home

Hillary Outlines Agenda for First 100 Days

Speaking at a meeting of the Newspaper Association of America in Pennsylvania today, Hillary Clinton outlined the agenda, if elected, for her first 100 days in office:

Clinton’s prospective 100-day agenda included the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq and submitting a budget to Congress that rolls back some of President Bush’s tax cuts.

She also promised to “shut down Guantanamo” and “disavow torture,” as well as sign bills Bush has vetoed to expand federal embryonic stem-cell research and broaden government-supported health care to millions of lower-income children who now go without.

She said:

In short, starting from day one, the Bush-Cheney era will be over in name and in practice.

More...

The Associated Press has more:
"I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture, and restore the right of habeas corpus," she said. "And I'll end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public's right to know and Congress's duty to oversee the president."
< Faux News Reporting | DNC Party Venues Announced for State Delegates >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    OH dear God please let her (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:29 PM EST
    win....I need insurance so badly.....:-(

    She will be! And this is why I think that: (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:15:02 AM EST
    The world is a total mess, in so many ways, but mostly economically speaking.  Before the Global economy, the Federal Reserve Board could easily tweak the domestic economy and fix inflation, slow growth, by simply controlling interest up or down.  The U.S. is currently facing the worst economic crisis not seen since the depression.  Hillary has been sounding the alarm on this, the longest, of all the candidates. The housing industry is going totally bust, foreclosures, already at the highest level will get worse; bankruptcy filings are at the highest levels and worsening; wholesalers and retailers are closing stores and of course employees are getting laid off.  Add that to the cost of fuel, high prices of the basic necessities; high cost of healthcare and you have the makings of a fullblown consumer revolt.

    I believe that the financial oligarchs of this country will ultimately choose the president.  These are the people who control the financial institutions (that have lost and are losing tons of money), the same people who own the media:  print, broadcast, etc.; and the ones who stand to lose a lot more if trends today continue.  There is the problem with the increasing hold of China on the U.S. economy because they are the ones who hold the most U.S. foreign debt.  They can literally bring the U.S. economy crashing down if they decide to do something with the U.S. paper they are holding.  

     That is why the U.S. is not in any kind of position to pressure them on anthing.  Aside from the paper, they can also decide to nationalize any or all of the U.S. manufacturing operations in China right now.  The country is big enough to be its own market.

    And then there is Russia that recently announced their intention to be the leader in space again. Obama has already stated that he intends to cut the funds for Nasa. By his own admission, he is not able to keep track of papers given to him ahead of time. He brags about his foreign policy strength based on his stay in Indonesia between the age of 6-10 years old.  Obviously spoken by someone totally ignorant of the expertise needed to evaluate world situations.

    McCain has already stated that economics is not his area of expertise.

    And there is the chronic Middle East problem:  Iraq; Palestine; Jordan, Syria/Lebanon/Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.  And there is Africa.

    The real estate problem in the U.S. has extended to places li8ke Ireland, Portugal, Spain (per NYTimes).

    So which of the three candidates running has the knowledge and experience to juggle all those problems and keep things from boiling over?  As much as they might not like to see another Clinton, are they really going to risk four years of deterioration of the present conditions?  Obama can't do it; McCain cannot.  

    The question for the oligarchs, is whom can they trust to handle/clean up the mess? Or who stands the chance of being able to do something?  So that they can continue to make their profits?

    Ideally, the question should be, whom should the voters choose?  But we all know that by simple manipulation/control of information being fed to the general population, their decisions are already determined.  This is a painful realization but it is true.  THEY allowed Carter to be elected because the country was in turmoil at that time, coming out of the civil rights riots, bombings, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, the SLA, Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's resignation/pardon. The country needed a respite.  Carter was it.

     But it took Carter nearly two years to have a working knowledge of Washington, managed to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel (which is a great accomplishment.  But his biggest failure was the Iran hostage crises.  Enter Reagan/Bush.  This is where we saw the successful dismantling of practically all the measures in place to regulate the Savings and Loans to keep it from engaging in risky operations; deregulation of the airline industry, weakening the labor unions, etc.  When the economy went downhil after eight years of Reagan/Bush then four years of Bush Sr., enter Bill Clinton who shored up social security, paid down the national debt; reformed welfare system; balanced the budget, maintained world peace; there was a budget surplus.  

    The secrets of the Reagan/Bush adm. would have been available through the Freedom if Information act some time in 2001.  I remember very clearly that one of the first executive acts of Bush Jr. was to defer to an unspecified date, the release of the papers for the Reagan/Bush years.  I believe that this is the real reason that Bush Jr. HAD to be the president and not Gore.  To this day, I still wonder what are those secrets that required such extreme measures.  But after eight years of Bush Jr. those records, just like those Karl Rove emails, are probably long gone.  

    But going back to the mess right now, the powers that be cannot afford to let the economic situation slide down further.  It will be economic chaos globally.  Only Hillary is up to the job.  Hillary is a born problem solver.  Her approach is discreet and incremental.  She is not a publicity seeker; she just wants to get things done.  And I do believe she will be a good CEO of this great United States of America.  She is not out to compete in the economic arena as an individual; she collaborates even with opponents to accomplish a common goal for her constituents.  And when she is the president, all Americans will be her constituents. She is the real uniter.

    If only people knew what the problems are, it would be an easy choice.

    [ Parent ]

    That "Perfect Storm" scenario (none / 0) (#119)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM EST
    kind of feel to it...Yes, I have that feeling a lot these days.

    Add to your list, the misplaced priorities in energy production/distribution and mono-crop agriculture that are ecologically and economically unsustainable. "Business as usual"--is not an option.

    The bees are dying, the bats are dying, and the glaciers are withering away. Millions upon millions of tons of precious topsoil is being flushed away at an ever increasing rate by shortsighted and dangerous practices. The health of the forests, the oceans, and the people are in progressive decline.

    People are beginning to notice.

    We need a leader who is up to the task, to turn these things around; someone who is capable and knowledgeable and knows how to get things done. We know who that someone is.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe that the biggest fear about Hillary (none / 0) (#124)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:01 AM EST
    with sexist people, and the oligarchs is that SHE WILL DO EVERYTHING SHE SAYS SHE WOULD DO, and REALLY get them done.  They know she is smart, supersmart.  I am just glad that her humanity seems to be intact.  I believe, that in her, we have a leader who truly acknowledges a Power greater than man; otherwise, how could she have withstood everything that has been thrown at her throughout her life?

    [ Parent ]
    I hope (none / 0) (#126)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    that this country that has been a blessing to people in the world for so many years, is not now going to be afflicted with a national malady that renders it incapable of discerning a blessing when presented to them.  This is my prayer.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too! 25% increase for the coming year. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:20:05 PM EST
    I was reading about BushBoy saying that indeed he did know about those Principals meetings in the basement of the WH on how best to torture "detainees," and I was thinking it was time for the candidates to speak out about Bush's war crimes and Constitution demolition derby.

    Thank you, Sen. Clinton.

    Frontline's healthcare piece was quite good. TR Reid's documentary looking at 5 countries' healthcare plans is quite good, even if he does say he can't see the US going for single-payer government run healtcare.  He did leave a prayer note at a Japanese shrine saying "Universal healtcare for the US, please" (iirc the wording).

    Can be seen on Frontline's site at PBS.

    [ Parent ]

    what a refreshing concept, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST
    our government working to help the citizens!

    I love it! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    This is the kind of thing that should be in the news for all three candidates.  Clinton always blows away the competition when she is talking about what she would actually do!! It is a powerful statement. Is there any video?

    And it is a Fox news report (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    Six months ago I never would have believed it possible to find real news at Fox!

    [ Parent ]
    Try (none / 0) (#94)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:34:05 AM EST
    the CSpan site. I saw part of this speech a couple of hours ago on CSpan. They may have it on video by now.


    [ Parent ]
    Ugh. We in the creative class (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:19:49 PM EST
    are so sick of these lists of proposals from Hillary.

    That's too sophisticated a response (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:18 PM EST
    You're supposed to simply call her a liar.

    [ Parent ]
    That's "pathological liar" (none / 0) (#116)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:10:02 AM EST
    at least one dkosser uses that description at every opportunity.  (which is to say whenever they talk about Clinton)

    [ Parent ]
    this race is about politics, not policies n/t (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is right. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Oje on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:44:32 PM EST
    We spent 15+ years defending the Clintons, what more do they want from us? Now, I am bitter as he!! and I am not going to take it anymore.

    When Obama says Clinton is unelectable because Republicans think she will do anything to win, he is just pointing out the facts. When Clinton says Obama is unelectable because Republicans think he is another effete elitist Democrat, she is crossed the line!

    Clinton needs to man up! Step aside, Mrs. Bill Clinton, for the good of the party before Pennsylvania votes... all of the accurate polls show you lost every state during this primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Say what? (none / 0) (#76)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:51:12 PM EST
    What a j&rk Josh is.  Look at DailyHowler on how Josh has always put his career first, and tried hard to please the pundits who would make him look respectable. He desperately want to be part of the crowd.

    DailyHowler documents many cases that Josh could have spoken out against the treatment Al Gore was receiving from the media, but chose to stay silent, in order to protect his own career ambitions.  

    [ Parent ]

    we're sick of them until Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST
    comes out with the very same list. Then it's genius!

    [ Parent ]
    Agenda! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by vcmvo2 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    Sounds great! This is what we need: More issues and plans- less personality driven stuff!

    She really is the candidate of substance (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Terry M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    No ambiguous "we're gonna change Washington" crap.  She knows how the system works and she knows how to work the system.  I really don't understand why BO is still in this race.  

    Close Gitmo? Thank you G-d!   She understands the great crime against the Constitution that is Gitmo.  It is the shame of our generation.

    BTW, I live in Florida.  BO is toast here.  Mr. Dean, get down here and listen to what this very populous state is thinking about you, the undemocratic DNC, and 48 state BO.  

    For all the talk of a poorly run campaign, (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:29:52 PM EST
    Clinton has pulled out some impressive tactical maneuvers, and I think I am going to count this among them.

    I assume/hope she will reference this 100-day agenda throughout the debate. With each topic that is broached, she will lay out her policy proposals in her typical succinct fashion and make sure to mention that the issue is something she plans to address in the first 100 days, as outlined in this agenda. I think this is an extremely powerful tool.

    In addition, this agenda forcefully contrasts Obama's recent line that ClingGate is a distraction to the important issues. Sen. Clinton doesn't seem to be distracted since she has defined a comprehensive plan for her first 100 days. If Sen. Obama wants to get into policy, perhaps he should show us his plan so the voters can compare. I'm sure he and Axelrod are at Kinkos as we speak.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    Obama has a plan for the first 100 days too. Just it'll be a few more days. He needs to take a look at Hillary's first. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#15)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    love the Kinkos line

    [ Parent ]
    Over @ Kinko's? (none / 0) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM EST
    Hilarious.  Since BHO has so many of Clinton 42's former aides (so much for new politics), they are xeroxing what Bill laid out back in 1992...for BHO's plan of action.

    Anytime Senator Clinton comes out with these types of actions, it exemplifies that she takes the office of presidency SERIOUSLY and it's not some "golden ring" to be obtained and bungled like Dubya has done or Barack WOULD do if he were to win.

    [ Parent ]

    Barack Obama Slogan (none / 0) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:03 PM EST
    Building a bridge to the early 90's

    [ Parent ]
    We should be so lucky (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have said repeatedly (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    You know.  I'll just focus on one thing.

    If 7 million people are raised out of poverty during Obama's administration I will be happy to say I was wrong.

    Right now the focus is on getting himself elected.

    Carter got himself elected.

    Lil' Bush jr. got himself elected.

    Both of those presidents crushed their respective party's brand.  Almost singlehandedly.

    And we give Carter some benefit of the doubt cause we agree with his ideas, he's one of us, but the fact remains, Dems aren't chasing their tails on National Security matters for the next three decades if not for Carter's handling of those issues.

    And now, hopefully we can make sure Americans look at Republicans the same way on the economy for the next three decades.

    Hopefully we can turn his blunders into branding advantage for the next 30 years.

    No.  We'll be hitting each other over the head over 15k donations coming from a lobbyist.

    Anyway, if the lives of Americans improve during Obama's administration then OK, that will be the final say in this matter.


    [ Parent ]

    Brava! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Foxx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    Brava! Brava!

    How could anyone want anyone else?

    Guantanamo and torture are at the top of my list too.

    Now he can say, "What Hillary said."

    There is one other thing . . . (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:54 PM EST
    How could anyone want anyone else?

    Well, Senator Obama is promising to start investigating and prosecuting war criminals in the Bush Administration immediately.

    Good idea or bad idea?

    Good campaign promise or bad campaign promise?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm very skeptical. What exactly did he (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:10:58 PM EST
    say?
    This reminds me of a very funny Big Orange diary a few months ago. Around the time when Hillary mentioned the possibility of using Powell in some capacity, it came out that Obama has consulted with privately with Powell on foreign policy.
    Some Kossacks, in all seriousness, told me that he was interrogating Powell with an eye towards prosecuting him for war crimes if elected---without Powell's knowledge, of course. It was a surreal moment.

    [ Parent ]
    There's some definite nut infiltration (none / 0) (#56)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    going on over there.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I like it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST
    but then I'm a Harpy.  We're supposed to be vengeful.

    [ Parent ]
    Well the actual quote (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Foxx on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:34 AM EST
    is a far cry from your rephrasing of it.

    But I am in favor of prosecuting all of them to the full extent possible.

    And collecting back as much of the money they stole as possible.

    But probably not in the first 100 days.

    [ Parent ]

    That's hardly what he said. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    if you read the actual quote he talks around the issue, says he will do it and then says that it may just turn out that Bush's stuff was just bad policy decisions. he will have to investigate.

    Please...he was pandering in the worst way, he won't investigate republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    Backward looking (none / 0) (#38)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    I want forward looking policies.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it would be (none / 0) (#39)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    "divisive" and a waste of time. Nothing will come of it, money wasted.  The same reason Ford pardoned Nixon, which turned out to be a good thing in hindsight.  

    [ Parent ]
    Good thing? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by splashy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:03:23 AM EST
    Actually, if Nixon had been prosecuted it's possible that the crowd that has been running this country into the ground wouldn't have done so because they would have been afraid of prosecution. A bunch of them were working with Nixon, like Cheney and Rumsfield.

    [ Parent ]
    If his administration is going to be about revenge (none / 0) (#47)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    then really count me out.  I have no interest at all in lopping off heads in bitter lib vindication.  I am only interested in solutions.  I guess I really am an HRC-only voter.

    [ Parent ]
    Did he say "war criminals" (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    I missed that.

    Where'd he say that?

    [ Parent ]

    Sen. Obama did not say "War Criminals" (none / 0) (#108)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:15:55 AM EST
    He used the word "crimes," and from the context it is clear he was talking about war crimes.  (See post #69 for the source.)

    As far as I know, he has not used the more incendiary term "war criminals."  I paraphrased his remarks in a way that was accurate but makes them sound a bit more controversial; that was not my intent.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:20:00 AM EST
    Review Information.

    Sounds good to me.

    And like he says, not his first priority.

    I agree with that too.

    But I do like how he gets to have this one both ways.

    Too.  

    [ Parent ]

    Can you give a link? (none / 0) (#62)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:23:08 PM EST
    I'd be interested to read more about that.

    [ Parent ]
    Blog at philly.com (Attytood) (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:36:45 PM EST
    Obama:

    What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued...I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

    Will Bunch:

    The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House.


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks :) (none / 0) (#79)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56:27 PM EST
    I'll have to go look on his website and see if he's got an action plan on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me know when you figure out (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    what that quote says. I can't tell what he intends to do.

    [ Parent ]
    I read it as (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:12:59 AM EST
    it being very unlikely that Bush would be charged with war crimes, but depending on the evidence, Rumsfeld (who was fired and is politically expendable) might very well be.  That could be a good compromise to at least put something on the record that the US govt. was wrong about not following the Geneva Conventions.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me know your (none / 0) (#90)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    interpretation of Hillary's policy on this also.  I can't figure it out either :)   I think she wouldn't do do anything with regards to prosecution?? But, really I have no idea.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't contend that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:24:37 AM EST
    she "is promising to start investigating and prosecuting war criminals in the Bush Administration immediately," which is how this thread got started. Red herring.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#98)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:45:32 AM EST
    I didn't say she had.  Obama has broached the subject, and the question (perhaps not for you) is whether he'll make it into a campaign pledge?  And to use the vernacular of TalkLeft, whether Hillary would pull a "metoo" if he did?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't agree with that characterization (none / 0) (#127)
    by herb the verb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST
    Sorry for this long post, this is basically what I wrote my brother (an Obama supporter)....

    You have no idea how much I want the next president to prosecute the current one for crimes committed in office. Any candidate who committed to that without reservation would convince me that they stand on the principal of the rule of law and were not concerned about the political fallout by enforcing our laws and constitution. That person would immediately gain my support, more so if I didn't think they were pandering to my desire for the even application of laws, however, if they even said it clearly without weasel language that would be enough. The downside is that if they clearly said that they would be looked at as "prejudging". But they wouldn't necessarily have to do that if they were careful with their language.

    I read the article(s) you linked to and hate to say Obama both confirmed and even heightened my concern.

    Here is what concerned me:

    Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there", "are there then inquiries that need to be pursued", "his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide", "He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt."", "willful criminality", "possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies".

    This does not sound like someone going to the mat, it sounds like someone splitting the baby. In general that is what Obama says and does regarding Republicans and their policies and that really bothers me. In fact I think he is trying to back out of it because clearly there is evidence major crimes were willfully committed, not "possibilities".

    The answer I would like to hear is "I think it is fair to say there is enough information available to warrant investigation and that is what we will do. If those investigations lead to prosecutions then that is what they will lead to. No president or administration is above the law and it is the duty of the President and Attorney General to enforce the laws and defend the constitution. Of course sometimes politics comes into play one way or the other and we have seen that in the past. I think that will always be unavoidable so there is some balancing that has to take place. Having said that, politics shouldn't be the first consideration it should be the last, and regrettably in recent years that order has maybe been switched around a little bit (in both directions) and that has been a detriment to our countries reputation and its future and the confidence that the people of this country have in the fair and equal application of the law. I intend to change that trend, and prosecute people or not prosecute people with much less regard to the politics of it."

    [ Parent ]

    countdown starts now (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    How many days until Obama releases his "Me Too" list of his "first 100 days" and how much more coverage will his get in the msm? I say 48 hours and 50x more coverage.

    btw -- Good move by Hillary to release it the day before the debate -- Obama will not have enough time to water it down and call it his own before then.


    25% agree with Obama's bitter comments (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST
    according to the link -- hmm, a hardcore 25% agreeing with him no matter what he says or does -- who does that remind me of?  

    We are the creative class. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    We do not care about reality.  We create it.  The rest of you will study us.

    Yes, it does sound familiar.

    [ Parent ]

    If you need to ridicule... (none / 0) (#52)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07:52 PM EST
    would you please pick something worth ridiculing?

    [ Parent ]
    In about 5 minutes it will be time (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by suisser on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
    to go check my 10 yrold daughter's blood sugar, for the 9th or 10th time today to decide how much more insulin she needs to get her Type 1 diabetic body through the night...sigh
     How can it be that only one candidate is talking about stem cells? Why does Mr. Hope ever get around to talking about real problems and real policy and real people like my kid??
    My kid needs Hilary in the White House.

    He talks about real issues (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    You see.  His number one issue is himself.

    He talks about that issue a lot.


    [ Parent ]

    I sincerely want (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    Hillary to be elected to not only help your child, but all Americans in need of healthcare.  I blogged about this today on my own blog:  while Rome burns we are talking about flag pins and bowling balls.

    Too bad MSNBC, KO, et al., don't get as fired up about 3.36 a gallon for gas as they do Hillary's latest speech or what color dress she's wearing.

    [ Parent ]

    $3.36 per gallon ?! (none / 0) (#50)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
    OT, but I have not seen gas that cheap for a year. Here's what we're dealing with. I have not actually seen prices that high, but I doubt if that picture is a fake. Here's a larger survey.

    I have no illusions that Hillary (or any other President) can lower gas prices. But she can take the lead in beginning to wean the US from its oil addiction.

    [ Parent ]

    that WAS a joke (none / 0) (#68)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:35:05 PM EST
    Last year about that time (or maybe it's been longer) I recall a local station having to close down because they couldn't negotiate a fair price with their supplier/brand.  In protest, they raised the price to over 4$ for a couple days.

    However, todays gas is around 4$.  I saw 3.99 last week for regular for sure--and that was at a cheap station.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's what we paid (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:37:02 PM EST
    upstate last Nov. I just did the mapquest gas price and in my area it's 3.44-3.78. Over in Jersey City they still have a few places under 3.05. I say an easy 4 bucks by may 25th here in NYC. And with McCain's little gas tax vacation, you can knock about 18cents off (if I have my info right!), whoopee!

    [ Parent ]
    that's what I pay, no joke (none / 0) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56:48 PM EST
    I think the gas prices vary quite a bit around the country. Out here in rural VA where we're all clingy and bitter, that's about the price.

    [ Parent ]
    Citgo is (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:41:01 AM EST
    almost always cheapest, if you can find a station.  Thanks, Hugo!

    Takes major planning to avoid buying from a Mobil station out here in the country in Vermont.  They seem to have gotten a lock on about 75 percent of the gas.  Ugh.  Hate to give them so much as a buck.

    [ Parent ]

    I pray for your child, she needs a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:21:36 PM EST
    in the White House for sure.  I think either one will help her.

    "By vetoing funding for stem cell research once again, the President is deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend their lives. The promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology, it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a President who will put that judgment first and make this promise real for the American people."

    6/20/07


    Advance Stem Cell Research: Despite recent advances pointing to alternatives like adult stem cell and cord blood, embryonic stem cells remain unmatched in their potential for treatment of a wide variety of diseases and health conditions. Barack Obama has been a long-term supporter of increased stem cell research. He introduced
    legislation while a member of the Illinois Senate that would allow embryonic stem cell research in Illinois.
    Obama has cosponsored legislation to allow greater federal government funding on a wider array of stem cell lines. Obama believes we need high ethical standards that allow for research on stem cells derived from embryos produced for in vitro fertilization, embryos that would otherwise be needlessly destroyed.

    From Obama's Fact Sheet on Investing in Scientific Research

    [ Parent ]

    Hang in there! (none / 0) (#25)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thank you (none / 0) (#71)
    by proudliberaldem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    for reminding us what this is really about. thinking about you and your daughter.

    [ Parent ]
    that sure brings this down to earth (none / 0) (#82)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:59:07 PM EST
    Thank you for reminding us what this is all about. My heart goes out to you and your daughter. The fact that this country still doesn't have universal health care is really embarrassing and pisses me off to no end.

    [ Parent ]
    absence of health care coverage (none / 0) (#120)
    by noholib on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:50 AM EST
    I think it's worse than embarrassing.  The absence of universal health care coverage in the United States is shameful and immoral.  It should not be a privilege but a right, the right of every citizen. Every other industrialized country in the world offers its citizens coverage for health care needs.  That's one of the reasons that civilized societies collect taxes -- for the common good.  It is in the best interest of a society as a whole to have healthy citizens (and a safe physical infrastructure ,bridges, roads, etc. - I know I just segued into a different topic).  Seriously, I think that the United States forfeits its claims to national greatness as long as it fails to offer universal health care coverage to its citizens.  I liked Edwards' emphasis upon this issue, and personally, I think single-payer would be far better than the private system we have now. But the principle should be unassailable:
    universal health care coverage is the mark of a civilized compassionate country.
    I think Clinton gets this more than Obama, and it was the first reason for my turning to her after Edwards withdrew.

    [ Parent ]
    Give me a shot and a beer with that, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    please!

    One of my big reasons for supporting (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    Hillary since the early days has been her concrete, specific plans to take our government back and put competent career professionals in charge again, instead of corrupt political cronies. Her experience really shows in the way she's planned to use executive orders and directives to get things moving in a positive direction right away, so Congress can work on cleaning up our laws.

    The 100 day plan is wonderful and organizes all her meticulous prep into one document; the underlying plans and initiatives have been on her website for all to see. We need her so much.

    The levers of power (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:44:36 AM EST
    I really fail to get why so many people don't realize that HRC had the best on-the-job training for president you could possibly have, given the intensity of her relationship with Bill.

    She knows where all the levers of power are, without having to use signing statements and unitary executive crap.  She's knows precisely what she can do, and it would take Obama years to figure it out, like any newbie.


    [ Parent ]

    This is an important policy difference (none / 0) (#77)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:51:51 PM EST
    Obama is stronger on the Constitution and reducing executive power.  I'd hate to continue expanding power...it might work to my liking with Clinton 44, but then come back to haunt us all with Bush 45.    

    I definitely agree that Congress needs to prompted with strong leadership to clean up laws.

    [ Parent ]

    Executive power over the executive branch (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    is part of the Constitution. The President is responsible for running those agencies in accordance with federal law and always has been. Where the expansion of executive power has taken place under Bush has been in subverting and breaking the law and denying the authority of co-equal branches--Hillary's against that and says so quite forcefully. So I disagree that he has a stronger case in this area.

    April 15, 2008
    Hillary's Remarks to the Newspaper Association of America's Annual Conference in Washington DC

    ""Fourth, because government abuse is checked by the separation of powers, I will restore respect for our co-equal branches of government. I'll start by limiting the excessive executive powers this president has accumulated, like the unilateral power to wiretap, or detain try people, even American citizens. I will work with Congress again as a partner to solve problems. I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws that Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture and restore the right of Habeas Corpus."


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, I left out a bit (none / 0) (#92)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:28:37 AM EST
    Because I was conflating this issue along with host of other things (i.e. the LBJ comments and my other general impressions on her health care drive in '93).  I believe that Hillary has a strong attitude that a President gets things done.  Do you disagree with that general impression? Passing laws is definitely part of the legislative branch, right? Whereas Obama's philosophy is that the president is the leader/facilitator that integrates several ideas from the legislature to form policy.  In my opinion, this view is more true to the Constitution.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO, Senator Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:54:01 AM EST
    do an excellent job as President in terms of building consensus between opposing sides to encourage and support legislation and would be extremely effective in engaging the public's interest through his speeches. His gift for presenting a overarching vision in poetic and moving oratory is one of my favorite things about his campaign.

    My view of Senator Clinton is that she's become extremely good at building consensus in the Senate as well, much better now than in 1993 when she didn't have an elected position to give her weight. Her gift lies in being able to present policy and legislative specifics so that anyone can understand even the most complex ideas and relate them to their own lives, which builds enlightened support for a specific program or law as well.

    I tend to prefer her as President because she consistently starts from a strong Democratic position, rather than in the middle of the field. I do think she respects Congress's legislative authority, even more since she's been in the Senate. "Getting things done" in the executive branch is a good thing, IMO, but trying to force or derail legislation unilaterally is not. I don't see that from her; I know others do. Two good candidates in my view, just different ways of working.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok fair point (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:34:41 AM EST
    She's much better at consensus in the Senate than in 93.  And really, I don't have major problems with any votes other than AUMF. So, maybe with the authority of the Presidency, she'll not try to force legislation unilaterally--and I mean that within the party mainly.

    [ Parent ]
    "Consensus between opposing sides"? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:00:25 AM EST
    Wow. He's really doing such a good job at that, now.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama found Senate work to be (none / 0) (#125)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    "boring" and has had problems keeping track of paperwork, then the Presidency is not the job for him. It is all about boring policy discussions and paperwork, not running around giving speeches and inspiring your fan base. That's what a rock star does, not a President. Obama should prove that he can be an effective Senator before he asks for the big job. So far, he hasn't done that.

    [ Parent ]
    For me the issue is (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:28:42 AM EST
    that while she and Obama may have similar agendas, she is so much more capable and experienced in the ways of Washington that she is tough enough and smart enough to get her agenda pushed through Congress while he will be learning the ropes for quite a while. He doesn't have her clout.

    [ Parent ]
    For me it's (none / 0) (#121)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    the crapshoot of how can Obama be a good President when he's been such an ineffectual US Senator?  He didn't show leadership there, how do we know he could lead as President?

    [ Parent ]
    Aw heck (none / 0) (#88)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13:06 AM EST
    sorry to repost that link on the same post. I'm an idiot :(

    [ Parent ]
    No problem (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:33:04 AM EST
    I read the list, and definitely agree that those need to be done.

    [ Parent ]
    campaign (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    while I admit that hillarys campaign has had some strategy problems, the one area in it wich she always stands out and is light years ahead of the rest is policy. baracks policy dept does not come close and when they do it is a xerox. people are criticizing her for runing a bad campaign without ever taking into account just how top notch her policy team is. in terms of governance I tell u can tell more about what kind of prez one would be by looking at the policy departments and not just ground game or electoral strategy.

    It's interesting how much work she's (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48:03 PM EST
    getting done while campaigning. Even on day to day news, she manages to put out statements or positions.

    I compare the 2 sites daily. ahem.

    [ Parent ]

    So Frustrating (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:34:16 PM EST
    In February, she said all these things here in California, before the Nevada primary she said all these things in the Reno Gazette interview.  The one she said at that time that impressed me was undoing all the Bush signing statements.  Man, no one else was saying this stuff.  

    This stuff never gets reported on tv (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:52 AM EST
    The new NYT editorial nails how I feel about this primary.

    Whose brilliant idea was it to leave six weeks open before the Pennsylvania primary?

    Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton do raise important issues in their speeches. But the campaign, as seen on TV -- the one that counts -- has been consumed with the senators trading insults over Mr. Obama's boneheaded remarks about working-class voters. They are not doing themselves or the country any good. A few more days of these Punch and Judy shows and even we will be tempted to tune out.

    As has usually been the case in these spats, Mrs. Clinton is more the aggressor. After days of digging at Mr. Obama for saying that working-class voters turn xenophobic or "cling to guns and religion" because they're bitter over lost jobs, Mrs. Clinton couldn't resist a new nasty attack ad. What she has yet to figure out is that she ends up hurting herself -- feeding her negative image -- by attacking too long and with too much relish.

    Mr. Obama is not a hapless victim. His comments made for just the sort of rookie error that the Illinois senator is prone to make, and they have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat, as have his insulting Annie Oakley jokes and demands to see pictures of Mrs. Clinton in a duck blind. Sexist jabs are as offensive as racist jabs.



    I just love (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    how they blame it all on the TV news, when they themselves have been petty and poor at reporting in the extreme. Why aren't they reporting and discussing all the many policy papers that Clinton puts out every few days? If they really believe that the voters should be educated, then why aren't they taking up that responsibility? Why are they wasting space on psychotics like Maureen Dowd?


    [ Parent ]
    Editorial board (none / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:56 AM EST
    and the news operation are completely separate.  There's literally a wall between them.  One has nothing to do with the other.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    The NY Times can say this:

    His comments made for just the sort of rookie error that the Illinois senator is prone to make, and they have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat,

    But Clinton can't.  

    [ Parent ]

    The Editorial Board (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:56:49 AM EST
    Endorses Clinton. That may be it. Also I agree that it did not help her. Although she is allowed to, just ill advised for her own sake.

    [ Parent ]
    I have always felt (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM EST
    That even some of those who endorse Clinton are susceptible to some double standards.

    If you're giving Obama a pass when he attacks Clinton's integrity and whining about Clinton being nasty when she attacks him for being elitist, I tend to think the endorsement doesn't count for much.


    [ Parent ]

    Fun trick (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:40 AM EST
    Take this speech and pretend that Obama is saying it. If these words came out of his mouth, and he meant it, it would be a different primary.

    Similarly, take one of his speeches and imagine Hillary saying it.

    Each has their strengths; I just think Hillary's strengths make her a better president.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    Proposals you say? Is this part of that long horrible list she was derided for?  Oh my lord I want her to President so bad.  She's just so intelligent it's frightening.

    A Plan of action (none / 0) (#11)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:27:22 PM EST
    Wow! Could it be possible for us to have an intelligent, competent person running the country again?  That would be awesome.  Me being a "low-information" voter and not a member of the "creative-class", I opt for brains over glib.  

    That's what Al Gore was supposed to be (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:28:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#105)
    by mbuchel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:04:35 AM EST
    But he lost because he was an elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    Gore found his calling (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:14:52 AM EST
    After watching his interview on 60 minutes, Gore has found his calling.  He is not and was not a politician.  I don't think he has the stomach.  The Clintons have the stomach.  

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, your link ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34:18 PM EST
    ... goes to an article on "Obama Has Chance at Debate to Mute -- or Stoke -- Controversy Over `Small Town' Comments." Is there a link to the actual proposals?

    it's the correct link (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    you just have to read through the middle of the article.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, I found the speech ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    ... on Hillary's site here. It is worth reading.

    [ Parent ]
    Amazing! (none / 0) (#32)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    It almost feels like a rope a dope...bittergate back and forth, and then wham a solid, comprehensive plan of action.

    [ Parent ]
    Which one will restore civil liberties? Habeas,... (none / 0) (#20)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    Patriot Act, FISA,

    Jebus there is so much to undo in so many different areas...  

    But which one WILL undo or relinquish the power the Bush stole and Congress allowed?

    These are issues that could swing me to either candidate, but will they talk about it?  Uh, no...

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    Second, I will restore openness in government. When I am president, the era of Bush/Cheney secrecy will be over.
    ...

    That kind of open leadership has been sorely lacking these past seven years. In fact the Bush administration has dramatically widened the definition of classified information to shield more and more materials from public scrutiny, has widened the scope of the states secrets privilege to shield this program from judicial review, and has widened the reach of executive privilege to shield its activated from Congress. From warrantless wiretaps at home to secret prisons overseas, the Bush administration has conducted illegal activities and stonewalled efforts of the people and the Congress to discover them and to hold the administration accountable.

    ...

    Fourth, because government abuse is checked by the separation of powers, I will restore respect for our co-equal branches of government. I'll start by limiting the excessive executive powers this president has accumulated, like the unilateral power to wiretap, or detain try people, even American citizens. I will work with Congress again as a partner to solve problems. I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws that Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture and restore the right of Habeas Corpus.

    I will end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public's right to know and congress' duty to oversee the president.

    Finally I will make crystal clear that the president and the executive branch will comply with the laws of our nation. My Department of Justice will interpret those laws fairly accurately honestly and publically. We'll release Justice Department interpretations so that you know exactly what our understanding is and how laws are being executed. The President is not above the law in our system of government and we need to make that absolutely clear starting next year. These changes both represent and drive the transformation I believe is needed in our government starting on day one of my administration. I do not believe that power is an end in itself but a means. A means limited in scope of serving the interest and protecting the safety of our nation, while creating opportunity for our people.

    Full speech with much more at Hillary's site

    [ Parent ]

    I'm voting for standingup! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:34:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is a start from the post. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:23 PM EST
    From the AP story ...

    "I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture, and restore the right of habeas corpus," she said. "And I'll end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public's right to know and Congress's duty to oversee the president."


    [ Parent ]
    Again, both will (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    Revise the PATRIOT Act: Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the USA PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.

    Strengthen Warrantless Wiretap Approval Process: Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence
    Paid for by Obama for America
    Surveillance Ac