Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Concerning Ms. Ferraro's Comments...

This is a post from someone on CNN.com. It speaks exactly to the double standard, and blatent dismissal of Mr. Obama's hard work and accomplishments. Just because he's black? Condemn those comments Hillary. By not repudiating it, you are condoning it.

Lare Mcafee of Spring, Texas
It is so sad when others, including recently Ms. Ferraro, can not accept the accomplishments of someone who has defied odds. They call it lucky? I guess Sen. Obama's election by his peers to head the Harvard Law Review, his election four times by the people of Illinois and his lead in the current race are "lucky." In this thinking, I guess he has had a lucky life. These accomplishments were not due to race; they were due to skill. This is a double standard dealt by the competition. Would Sen. Clinton be a senator from New York or running for president if she were not married to an ex-president?

Video: Obama Endorsed by Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force

The following is from the BarackObama.com website:




Admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president. Watch the video...


Stand up and be "Presidential", Hillary!

When all is said and done, the only things both Senators Clinton and Obama have had managerial experience in is their campaigns. Hillary has come close to losing control of hers many times. She wasn't good with it's budget either. She had to loan her campaign 5million dollars. Then there was her lack of presidential fortitude when it came to being strong in the face of allegations about Sentator Obama's race and religion. She is NOT ready to be commander in chief.


Senator Obama's campaign reflects what his tenure in the White House would be like. It is filled with fresh ideas, new ideologies, the idea of healing, uniting and forging ahead with tough decisions. It's no coincidence that young people who were typically apathetic about politics are now getting so involved in his campaign. It is a very good sign that his coffers are FILLED with small donations from millions of "little" people. The Obama campaign strategized and raised and budgeted funds better than anyone else running this year. Now HE definitely knows how to be CEO in chief.



Monday, March 3, 2008

Teachers making the Case...

The Creativity of the American Spirit

A friend pointed me to this great blog entry about arts in education, a specific passion of mine, and how its is needed to nourish the creative spirit and innovation that we've slowly stripped away from education in our country in the name of "saving funds," and focusing on "important" subjects. Barack understands the complexity of every issue I've heard him speak to!!!

Also, check out this blog post talking about the San Antonio art scene getting behind Senator Obama.

For my fellow teachers....

Clinton race-baiting again?

This story is found on MSNBC's First Read with regards to an answer Senator Clinton gave about whether she thought Senator Obama was a Muslim, which he is NOT and has denied many times. (You need to scroll down quite a bit.) The Clinton campaign has had staff members sending out false email to people suggesting that he is a Muslim trying to take over the country. LIES. Most recently a photo of Senator Obama trying on a gift from Kenyan tribal leaders (part of which was a turban) was supposedly circulated by her campaign on the internet. I really hope she isn't doing something this deceptive. That was would be a very sad day for American politics.

*** “As far as I know”? Speaking of CBS, we imagine a qualifier Clinton gave on 60 Minutes last night is going to generate plenty of discussion today. In response to a bizarre question by Steve Kroft -- “You don’t believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim,” following a discussion about that photo of Obama in Somali garb -- Clinton gave a bizarre answer: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.” Kroft followed: “You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…” Clinton interjected: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” As far as she knows? For a lawyer who has demanded precise language (example: the Farrakhan discussion at last week’s debate), Clinton’s dangling qualifier was a very odd statement. No doubt if she had that question to do over again, she would have said things clearer because this is how conspiracy theories start.

Distortion and Glass Houses, Hillary....

This is from a great article from MotherJones.com that tears down Clinton's newest negative attack about Barack Obama's subcommittee. You can read the article in it's entirety for yourself here.

It's true that Obama has convened no meetings of the subcommittee, but his camp counters that he became chair of the subcommittee early last year, just as he was starting his presidential campaign. Clinton is technically correct that Obama could have used the subcommittee to conduct oversight of actions and policies related to Afghanistan. But the full foreign relations committee, under the guidance of Senator Joe Biden, has held several hearings on Afghanistan that covered NATO's role there. It's not as if the foreign relations committee did nothing on Afghanistan because Obama did not take on the mission. Also, as happens with many committees, the chair of the full committee reserves the right to handle the big issues him- or herself, and Afghanistan counts as a big issue.

Clinton ought to be careful about hurling stones in this area. As she always tells campaign crowds, she is a member of the Senate armed services committee. In February the committee held two hearings on Afghanistan. On February 8, it focused on appropriations for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a witness. Eight days later, the committee zeroed in on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, holding a two-part hearing examining recent reports on Afghanistan. Key witnesses included senior officials from the State Department and the Pentagon responsible for the administration's Afghanistan policy.

Clinton attended neither of these hearings. She was on the campaign trail.

Great breakdown of What Senator Obama's Legislative Experience and Sucess

Obama

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 othersïÂ&iq uest;½

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

These included

**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.

Since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public. He's not just a talker. He does.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Truely working towards a Coalition of All Americans

Here's a great article about Obama's plans for his cabinet.

It's 3am and you're children are in grave danger... who should you vote for?

In the Clintons' newest tv ad in Texas, the fear of harm coming to your children if Hillary is not elected, tries to scare you to vote for her. Bill had it right a while back though....


Ethridge and other LGBT Leaders Switch to OBAMA

Original article posted below can be found here. Of particular importance and a major difference between the two candidates is in the section discussing Mr. Obama's call to completely repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay Clinton Backers Defect to Obama, Eroding Her Base

Kim Chipman Fri Feb 29, 1:45 PM ET

Feb. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton cemented years of goodwill with gays in 2000, when she walked in New York's Pride Parade.

``Having the first lady march was enormously powerful,'' said Representative Barney Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, both of whom are backing Clinton. ``I've never seen such a strong emotional outpouring.''

Now some gay voters, who have been among Clinton's most stalwart supporters and helped her defeat Barack Obama in Democratic presidential primaries earlier this month, may be drifting toward the Illinois senator, according to political activists and campaign officials.

``Clinton probably is still a little bit ahead of Obama among leadership in the community,'' said Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton supporter and lobbyist with ties to the gay and lesbian communities. ``They have a longer and deeper relationship with her than Obama, but he has a good record,'' said Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Democrat John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.

``Obama has presented more detailed position papers on gay and lesbian issues than Clinton,'' said David Mixner, 61, a writer and activist who helped longtime friend Bill Clinton win over the gay and lesbian vote during the 1992 presidential race and who supported both of Hillary Clinton's successful Senate races in New York.

`The Young Reformer'

This time, Mixner is backing Obama. The Clintons have become ``a machine, and Obama's the young reformer,'' said Mixner, who joined Obama's campaign after initially supporting former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 54, who dropped out of the Democratic race last month.

Musician Melissa Etheridge, who came out as a lesbian in 1993 at President Bill Clinton's Triangle Ball, the first ever inaugural event for gay men and lesbians, said earlier this month that she is backing Obama.

Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a one-time supporter of Bill Clinton, also is backing Obama. The openly gay Geffen, co-founder of the DreamWorks SKG movie studio, held a $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama last year.

Star Backers

Clinton backers include professional tennis player Billie Jean King; Eileen Chaiken, producer and creator of the ``L Word,'' a Showtime television series about lesbians; and Bruce Cohen, producer of movies including Oscar-winning ``American Beauty.''

Clinton's support among gay voters helped her hold her own against Obama, 46, in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests. In California, the most populous state, 63 percent of people identifying themselves as a gay man or lesbian voted for Clinton, according to exit polls. In New York, she drew gay support of 59 percent.

Since then, Clinton has lost 11 consecutive contests to Obama, who according to exit polls has cut into her base of support among single women, Latinos and blue-collar workers. To keep her candidacy afloat, she needs victories March 4 in Texas - - and particularly in the large gay communities in Houston and Dallas -- and Ohio, which has the sixth-largest gay and lesbian population in the U.S.

Supporting Civil Unions

Both Clinton, 60, and Obama oppose same-sex marriages while supporting civil unions. A major difference between the candidates is that Obama supports full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a law signed by Bill Clinton -- under pressure from a Republican-dominated Congress -- that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and permits states to do the same. Hillary Clinton wants to roll back only part of the law.

``That's a big deal,'' said Eric Stern, who joined Obama's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender policy-advisory group after heading former candidate Edwards's gay steering committee. More than half of the members of that 49-member group are now backing Obama, Stern said.

While many gay and lesbian voters remain loyal Clinton supporters, Mixner said, others remain angry over her previous support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Some also still tie her to the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy instituted during her husband's presidency, which reversed a campaign pledge he made to allow gays to serve openly.

A Sin

Obama, meanwhile, prompted anger from gay-rights activists when he invited gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has called homosexuality a sin, to perform at a fundraiser last October. Obama later denounced McClurkin's views.

Tobias Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who heads Obama's national gay- policy committee, said inviting McClurkin was ``a mistake, but nothing more complicated than a mistake, and one that Obama responded to.''

On the eve of last month's Martin Luther King Day, Obama called on blacks to begin examining attitudes toward gays and lesbians. ``If we are honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community hasn't always been true to King's vision of a beloved community,'' he said Jan. 20 at King's Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

Mixner said he probably would have endorsed Obama anyway, ``but that speech made it easier.'' At a Beaumont, Texas, town- hall meeting yesterday, Obama said he has heard people in the black community and churches ``saying things that I don't think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian.''

Showdown States

Both campaigns are targeting gay voters in the showdown Texas and Ohio primaries. In Texas, Clinton support still runs strong, said Jesse Garcia, 36, head of the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, the national gay and lesbian organization's biggest chapter in the state and the third-largest in the country.

``There's a real allegiance to Hillary,'' said Garcia, whose group endorsed Clinton last week.

In Ohio, meanwhile, Clinton's campaign formally launched a statewide committee this week to spearhead get-out-the-vote efforts in gay areas of Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus.

Obama has countered with full-page advertisements in gay publications in Texas and Ohio. The message is being heard, said Patrick King, 44, a private nurse from Houston who cared for the late Lloyd Bentsen, the former senator and Bill Clinton's first Treasury secretary.

``I was with Hillary until I heard Obama speak on TV about a month ago,'' King said. ``I thought, `Wow, this guy is really sincere.'''

To contact the reporters on this story: Kim Chipman in Washington at kchipman@bloomberg.net .

Money Trumps Feminism for Clinton

Article below originally posted here.

Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm

Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under:

By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.

The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”

Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.

Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.

In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.

Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.

However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.

Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.

"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."

Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.

The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.

Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.

IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."

Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."

She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.

The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Rules are Rules

Back in 2000 when Al Gore's and our nation's fate was decided by the Supreme Court, many people were devastated by that election's results. Fingers pointed to every imaginable player. I partially blame the Democratic party itself for not taking the necessary steps ahead of time to prevent that fiasco. Long before the election in Florida, the party was allowed to give their ok on the infamous butterfly ballot that was so confusing that many people intending to vote for Al Gore inadvertently cast their ballot for Pat Buchanan. HUGE difference. I sometimes wonder how different the results and our world would be like now had they requested a different ballot system. But guess what, folks? We had our chance and we ok'd the ballot and that was the rule.

Now we have the Clinton campaign trying to change the rules all over the place with regards to this election. First she agreed to the Deocratic Party's decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates because they moved their contests up too early. She agreed and in an interview said "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

NOW she wants to change those rules to have those delegates count for her because she "won" them. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot and no one campaigned in either state. Why should the rules change after the fact IN HER FAVOR just because she wants them to?

Then, in Nevada...

NOW, The Clinton campaign's latest ploy is to try and challenge the caucus system in Texas because Obama has done very well in that type of contest. It's four days till election day and they want to change the rules again in their favor. C' mon..... The story below describes what they are trying to do.

Clinton may challenge Texas vote rules
Campaign concerns prompts warning from
state party about legal action


LAREDO, Texas - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has raised the possibility of a challenge to Texas' primary and caucus rules just days before the contest, drawing a warning against legal action from the state's Democratic Party.

Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with staff for rival Barack Obama and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

Here is the link to the original story.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Yet another comparison of the two candidates on various issues

Here are some of the reasons Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, is the change America needs.
Democracy
  1. In Iowa, the Hillary Clinton campaign actively worked to suppress the votes of Iowa students.
  2. In New Hampshire, the Hillary Clinton campaign harassed “get-out-the-vote” workers at the polls to hinder their efforts.
  3. In Nevada, the Hillary Clinton campaign’s supporters filed a lawsuit that aimed to suppress the vote of culinary union members.
  4. In Nevada, the Hillary Clinton campaign shut the doors on caucus-goers 30 minutes earlier than the official rules stated. Caucus-goers were not allowed to participate.
  5. It is a sad day when America becomes dominated by two political families–the Bush family and the Clintons. America should be a democracy, not a dynasty.
Economic Concerns
  1. In 1998, Hillary Clinton praised NAFTA, the bill President Bill Clinton signed into law. Now she opposes it. Barack Obama opposed it. NAFTA has been devastating to rural America.
  2. Hillary Clinton has gone to other countries and proclaimed that “outsourcing will continue.” However, in front of American audiences she tempers this and talks about the problems with outsourcing American jobs. Why isn’t she saying the same things in both places?
  3. Hillary Clinton misled an Iowa voter about her position on social security. The voter is still unsure where she stands.
  4. Hillary Clinton argued that Americans who make over $97,000 per year are the middle-class.
  5. The Washington Post gave Barack Obama an A- for his economic stimulus plan and gave Hillary Clinton a C+.
Electability
  1. The polls consistently show that Barack Obama does better against John McCain than does Hillary Clinton.
The Environment
  1. The League of Conservation Voters gave Barack Obama a higher score on his environmental voting record than all the other Democratic nominees.
Ethics and Lobbyists Reform
  1. Barack Obama has a superior record to Hillary Clinton on confronting lobbyists and special interests.
  2. Barack Obama does not take federal PAC or federal lobbyist funding for his Presidential campaign, while Hillary Clinton does. In fact, Hillary Clinton said, “Lobbyists represent real Americans.”
  3. Barack Obama has released his personal income tax returns to the public for scrutiny, while Hillary Clinton has not.
  4. Hillary Clinton uses more earmarks and pork spending than any other Democratic nominee or Republican nominee.
  5. Barack Obama agreed to take public financing for the general election if the Republican nominee will do the same. Hillary Clinton has not agreed to this.
  6. Barack Obama passed the toughest ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate since Watergate, while Hillary has not passed a bill yet of this magnitude.
  7. The majority of Barack Obama’s campaign funding comes from small donors, while the majority of Clinton’s comes from large donors.
  8. Barack Obama was the leader in revealing to the public all of his federal earmark requests, while Hillary Clinton was not.
Experience
  1. Barack Obama has both sufficient experience and a record of good judgment.
  2. Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.
  3. While Clinton claims experience from her husband’s presidency, she will not release her White House papers to let us know specifically what that experience is.
  4. She cited her experience as the reason she voted to go to Iraq, so that nullified her experience argument.
  5. Even Bill Clinton said when people criticized him for being inexperienced in the 1990s that, “The same old experience is not relevant.”
  6. Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were before they took the presidency. He can’t help that he takes care of himself and ages well.
  7. As John Kerry argues, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.
  8. Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include:
    1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.
    2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.
    3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families.
    4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row
    5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.
    6. And much more.
  9. While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he’s been there. Many of Clinton’s bills were about naming post offices and buildings. However, Obama’s legislation includes:
    1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons.
    2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money.
    3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo.
    4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls “one of the toughest ethics reform” bills in this history of the Congress.
Foreign Policy
  1. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, while Barack Obama opposed the war from the start.
  2. Hillary Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate report before voting to send troops to Iraq.
  3. Barack Obama agrees that America should talk to countries that are our foes, while Hillary Clinton takes issue with his position.
  4. Barack Obama understands the basic facts about Pakistan’s electoral system better than Hillary Clinton.
  5. While Barack Obama has proposed a detailed foreign policy plan, Hillary Clinton has not provided Obama’s level of detail.
  6. Hillary Clinton’s current foreign policy advisers were largely supportive of the war in Iraq. Obama’s current foreign policy advisers are more “forward thinking” and generally did not support the war. We need people advising our president who have good judgment on foreign policy, not people who carry the old conventional wisdom.
Health Care
  1. Hillary Clinton should be applauded for her work trying to get health care passed during the 1990s. However, Obama should be applauded as well for his eight-years of writing health care legislation and getting it signed into law at the state level. Obama has a lesser known, but impressive record of getting results on health care.
Homeland Security
  1. CIA Officials agree more with Barack Obama’s approach to finding Osama Bin Laden than with Hillary Clinton’s.
  2. Hillary Clinton’s assessment of our America’s homeland security status contradicts the assessment offered by national intelligence agencies.
Human Rights
  1. Hillary Clinton was the last Democrat to support the torture pledge.
  2. Hillary flip-flopped on the issue of whether America should use nuclear weapons.
Judicial System
  1. Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for his position on mandatory minimum sentencing behind-the-scenes, while she touted her support for it in front of minority audiences.
  2. Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic nominee to oppose retroactivity for mandatory minimum sentencing. All the other Democrats supported it. Even George Bush and the Supreme Court supported it.
  3. While Hillary Clinton is opposed to retroactivity for crimes of poor people, she does not hold this standard for crimes of the rich.
Lying
  1. News reporters have shown that Bill Clinton lied to voters about being opposed to the Iraq War from the start. The reporters have video of the Clintons expressing support for Bush’s actions back in 2002.
  2. While Hillary Clinton gives traditional Washington non-answers to questions, Barack Obama has been praised by commentators for telling the truth.
  3. All the Democrats made a pledge not to campaign in Florida or Michigan because the two states broke Democratic rules by moving their primaries ahead of other states. While Obama and Edwards abided by the rules and took their names off the Michigan ballot, Clinton kept her name on the ballot. Right before the Florida primary, Clinton started working to get the Florida delegates counted even though she agreed not to do so at the beginning of the primary season. If she cannot keep her promises during the campaign season, how will she keep her promises as President?
Poverty
  1. Hillary Clinton has the weakest formal platform of the top three Democratic nominees on addressing urban poverty.
  2. Barack Obama has gotten more anti-poverty legislation signed into law in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton has. He passed numerous bills during his work in Illinois.
Technological Innovation
  1. TechPresident rated Barack Obama’s technology platform as superior to Hillary Clinton’s.
Women’s Rights
  1. In New Hampshire, the Hillary Clinton campaign misled female state senators to sign a letter attacking Senator Barack Obama’s women’s rights record. After the New Hampshire primary, the senators apologized for misleading people about his record and took issue with the Clinton campaign’s practices. This incident left great division among women’s rights activists in New Hampshire.
  2. When women’s rights came under attack in South Dakota, women’s rights activists asked all the senators in Congress to write a letter and help fundraise on their behalf. Barack Obama was the only Senator who wrote a letter and fundraised on their behalf. Hillary Clinton did not.
  3. Hillary Clinton also tried to mislead voters about Barack Obama’s commitment to helping victims of sexual abuse, an issue on which he has been a strong advocate.

Transparency, Ethics and Lobbyists

Here's a comparison of Senators Clinton and Obama taken from Think on These Things.


Obama Clinton Winner?
Takes campaign money from federal Washington Lobbyists No Yes Obama
Takes money from state lobbyists Yes Yes Tie
Took lobbyist money for Senate campaign Yes Yes Tie
Takes federal PAC money No Yes Obama
Took subsidized corporate jets before January 2006 Yes Yes Tie
Took subsidized corporate jets after January 2006 No Yes Obama
Released complete record of correspondences from previous political position before primaries While his State Senate transcripts are publicly available, it is unclear whether his State Senate correspondences (appointments, meetings, and policy memos) exist. If so, no. Records from WH years and as First Lady of Arkansas do exist. Has not called for full expedited release before primaries. Tie?
Disclosed 2006 earmarks Yes No Obama
Disclosed pre-2006 earmarks No No Tie
Released names of any fundraising bundlers Yes; the first Democratic nominee to do so; (originally just did it for $50,000+) Yes, the last major Democratic nominee to do so; just does it for $100,000+) Tie for doing it, Obama for leadership on doing it
Released “cities or states” for fundraising bundlers No No Tie
Detailed the names of bundlers at all financial levels Yes No, just provides info on $100,000+ Obama
Releases details about campaign fundraising events No No Tie
Co-sponsored campaign finance reform legislation Yes No Obama
Released income tax returns to the public Yes No Obama
Use of Earmarks and Pork Spending See The Hill’s comparison
See The Hill’s Comparison Obama
Pledged to post all meetings as President online Yes No Obama
Has posted all meetings as U.S. senator online No No Tie
Has given an ethics speech and proposal Yes - Proposal - Speech Yes - Proposal - Speech Tie
Passed ethics legislation at state level Yes No Obama
Pushed ethics legislation in U.S. Senate
  • Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the government is spending their tax money! You can look at all federal government contracts. (www.usaspending.gov)
  • Pushed new Senate ethics bill to require candidates to disclose their bundlers
  • Pushed to create a Congressional Ethics Commission
  • Pushed a law banning subsidized corporate flights for candidates

Obama

Comparing what the Senators have actually Done...

I wanted to sit down and pull up everything both Senators Clinton and Obama have proposed, co-sponsored and/ or got passed in the Senate but someone already did it for me.

Thearticle below was originally posed on the Daily Kos website and can be found here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

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.

I started with Sen. Clinton.

I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.

Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.

For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."

Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.

In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.

The difference is in the scope and the approach.

Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.

Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?

How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.

Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).

Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.

In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.

Four bills on energy including
• 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.

Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.

On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).

Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:

S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon.
S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes.
S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.

and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.

Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.

As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.

Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.

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.

Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.

It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.

Yes, We Can!

Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.

Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

Added:I realize, of course that several of these amendments are exactly the same. They were added to spending bills. My only reason for including them is for completeness. They are not here to pad out Obama's record. Furthermore, I want to make clear that I only looked at one single year, 2007. This is not meant as a comprehensive review of either candidate's entire Senate record. If you are interested in doing your own research, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look it up.

Read up, Communicate, and stand by your Principles

Obama is an open communicator who is not opposed to open discussion and diplomacy with people with whom he vehemently disagrees, be it foreign leaders who are “enemies” of the United States, or those who represent opposing views to his own. He is a listener, which would be a huge change from the current administration. Bush didn’t read intelligence reports, he would have people summarize them for him and go with his gut feeling. He would not listen to the other side’s argument. Obama does exactly the opposite. Many senators caught up in the patriotism rush that overwhelmed us after 9/11 (either you’re with us or against us) jumped on board with whatever Bush said because they feared for their political life. Many, including Senator Clinton acted just like Bush out of political fear and voted to give him authorization to go to war WITHOUT READING THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE. Here’s a breakdown of who DID read it. At that same time, Senator Obama was running for his senate seat. He took the principled stand and objected to the war and STILL won his seat.

How did we get here?

Passions have run very high as of late when it comes to the current debate surrounding the democratic nomination. People on both sides of the fence (both of which have very green grass mind you) are solidly behind their candidates. I think that is great. This is one of the most exciting and monumental elections amongst the many earth-rattling elections that have come within anyone’s lifetimes. Sometimes, the rhetoric has gone out of hand. Passion has a way of doing that. I will admit that I too have succumbed to these passions.

One thing we can all agree on is that the past 8 years have been the most damaging, divided and darkest times in our nation’s history. The ramifications of what was begun in these eight years will take decades to be fully realized and undone. The fabric of our democracy was forever been tainted. The election of 2000 set the definitive course of change in our nation that began even back in the 80’s. Yes, as far back as Reagan’s time as president, the nation started to be severely divided. Trickle down economics forced a deep wedge between the haves and the have-nots. The one thing that prevented a complete divide in our people was Reagan’s ability to communicate and bring people together to swallow the bitter pill of his policies. I was only a child in the 80’s but I have read quite a bit about that period and know that this “great communicator” was able to at least bring people from the other side of the isle and the nation, the Reagan Democrats, under his wing to lead the nations. Unfortunately, the policies the brought the nation together behind, were very damaging and were the very pathway to the greater divide that plagues our country to this very day. He ignored the AIDS crisis, began the coalescing of the Religious Right movement and lead secret dirty deals, such as the Iran Contra debacle that harked back to the underhanded madness of the Nixon era, but that’s a whole other story. Things of course did not improve under his successor, George H.W. Bush. The divide continued, but fortunately, he was not in office but one term.

Then, came Bill Clinton’s fresh face onto the scene. He and his wife set into motion a lot of great changes in direction. The economy boomed, crime decreased, and things started to feel better. However, the divide within our nation did not heal. In fact, the partisan divide became a chasm. As much good as they did, they could have accomplished even more, had partisan politics not guided their every move. Yes, they had good intentions and produced some good results, but things were not as idealistic once you look back. NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of Bill Clinton’s first accomplishments in office. It sounded good on one level, but it has since cost our country a lot of jobs and has devastated the agricultural economy of Mexico. Mexico’s poor have become poorer and the rich have become FLITHY rich. It’s no wonder many of my people come across the border illegally to be able to feed their families. Mexican’s have come to the US long before NAFTA, but this misguided treaty has only made things worse there as well as in the states. Also adding to the woes of our struggling poor in the United States was the Clinton administration’s overhaul of the welfare system. Under the enacted changes, no one could receive more than 5 years of consecutive or nonconsecutive welfare aid and access to it was more difficult. Many of the provisions to welfare reform were arbitrary and did not take into consideration the lives of the real people who would need this assistance. Working in schools on the east side of Austin with predominantly economically disadvantaged families, I see firsthand the struggles many of these people are faced with. There are some who are able to pull themselves out of dire poverty onto the lower rungs of economic stability, but there are many many others who work two and three jobs, take ESL classes, and try everything they can to better themselves but cannot get ahead. I’ve worked with children from kindergarten until they leave for middle school after their 5th grade year, and their families are in the same situation that they were when I first met them five years prior. I often wonder what will become of these families after their fifth year on welfare assistance is up. Many students have parents who cannot help them with their homework because they work several jobs (some as many as four) just to be able to feed the family. Others cannot help their children with homework because they cannot read themselves. We all do what we can, but the system is not set up to deal with the real-world situations that exist.

Bill Clinton was the first president to acknowledge and listen to the LGBT community. I think he is owed a lot of credit for that. However, he passed two extremely damaging pieces of legislation as far as that community is concerned. One of his first acts as president was to pass the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy for the military. In essence it says that “There’s nothing wrong with being gay, just keep it a secret or you’ll be kicked out.” This was a huge slap in the face of the LGBT community who had finally thought they had a president who respected them. Then came DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as being between a man and woman, ONLY! I don’t think a president should ever support any act, legislation or policy that marginalizes or discriminates against a group of people. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what he did.

I think the most dangerous seed that was planted during the Clinton years, though was the increased polarization of the American electorate. There should have NEVER been a George W. Bush presidency. The 2000 election should never have been as close as it was. Yes, politics have always divided people. However, we are all Americans and should not see each other as enemies no matter how much we disagree on the issues. There are some things that should never be compromised, but we must realize that our language and the way we speak to and about each other defines who are as a people. It decides if and how things are done, especially in the current divided mindset within which we live. The harder we push, the harder they will push back.

There are many other things that have occurred between Reagan’s time in office until now. And at this point, I could write pages and pages about the horrors and denigration that our democracy has suffered through during the time George W. Bush took the reigns as president. There are volumes of writings out there that discuss the damage our standing in the world has suffered under his command particularly since we are still experiencing this dark time in history firsthand. For a mini sampling of the what damage has been done feel free to depress yourself reading here. It only goes up to the end of his first term, but you see the disasterous pattern. If anyone can find a more comprehensive timeline of his administration, please tell me about it so I can include it.

It is now almost March of 2008. We stand at the precipice of hopefully a new direction in our history as a nation. First of all, we have two strong candidates vying for the democratic nomination. Yes, one is a woman and the other an African American. That is significant, but not what’s wholly great about them. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both very intelligent and capable legislators who both have a history of working for the American people, and they are strong candidates for winning the Whitehouse in November. After much research, reading, listening, and thinking I however feel that Barack Obama is the stronger of the two on many levels.