I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.
I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.
Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators. Read the article in its entirety.
that demythologizes both sides in this contentious primary campaign. As an Obama partisan myself, I find myself often being sidetracked into personality issues when what you present here speaks eloquently to what must be considered.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM
once you have posted the same derivative virus a dozen times or more. It's time to exercise whatever imagination you can muster to say what you think now, not what you think three months ago. I can already tell you what you think three monthe ago, and you're simply dumping some fog for readers to scroll past on their way to someting to pique their imagination.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 5:32:00 PM
Polls released yesterday show the majority of REPUBLICANS and the majority of DEMOCRATS believe HILLARY CLINTON would be the weaker opponent. As for your long list of BILL CLINTON accomplishments, I agree, he was the best President - times were good for this country when BILL CLINTON was President, but YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT if you think HILLARY should get credit for his accomplishments.
LET'S BE REAL NOW....IT'S MORE THAN OBVIOUS TO THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO THE STRONGER OPPONENT WOULD BE.
by
Viki (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 49 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 6:03:46 AM
Some of you are living in a dream world. A Hillary/Barack ticket would be "unbeatable!???" Are you serious? I know many who have told me, point blank, that they absolutely will not vote for a woman, and many who are as adamant about not voting for a black man. Who, pray tell, would a Clinton/Obama ticket benefit? John McCain, that's who. The GOP would not fear; it would rejoice.
I am glad that you brought up the Bill Clinton presidency and the ways in which it benefited this country because my initial reaction to this article was, "but wait a minute, who says one must have ANY senate experience at all to be an effective president?" Bill Clinton never sat in the senate. Neither did the two Roosevelts, Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan. In fact, in numerous polls over the last 60 years, of the 5 presidents rated best, only Harry Truman served in the senate. However, those presidents deemed worst - W.H. Harrison, Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson and Harding - all had been senators.
This November, regardless of who is elected, it will be only the third time in our nation's history that an incumbent senator has been elected president. Indeed, the 44th president will be only the 16th with any senate experience. That is why in this election year, I am more concerned with the character, demeanor, honesty and vision of the candidates than I am about how many bills they sponsored, co-sponsored, or voted on. When John Edwards left the race, I had to reevalute the candidates and choose the one who most closely shared his vision for America. If I were to vote for a senator solely on the measures of tenure and prolificacy, I would have to "cross the aisle" and vote for McCain, and that "ain't gonna happen."
by
TennMom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 6:43:11 PM
THATS GOING ON RIGHT HERE IS WHY WE ARE IN THE MESS WE ARE IN NOW, WHAT ABOUT GETTING BEHIND SOMEONE THATS NOT A GLOBALIST PAWN, AND IS A PEOPLES CANDIDATE, NO NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. MISERY LIKES COMPANY.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 12:58:03 AM
AND HE IS WILLING TO GIVE THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION, WITH OUT GREED, AND WANTING TO CHANGE THE WORLD JUST HELP WE THE PEOPLE GET BACK WHAT BUSH AND CHENEY AND NEOCON'S STOLE FROM US OUR CONSTITUTION AND THATS RON PAUL. AND THE AMERICA VOTERS ARE FOOLING THEM SELFS TO THINK OTHER WISE.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 9:38:43 AM
I'm familiar with Libertarian philosophy, and it was probably good for America in 1790. That philosophy, while entertaining some common sense monetary policies, is socially unevolved. It's still a case of every man for himself, which anarchy does just as well.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 1:31:57 PM
Thank you for some level headed, no nonsense facts that those destractors refuse to look at.
You left out that on the Supreme Court we are looking at Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is a consumate Judge. She is on SCOTUS because of Bill Clinton.
I have been screaming for a year to look at the Senate voting record.
Records are sota like belong to a political party. If a Republican is pro-labor, pro-public education, pro-graduated income tax, pro-Social Security, pro-National single pay health insurance policy, he is lying because the Republican Party is against these things.
If two Senators say they are active in their support of programs and the their voting record is not there, they are lying. Voting records count.
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 8:59:14 AM
16 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
