It's not Hillary's to lose...

Tommy T

According to the Rasmussen polls she has a lead over Obama in all the large delegate numbered States. It's a done deal. Unless edwards throws a spanner in the works and endorses Obama that is...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/most_recent_rasmussen_reports_primary_polling

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

According to the Rasmussen polls she has a lead over Obama in all the large delegate numbered States. It's a done deal. Unless edwards throws a spanner in the works and endorses Obama that is...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/most_recent_rasmussen_reports_primary_polling

your overconfidence is laughable. Look at California. A 3% lead. with a margin of error of how much? And Oprah coming out to campaign for him there tomorrow. In the largest state - delelgate wise - in the country. It's far from a done deal.
Hillary is favourite - no doubt - but I expect it to be close.

Clinton had almost 50% in california in all previous polls. Now down to 43.

Manic Moran

The only big states she has sewn up seem to be NY and NJ. And I wouldn't consider states like IL, OH or WA, who are apparently leaning Obama's way to be particularly small. I don't think it's over next week.

NTM

Tommy T

Mathmatically it may stll be a contest but Hillary will have a commanding lead and only a matter of time...

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

Mathmatically it may stll be a contest but Hillary will have a commanding lead and only a matter of time...

are you brainwashed?
Either that or you're a puppet controlled by Mrs Clinton herself.
That is a statement above with no basis. You can't tell the future.

whatawaster

Manic Moran wrote: »

The only big states she has sewn up seem to be NY and NJ. And I wouldn't consider states like IL, OH or WA, who are apparently leaning Obama's way to be particularly small. I don't think it's over next week.

NTM

Another point to consider is the breakdown of districts within states. In New York for instance Hillary will win comfortably probably. But Obama should take a lot of the districts with large african american groups. Therefore the actual delegate breakdown will be rather closer than results or polls might suggest.
California will be huge. The gap has closed in the last week.

oscarBravo

whatawaster wrote: »

are you brainwashed?
Either that or you're a puppet controlled by Mrs Clinton herself.

Careful now.

ghostdancer

California: Clinton has blown a huge lead, and now with the LA Times and La Opinion (largest Spanish language paper in the country and 2nd most read in LA after the times) endorsements, that's sure to put Obama up very close to her. I'm sceptical to the power of Oprah and Ted Kennedy out there at the moment. I'd imagine that Clinton will win the popular vote, but the fact that she was so far ahead, and that now seems to have dwindled dramatically, is pretty embarassing for her campaign. It's worth noting that she was spending almost the whole weekend in CA, while Obama was all over the country, indicating to me, that the Clinton campaign isn't too sure of themselves here.

NJ: there's no doubt that Obama is trending upwards over the last 2 weeks. Clinton has blown a 30 point lead over Obama from 2/3 weeks ago, down to on average, a 6/7 point lead, with yesterday's Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll putting her at 1 point lead over Obama w/ 14 undecided. again, she should take the state's popular vote, but such a big collapse over the last few weeks is a major slip up.

NY: Clinton should take this by 15% of the popular vote, anything less will be a disaster. Obama will be looking to be to take good chunks of delegates in NYC and the metro area. Clinton should easily carry upstate NY, but it's hardly delegate rich. she should take a bigger chunk of delegates, but I think anything less than 3:2 in delegate numbers here is a big problem for Clinton.


so those are the three you've dealt with in your OP. no surprise that you've declined to discuss states like Illinois, Georgia, which are pretty big, where Obama is expected to comfortably lead, but i wouldn't expect anything less.


Clinton should take more delegates than him on Tuesday, she needs a lead of 200 to have it sewn up IMO. less than 100 will be a big problem for her.

Tommy T

Why are some of you in so much denial here..?

A look at the voter bases of both candidates tells you all you need to know. Hiollary's bases of women, over 40's and white working classes trumps Obama's young, male and black voters everytime when it comes to those who actually take the trouble to turn out and vote.

Given this in the big delegate States with the young, male and black support factored into the polls supporting Obama and Hillary still has a lead. The only result in Hillary coming out on top with a comfortable delegate lead on Wednesday...

ghostdancer

how did the overwhelmingly (91%) white state of Iowa vote again Tommy? I'll give you a clue, the winner's name began with "B" and ended with "arack".

South Carolina - 68% white, 30% black. By your logic (which let's face it, is laughably incorrect), not only should Clinton have comfortably won this, but black voters would have stayed at home. oh, except that didn't happen. how did that turn out again? 55% Obama, 27% Clinton.

let's not forget that she hasn't actually won any statesin terms of delegates yet. Obama has won 3, and drawn 1. and as the Clinton camp has said, "it's all about delegates".

so basically your little theory there is wrong.

now, what exactly are the big delegate states? California is the largest, where Clinton has spectacularly lost a huge lead, and Obama is now basically level. i know you're trying to convince yourself that she has a large lead here, but all the evidence says otherwise, right down to her spending the whole weekend there.
next largest is New York, where she's a senator, and is up about 15/20 according to polls.
next is Illinois, where obama's a senator. where he's up a good 20/25.
so the 3 biggest are pretty evenly split between the 2.
after that NJ seems to be giving Clinton a slight lead, although that is quickly dwindling, Mass. goes comfortably to Clinton, Georgia comfortably to Obama.
so the top 6 states are pretty much even.

you say that the only result is Clinton coming out with a comfortable delegate lead, but you've absolutely no idea.
few would doubt that she'll take more delegates on Tuesday, but most would question your frankly ludicrous claims that she's going to walk it. even the Clinton campaign themselves have said that they see it going on past Tuesday.
but hey, don't let facts and figures get in the way of your fairytale. just keep on throwing out your ideas, no need to bother responding to any of the points raised by anyone throughout the thread, right?

so much denial? it's called realism and reason. you've heard of it, right?

Tommy T

Its quite simple mate. Given the polls we have to hand with the young, male and Black voters factored in Hillary has a lead in NY, CA, NJ and Mass. Given that these voters mentioned do not vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars its therefore obvious that Hillary will have a comfortable lead on wednesday.

If I'm wrong I'll be the first to hold my hand up but I believe the figures rather than a media talking about a neck and neck battle that's based in their wishes rather than reality...

ghostdancer

your simplistic view of the methodology of polls, and your complete lack of account for demographic and cultural make-up of states, and your (wrong) assumption that Obama's only base is young,male AND black, whereas Clinton's is any of the 3 mentioned, makes this not even worth my while, especially since you haven't even bothered trying to respond to the points put forward not only by me, but others.

no-one seems to be saying that's it's neck and neck, or that Obama will win. we're just amused that you actually believe that Clinton will easily walk away with enough delegates to have the whole thing completely sewn up, come Wednesday.
if you're right, then well done, but it flies in the face of what pretty much every informed commentator is saying, as well as both the Obama and Clinton camps themselves.

ghostdancer

while i'm here, Clinton took in 10million in January, Obama took in 32million.
more info on the overall state of campaign finances:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=423

Tommy T

If its not worth your while to respond then don't bother.. I'll lose no sleep either way.

Fact is Black, young and male voters don't vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars. Past elections have shown this time and time again. If you want to bury your head in the sand and wish it to be different then fine.

Hillary will come out with a comfortable delegate lead 200+ come wednesday...

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

If its not worth your while to respond then don't bother.. I'll lose no sleep either way.

Fact is Black, young and male voters don't vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars. Past elections have shown this time and time again. If you want to bury your head in the sand and wish it to be different then fine.

Hillary will come out with a comfortable delegate lead 200+ come wednesday...

Perhaps young black voters have never been inspired to come out and vote like they will this time around. As has been said already, you're views here are blinkered beyond belief (this is not an insult, merely an observation). It's like being on the Religion board.

And I deeply resent the warning i got for the above post. I was merely asking a question and was genuinely curious.

Manic Moran

Another point to consider is the breakdown of districts within states.

That's an excellent point. California's delegates are awarded by Congressional District, not by simple proportion. It is quite possible to win the popular vote, but lose in terms of delegates, much like in Nevada. For example, let's say you have a very good lead in San Francisco. As a high-density area, a 1% lead is a sizeable number of voters, and skews the polls in favour of you. But it's still only one delegate. On the other hand, the other candidate might have a 1% lead in Nevada County, with a population of 300 persons, seventy dogs, and 48 beavers. (Or something like that). It's still one delegate, even though the 'lead' is negligible in terms of state-wide poll numbers. I have no idea which candidate is leading in the high-density areas.

NTM

Jack Sheehan

According to the polls quoted in the OP Obama now has a tiny LEAD over Clinton.

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

Perhaps young black voters have never been inspired to come out and vote like they will this time around. As has been said already, you're views here are blinkered beyond belief (this is not an insult, merely an observation). It's like being on the Religion board.

And I deeply resent the warning i got for the above post. I was merely asking a question and was genuinely curious.

I know nothing of your warning however i am neither brainwashed nor a puppet.

I am a Hillary fan and am confidtent in her ability to come out of tsunami tueaday with a healthy delegate lead given the make up of both candidates support bases...

whatawaster

Looks like the Rasmussan report that you cited above now show Obama leading in California. Odd. I thought it was all over.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

Looks like the Rasmussan report that you cited above now show Obama leading in California. Odd. I thought it was all over.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Meet the Press this morning quoted a poll giving Hillary a 9 point lead in CA... But even taking the latest rasmussen figures that would give Hillary a 5 point win in my view given the solidity of her voting machine compared to Obama's base... A Hillary win in CA is still well on the cards...

ghostdancer

a Hilary win by less than 5 points is a massive slip up.

i think she'll win CA by a few percent, but if i was her, i'd be pretty pissed off with that, considering the massive lead she had.

Tommy T

ghostdancer wrote: »

a Hilary win by less than 5 points is a massive slip up.

i think she'll win CA by a few percent, but if i was her, i'd be pretty pissed off with that, considering the massive lead she had.

But it will be a huge psychological fill-up for her to the win. Perception is often as important than reality. With the Obama surge in the last 10 days with the media playing it up for all their worth a Clinton victory will take alot of the air out of him...

banquo

There's no way it's over this tuesday night. Although I can't wait; popcorn, cushions etc already set up.

Tommy T

banquo wrote: »

There's no way it's over this tuesday night. Although I can't wait; popcorn, cushions etc already set up.

It's going to be fun alright... I should have taken wednesday morning off work...!

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

It's going to be fun alright... I should have taken wednesday morning off work...!

perhaps we should all book dentist appointments for wednesday morning!

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

perhaps we should all book dentist appointments for wednesday morning!

Ah yes. The old canals need rooting...;)

is_that_so

This piece goes into the PR system they use to work out delegates and I thought ours was complicated. It may also favour Clinton as she seems better able to get her vote out. The fact that it appear to go down to almost district level suggests that any polls are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Even so it won't be over for a while yet. That could backfire on the Dems especially if McCain becomes the GOP nominee after tomorrow. From the bloodletting that was the GOP race, all of a sudden they would have a candidate who could start campaigning for President now.

A complicated read for a Monday morning. Enjoy!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNE1UOVB1.DTL

ghostdancer

desperate times call for desperate measures....again. :rolleyes:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html

snow scorpion

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

According to the polls quoted in the OP Obama now has a tiny LEAD over Clinton.

And those polls were taken before Hillary went on national television Sunday and promised that, if elected, she will garnish the wages of anyone who doesn't buy into government run health care.

/you know ... she's not really as smart as the press says she is.

FatherTed

The polls are trending more toward to O'Bama and Clinton is slipping badly. Of course they're only polls. Anything could happen today.

In any case, I voted early this morning in Connecticut. Interesting to note that there was a line of about 20 people waiting to vote Dem while nobody in the Repub line. Also in CT, O'Bama was at top of the form while Hillary near the bottom after Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich etc. I think they draw the order out of a hat.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

I think they draw the order out of a hat.

I believe that's how they do it here in CA as well.

NTM

RonMexico

Tommy T wrote: »

I know nothing of your warning however i am neither brainwashed nor a puppet.

I am a Hillary fan and am confidtent in her ability to come out of tsunami tueaday with a healthy delegate lead given the make up of both candidates support bases...

I have a feeling you are going to be wrong. All the momentum is with Obama. Clinton is losing ground fast. Obama will pass her in the end and secure the nomination.

Manic Moran

So, Tom, is it worth asking if you voted today (I don't know what State you're in), and if so, who you voted for?

NTM

is_that_so

RonMexico wrote: »

I have a feeling you are going to be wrong. All the momentum is with Obama. Clinton is losing ground fast. Obama will pass her in the end and secure the nomination.

He may well do. Not being able to vote(wrong nationality) I find myself wondering what he actually stands for. Of late all I have heard him say is "Change" and "our time has come". While these are very attractive it does prompt a number of questions.

If Bush had been less than abysmal and divisive as president would people even be looking at him?

How damaging and problematic will it be for the Democrats to have this going on until June?

Has he actually got any real substance?

A BBC pundit made an interesting comment. Obama looks good on TV but sounds dull on radio whereas Hillary is the opposite. I have listened to him on a number of occasions and he is charismatic to an extent. But we all know where charismsa got us. :rolleyes:

Even so I have to say, that of the candidates on either side, IMO he is the greatest waffler. He sounds good but there isn't a lot there at all as far as I can see. A speech from Delaware the other day sounded like someone had raided a host of pop songs. I wouldn't be convinced by him just yet.

RonMexico

Just heard on the radio that last year on the O'Reilly factor they asked people what they thought of Barack Obama and some replied that he should be hunted down to whatever cave he is hiding in. They thought he was a terrorist

snow scorpion

I find myself wondering what he [Obama] actually stands for. Of late all I have heard him say is "Change" and "our time has come".

I've noticed that, too. And for that matter, the same observation applies to Hillary.

RonMexico

There is very little difference between Hillary & Obama in terms of the issues. Clinton can't shake off that her vote helped Dubya plunder Iraq. Obama was against it from the start. She talks about experience but what use is it when you make the wrong decision?

ghostdancer

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

ghostdancer

RonMexico wrote: »

There is very little difference between Hillary & Obama in terms of the issues. Clinton can't shake off that her vote helped Dubya plunder Iraq. Obama was against it from the start. She talks about experience but what use is it when you make the wrong decision?

Clinton's "experience" is laughable to be honest.
15 years as a first lady when your most notable events are trying to pass health reforms that failed miserably, and then standing by your unfaithful husband, does not experience make.

neither is being a partner in a corporate law firm.

she's been an elected official for 7 years. barack obama has been an elected official for 11.
the fact that clinton pretends that she has experience, yet her achievements are few and far between, and her judgment/awareness during this time is seriously questionable, to me makes her whole "experience" point redundant.

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. One of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

Clinton's "experience" is laughable to be honest.
15 years as a first lady when your most notable events are trying to pass health reforms that failed miserably, and then standing by your unfaithful husband, does not experience make.

neither is being a partner in a corporate law firm.

she's been an elected official for 7 years. barack obama has been an elected official for 11.
the fact that clinton pretends that she has experience, yet her achievements are few and far between, and her judgment/awareness during this time is seriously questionable, to me makes her whole "experience" point redundant.

As a First Lady she wasn't just a wallflower. Many of those ambitious health reforms were gutted by Congress.

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. On of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

much of his campaign, like every other candidates is indeed based around soundbytes, as Joe Public aren't bothered to look up the details of where candidates stand on issues, or how the candidates differ.

he lacks experience? really? lawyer, activist, state senator, US senator. seems pretty experienced to me.
it certainly beats lawyer - wife of politician - US senator, in the experience front.
take your qualms about the media to them. both have been tested to the same degree so it's really the media's fault if their testing of candidates doesn't satisfy you.

no-one doubts he is a great speaker, but many are aware that behind those speeches are a proven track record in the Illinois state senate, and US senate, with a proven history of delivering on what was promised (eg. Children's healthcare in Illinois, federal spending transparency, civil rights law reform, etc.), which is far more comprehensive than Clinton, not least backed by better judgment and proven achievement when compared to her.

his rhetoric is backed by achievements. her is not.

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

As a First Lady she wasn't just a wallflower. Many of those ambitious health reforms were gutted by Congress.

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

As you pointed out yourself you might take the trouble to look. Most of what she has done has been involved with children's and women's advocacy. Not sexy or necessarily something to boast about but still worthwhile. As for the heath bills,ambitious - yes, foolish - maybe, but it was the good old vested interests including the GOP that did for them.

RonMexico

is_that_so wrote: »

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. One of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

All this talk of experience is laughable when you think of the idiot who is in charge now.

snow scorpion

ghostdancer wrote: »

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

Why do we have to go looking up his positions? Isn't he supposed to be telling us his positions? Isn't that the whole point of the campaign?

snow scorpion

ghostdancer wrote: »

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

ghostdancer is right. Hillary has no experience being a leader. Her husband has the experience.

Even on her website http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ she doesn't list her experience. (Who would think "35 years of experience" would take up so little room on a website? )

Manic Moran

Dave Ross, a syndicated radio commentator, made an observation in his broadcast yesterday which touches upon your recent comments.

I'm trying to find a download, but he asked the listener a number of questions on the candidates, such as "which candidate believes the following" or "what is the difference between Obama's and Hillary's plans for healthcare reform?"

Basically, questions the half of which I didn't know the answers. He admitted he needed to look up some of them himself.

He then asked.. "OK, which candidate is a woman, and a former first lady? Which candidate served his country, was a POW, and rides the 'straight talk express?' Which candidate is a mormon?" and so on.

He finishes with the question: "And we tell ourselves we're voting on the issues!?"

NTM

RonMexico

Barack Obama: The Issues

IRAQ: Opposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

IMMIGRATION: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

ECONOMY: Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. The plan also includes $45 billion in reserves that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Would provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen. Would extend and expand unemployment insurance.

HEALTH CARE: Would create a national health insurance program for individuals who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Allows individuals to choose between the new public insurance program or from among private insurance plans that meet certain coverage standards. Requires employers who do not provide health coverage for employees to pay into the national health insurance program. Does not mandate individual coverage for all Americans, but requires coverage for all children. Allows individuals below age 25 to be covered through their parents' plans. Cost estimated between $50 billion and $65 billion, to be paid for by eliminating Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000.

ENVIRONMENT: Would implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists. Would make the United States a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading anew international global warming partnership. Would establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. Would create a Technology Transfer program within the Department of Energy dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries. Would offer incentives to maintain forests globally and manage them sustainably. Would develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

As you pointed out yourself you might take the trouble to look. Most of what she has done has been involved with children's and women's advocacy. Not sexy or necessarily something to boast about but still worthwhile. As for the heath bills,ambitious - yes, foolish - maybe, but it was the good old vested interests including the GOP that did for them.

yeah, and of that children's and women's advocacy, she wasn't the one passing it into law, let alone whether any of those bills even eventually got passed into law. that's because she wasn't an elected official, she was just the wife of the president. the keyword there is "involved". yes, she may have been "involved", but being involved doesn't get things through Congress.



i'll repost something i found on another forum which i found interesting:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

That's her record folks. Her record before that was a failed Health care initiative as first lady. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no experience.

ghostdancer

snow scorpion wrote: »

Why do we have to go looking up his positions? Isn't he supposed to be telling us his positions? Isn't that the whole point of the campaign?

i've heard him numerous times tell his positions and plans, as i have with hillary clinton, and numerous other candidates.
unfortunately, it's too hard to go into detail about plans or track records in interviews, or televised debates, or campaign speeches, because the average person doesn't care a huge amount, and just wants some easy-to-digest facts or positions that they can understand without using to much brain-power.