the Democrats can do is eat their own young?

kathyodat

This article seems to forget some important truths. Having a former President for a family member does have certain advantages--were the woman named Kennedy, or Reagan, she too would be treated with more indulgence than most otherwise similarly qualified women by party power brokers.

Added to that, the collective markers "Ol Spongebill no pants" (I like that characterization!) can call in and you have a formidible advantage. The entire point for most people (including Barack let's be honest!) running for political office is so that they can sell their influence to the highest bidder and the people they are suppossed to represent can all go to hell.

If the situation was reversed it would be Billary saying that Obama is a traitor to the Democrats.
She wouldnt be saying he has a right to stay in.
That's the joke here.

The best candidates are still two the Ralphs. Nader and Wiggum.

But Obama IS more promising than Clinton.
You would have to be retarded not to see that, especially with what she has done in the last couple of months, throwing the race issue around, threatening Iran. Just pathetic.