Re: Bill Clinton: Obama Ignores Accomplishments

In article <iojgs35ev3qeagd6l37as668eb9lju1sht@xxxxxxx>,
jimstevens <jimstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Default] On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:10:38 -0800,  sordo @privacy.org
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:33:09 -0800, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jimstevens wrote:
Is this slime? Is this slinging mud? Come on Paul and Rita. Call it
sliming things eh?

Better just filter me if you don't want to hear a lot more straight
facts. Run like hell and hide under your rocks.


Clinton: Obama Ignores Accomplishments
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iq-qZCodhvmt3NX13kj9ugZRvaRgD8UR5TB00
By MICHAEL GRACZYK ? Feb 15, 2008

---[snip]---

You have got to be kidding! You simply don't get it, probably because
you have this warped idea that everything is fair game in politics,
including fear mongering, swiftboating, lying, and personal attacks.

Let me try to explain. Obama is the youngest candidate with the least
experience in Washington and it is totally understandable that the issue
of experience vs. inexperience will come up in the campaign. And, there
is nothing wrong with a debate around whether Hillary's experience or
Barack's fresh views are more important. In the end, the voters will
select one of them and the party will come together to join the best of
both.

When I look at their actual accomplishments in the Senate, however, and
compare them to McCain (actually the important comparison), I see an
enormous difference. If any of the candidates deserves to be
criticized, it is McCain, the undisputed underachiever of the three in
the Senate over the past two sessions.

But, there is more. One topic that both Hillary and Barack agree on is
that McCain only offers more of the failed policies of George Bush. For
all the vaulted claims of differences between McCain and Bush, McCain
voted with the Republican majority and votes now (when he bothers to
show up) with the Republican minority most of the time.

So, pimp the spin about Obama all you want. You have been called on the
issues and cannot support your arguments.

One thing is certain. We will have a Democrat in the White House, less
than a year from now and with a little luck we will also have a 60/40
majority in the Senate.

And that will be because the American public is damn tired of Republican
incompetence, arrogance, corruption and the slimy politics that put them
in office.

Is there anything this man can't spin?

Inquiring minds need to know !

Paul becomes irrelevant to what I consider daily. I tried to have
some civil conversation and am not interested in having someone draw
little boxes that lead to their own conclusions. I am interested in
what folks are reading or finding interesting beyond the bull***
partisan talking points. Asking what Obama's accomplishments are for
some 25 adult years seems pretty non-partisan to me. He can call my
question slime all day long but his responses to the basic question
would have stood on their own. Any reader could have accepted or
ignored anything I may have said in response. Rather insecure I guess
if he can't just allow his response to stand on its own.

There are some lists of Obama's accomplishments that would have made
some interesting discussions and perhaps helped define Obama better. I
would think those who support him would want to help flesh out the guy
instead of allowing partisan items from the Hillary or McCain camp to
fill the void. Such are not what he was after. It was that
high-fiving bull*** with Rita that was his target money-shot.

I have a list of about 20 websites on technology, politics, history,
investing, and other topics I go-to for facts or points of view that I
may consider. I don't really care if the point of view is left or
right - as long as it presents facts and helps one think. I like to
share some here at times and they are not all in the same place
politically. It is up to me to come to my own conclusions and I don't
need folks to draw little boxes so they can beat their chest in some
victory dance. F*** em.

Irrelevant spin from Paul I don't consider.
He has a Bachelors Degree in Political Science.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369&page=4
After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil
rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also
taught at the University of Chicago Law School. And he helped organize
voter registration drives during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential
campaign.

Obama published an autobiography in 1995 Dreams From My Father: A Story
of Race and Inheritance. And he won a Grammy for the audio version of
the book.

Obama's advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate as a
Democrat. He was elected in 1996 from the south side neighborhood of
Hyde Park.

During these years, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in
drafting legislation on ethics, expanded health care services and early
childhood education programs for the poor. He also created a state
earned-income tax credit for the working poor. And after a number of
inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law
enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and
confessions in all capital cases.

In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S.
House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate
Bobby Rush.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Obama was an early opponent of President
George W. Bush's push to war with Iraq. Obama was still a state senator
when he spoke against a resolution authorizing the use of force against
Iraq during a rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in October 2002.

[ He must be very insightful, since he seems to have agreed with me when
agreeing with me would have mattered. Back when going to war was the
last resort, but it would be quick and cheap.]

"I am not opposed to all wars. I¹m opposed to dumb wars," he said.
"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration
to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of
the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

"He¹s a bad guy," Obama said, referring to Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein. "The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without
him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to
the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in
shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and
that in concert with the international community he can be contained
until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin
of history."

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences," Obama continued. "I know that an invasion
of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international
support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the
worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the
recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

That should fill the gap, eh?
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369&page=5
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369&page=5

--
"I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_francis__080225_the_emerging_third_w.htm
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/10590469/c_10598910
.

Quantcast