>I think a person needs to be president of another, smaller, country before they can be considered president of the US.
Yeah, well, we’ve seen how badly this turns out, right? Remember that Bush was President of Texas before he entered US politics.
Gladly.
I’m sure you will note that most of these achievements predate the announcement that Obama was running for President, at which time cooperation with Republicans seems to have become somewhat less of a priority for him.
National Journal noted this trend - Obama’s percentage of times he voted with his party jumped to an astonishing 95.5% in 2007 - and frankly, he rarely voted against his party prior to this.
The real maverick in this race remains McCain.
I asked the same question, amongst others, in this thread nearly a month ago. The thread went to 2 pages and 63 posts before anyone even attempted a substantive answer, a post I just now realized in reviewing that thread that I completely missed when it was originally posted. I certainly did not mean to gloss over it, especially given that it was the only one that actually addressed the OP.
Since that thread’s long dead now, rather than resurrect it, I’ll try to respond here. From that thread:
First, a careful reading of this post of mine in that thread already acknowledges 3 of the 5 items enumerated in the first source quoted above, namely: [ul][li]Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11 (the 3rd bullet point under the 107th Congress)[/li][li]Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care (2nd bullet point under the 109th Congress)[/li][li]Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System. (1st bullet point under the 109th Congress)[/ul] I admit to being stumped by what they mean by “pay for city projects in response to 9/11,” as none of her bills seems to address that specifically, and if she worked on land mine legislation, it must’ve been on a co-sponsored bill because that, too, doesn’t appear under her sponsored legislation. I would certainly want more information as to her specific role in those pieces of legislation, and what those bills actually were, in addition to whether or not they even passed.[/li]
But to call any of these “substantive”, in my opinion, is a bit of a stretch. Even the cited article states, “A review of her actual record, however, yields very little evidence to support the “good job” claims.” And nowhere do they describe any of these as “substantive” either.
As to the issues outlined in the second source, her own website, first, I have to say that a paltry 3 items seems rather thin in the way of supporting a claim of substance, but I am happy to address and acknowledge them.
I believe that refers to this, for which I will stand and give kudos. Brava, Senator Clinton. This is seriously good legislation and I commend her for her work in getting it passed.
The use of the term “leading efforts” is a bit misleading, though she does, indeed, get credit for working on this bill, S. 650 [108th]: Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, as well. It was not, however, her bill, it was Senator DeWine’s bill, and although she is one of several co-sponsors, this was not a “joint” bill. But like I said, it does show that, at least in this one instance, she has worked together with her Republican co-workers to pass this piece of legislation. Good job.
I searched Google using various search terms and the only thing I could find that matched that description was a press release from last Summer, saying, “Hillary Clinton Announces Agenda to Improve the Quality of Health Care for All Americans,” wherein it contains her plan to, among other things, “Address Nurse and Nurse Faculty Shortages” and “Prioritize the Retention of New Nurses,” but nothing about prescription drugs or bioterrorism. It’s nice that she’s got an agenda and all, but what happened with it? Was there a specific bill it was contained in? If so, what?
The only legislation I could find addressing the nursing issue was S. 1864 [107th]: Nurse Reinvestment Act, which, again, was not a Clinton sponsored bill, but a Barbara Mikulski bill, to which Hillary Clinton signed on to with 43 other co-sponsors. I have no idea what kind of “leadership” role she took in pushing that bill through.
As for her leading a strike on a college campus, I dismiss that as irrelevant to her abilities to lead this country. Her advocacy for children while in Arkansas, more good work on her part, to the extent that I know little of her actual contributions in those efforts. I don’t, however, doubt for a moment that Hillary cares deeply about children and families, and health care has been a priority that she has worked very hard on for a great deal of her career. I think it pigeon-holes her, however. I’m not really seeing a broad range of issues that she’s either good at, or interested in addressing. That’s not to say that she doesn’t get credit for what she’s done, it just doesn’t impress me much as a qualification for leading this country, given the wide range of issues that she would have to focus on.
Committees: eh. As we’ve seen over and over, being on committees is pretty easy to do. Actually doing anything in them is another thing altogether. For instance, she’s on the Armed Services Committee. Has she introduced or passed any legislation related to that? How about bills on the environment, given that she’s on the Environment and Public Works Committee?
Thanks for giving me the opportunity learn more about Hillary’s accomplishments and to address them as I see them relating to her ability to be President. In my opinion, what this represents, is a pretty decent Senator, but not nearly as good by a mile, as Senator Obama, who has considerably more substantive and major legislation that has passed, and considerably more bills he’s worked on jointly with Republicans, and what seems to be a reputation for getting complete consensus amongst his peers.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The same article claims that Obama is the most liberal senator in 2007. One could just as easily argue that for one of a number of possible reasons, the rest of the party has tended to vote with him.
In other words, you cannot defend the claim you previously made. For the lazy reader, this claim was “Certainly he hasn’t [crossed the aisle to work with Republicans] much since getting elected to the Senate, where his record has been pretty much voting with his party almost all of the time.” Since he has crossed the aisle to work with Republicans on several important bills in the Senate, you’re reduced to making two new arguments: that this has lessened since his presidential announcement and that McCain crosses over more. That’s nice, but neither of those have anything to do with the claim you were “certain” of.
You’re also conflating bipartisan work with positions that are counter to the way most Democrats vote. It is possible to reach across the aisle and bring people into a bill that is nevertheless supported by most Democrats. Indeed, many of Shayna’s examples were efforts Obama led that eventually got near unanimous support from both sides.
That’s hardly an acknowledgment. That looks more like hand-waving to me. I mean, really, what’s the point? He basically hasn’t been working in the Senate since he started running for president, so naturally the types of joint efforts are going to subside substantially during a time when he’s not actively working on those things.
You made a specific request; “Please enumerate his experience crossing the aisle to work with Republicans.” I very clearly did that. To wave it away with a ‘yeah, but. . .’ makes me believe that your question was a bit insincere.
There’s nothing astonishing about a Democrat voting on Democratic issues. Please.
You declared that Obama “Certainly. . . hasn’t [cross[ed] the aisle to work with Republicans] much since getting elected to the Senate.” I showed you that that wasn’t true; he has. And that’s not even a full and complete list. That he votes on his fellow Democrats’ bills in favor of them doesn’t contradict the fact that he also has a reputation for “crossing the aisle to work with Republicans.”
P.S. Or, what Richard Parker said. Thanks, Richard! 
How has this morphed into “cloddish failure”? As I remember it, it was a big political showdown and the Republicans filibustered it, like they did a lot of stuff in the Clinton administration. I think it’s pretty much agreed that the system she came up with – while not perfect – would have been better than what we have now.
I think you’re misremembering it (hah!) There weren’t enough Democratic votes to pass the thing, let alone overcome a filibuster. Her hamhanded approach shut out the Hill and ensured that there would be numerous Democratic proposals there in addition to her own.
I wonder if she’s learned anything from the experience. I don’t doubt that, if elected (ha!) she would take another crack at UHC. Would she be any better at herding the Democratic cats? I see no reason why the Republicans would be any more cooperative than in 1993.
I wonder if the legislative experience she has now would benefit her in ways that were not possible in days of yore.
My memory is that Congress handled her very much with (pink) kid gloves when she first marched onto the Hill with her proposals. Don’t think that would happen in 2009!
Regards,
Shodan
Hillary has “one term and a couple of years” as a Senator. How many does Obama have again?
Also, if we’re going to talk about Hillary getting lucky in an election that she barely had to campaign for to win her Senate seat, why are we ignoring Obama’s extremely fortunate Senate race? He rose to power in the middle of one of the mostly deeply, personally scandalous revelations about a Senator ever! Neither of them had to work very hard at getting elected to the Senate.
He has years as a civil rights lawyer, and Clinton has even MORE years as a lawyer for various groups, including the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate scandal.
Sure, Obama was elected to state positions, but Hillary is no slouch when it comes to serving in a government position on the state level. A lot of people considered her pretty successful at her appointed positions in Arkansas.
I’d say they both have a good “resume” for the presidency. My problems with Hillary have nothing to do with her qualifications, although I do think she embellishes them quite a bit.
He didn’t do that as Vice President though.
Hillary Clinton spent from 1977 until 1992 as a member of the Rose Law Firm, dealing primarily with intellectual property law. Her years doing other work as an attorney were fairly limited (1973-1974). After that, she became a law professor for two years. She did spend time during those years (1973 - 1976) working on child advocacy law. It should be noted she failed the D.C. bar exam, which was part of the reason she decided to move to Arkansas to be with Bill Clinton (they were not yet married).
This is hardly very impressive as a legal resume.
By comparison, Sen. Obama worked from 1991 through 1996 as a lawyer involved in discrimination and voting rights cases. He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until 2004.
This is slightly more impressive as a legal resume.
As for their work as legislators, my primary theme is this: Sen. Obama was elected to the Senate after having proven his ability to be a legislator through his years (1996 - 2004) in the Illinois Senate. Sen. Clinton was elected to the Senate after having proven … well, after having proven nothing regarding an ability to be a legislator. Which doesn’t mean she didn’t deserve to be a Senator (after all, the position is intended to bring together our wisest heads, not necessarily our best politicians). But it leaves us with a scant 6 1/2 years of experience as a legislator, which compares unfavorably to the experience of Sen. Obama, who has been active in legislation since 1997 (please note, in counting her experience, I’ve discounted most of the last several months spent on the campaign trail; the same would be true of Sen. Obama).
Obama has more experience in a legislative position, and Hillary has more in an executive one. Still sounds like a wash to me.
What executive position is that exactly? Or are you talking about nepotistic-nonelected executive “experience”?
I assume he’s talking about the reality, not the terminology.
I don’t really care what tortured definition of “executive experience” Hillary supporters want to ascribe to her, it’s clearly insufficient to qualify her for a position that requires successful managerial skills and sound fiscal responsibility. Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
I don’t want that woman having any control over our federal budget.
I’m not a Hillary supporter by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.
What you quoted was evidence of her fiscal irresponsibility, not evidence of her non-experience. There are plenty of ways to attack her campaign without having to resort to the objectively false inexperience claim. She has more experience in government than Obama, unless you invent a new definition of government experience. McCain has more experience than either of them, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a better candidate.
I looked over the list of unpaid debts at the FEC website. The debtors Clinton has stiffed include:
Merrimack Valley High School, New Hampshire
Hotel Ottumwa, Iowa
Iowa Falls Community School District
Iowa Farmers Union
Iowa State Fair
Des Moines Area Community College
Des Moines Art Center Restaurant
Dubuque Community School District
Iowa Workforce Development Tax Bureau
Manchester Fire Department
Missouri Valley Community School District
Muscatine Community School District
Nevada Dept. of Employment and Training Rehabilitation
New York Transit Authority
Newton YMCA, Iowa
North Iowa Fair Assn.
Ohio State University
Roanoke City Public Schools Attn: Fiscal Service
Salem, Iowa School District
Southern New Hampshire Univ. Athletic Department
Town of Londonderry Office of Tax Collector
University of New Hampshire
Plus hundreds of small vendors who can’t afford the hit to their cash flow.
Please read more carefully before accusing me of false attacks.
YOU are the one who claimed she had more executive experience, without cite, and you were asked to define what you meant by that. Not only have you not done so, now you’ve changed the parameters to “government experience.”
I was responding to the “executive experience” claim, not legislative experience, not government experience, not First Lady experience, executive experience.
Again, I don’t care what tortured definition you want to use to describe the experience Hillary Clinton has accumulated over her lifetime, as “executive” in nature. No matter how you define it, even if it was decades of it, she’s clearly not done well enough at it to make herself qualified to put that so-called experience to good use. She’s failed at her first major “executive” endeavor in every measurable way. Her fiscal irresponsibility in this campaign is just the latest evidence of that assertion. And it’s a doozie.