Letters to the Editor
-
Chris Matthews on Obama's Accomplishments
It's about time Matthews has asked this question. It's too bad it may be a little too late. He danced around Obama's record for so long, not asking anything specific just like the rest of the media including Salon.
-
@ AlecsMom
You wrote:
I see an opening for change with Obama that doesn't come along with the high negatives of Clinton.
I agree with you absolutely here. And I am holding out hope that once he gets in there he will use his mandate for change to do more than anyone expects.
-
Chris Matthews flashes OSAMA AGAIN
These guys on the right continually make these 'mistakes' with no real consequences. I don't watch them and now am trying not to buy anything from companies who advertise on their shows. I have taken to turning off the so called news shows because they don't mean anything except a block of time taken up while big media collects advertising checks from multi national corporations. They are part of the over all problem with this country. Turn off your tv's and stop listening to this drabble. Give these guys a permanent vacation hawking books on what's left of public access.
-
The Hammer...
I think where this is coming from and what makes it a real issue is that McCain and the Republicans will hammer this hard if Barack gets the nomination.
Both McCain and Rove have said that Barack's biggest problem and biggest weakness is that he simply doesn't have the experience (read "maturity") to know what he's doing in the presidency.
Whether previous Presidents have had this experience may or may not make a difference if the Republicans can hammer this home hard enough.
-
It's a problem though
Those people standing up for him need to know his record. He did this to the governor of Wisconsin the other night and the only thing he answered with was Ethics reform.
I agree, Hillary's record is also a problem. She talks like she's done all this stuff but I can't think of anything other than being first lady in a AR and in the White House.
But before Obama and his supporters can use the line "what are Hillary's accomplishments", they need to answer the question themselves.
The sad thing here is that this is a huge issue that Clinton has gotten the jump on. You think McCain won't do the same? They need to do some quick damage control on this before it's a tit for tat in the media, which it will be very soon.
-
If you want to see what he's doing in the Senate, try his Senate website
Check this out:
http://obama.senate.gov/
I have to say, I'm particularly impressed by the "voting record" tab; it appears to link directly into the Thomas database. No spin; all the data is right there for you to peruse. Speaks well of his commitment to transparency.
-
@damnthatxanadu
One question that I'd really like you to answer:
Exactly WHAT leads you to conclude that the "experience" McCain touts will be successful as a campaign strategy?
All of the data flowing in from the electoral contests show that:
1) Americans are extremely anxious about the economy
2) they are anxious for a change
3) When given the opportunity for open electoral voting, Obama garners far larger numbers from independents and some Repubs than McCain gathers from Dems or independents.
So, please give me your rationale for still asserting that McCain has some kind of ace up his sleeve in terms of the experience card.
-
makeup call
I know sports metaphors are not always welcome here, but this seemed like Matthews giving Team Clinton a bogus call in the 3rd quarter to make up for a blown call back in the 1st quarter. I saw it live, and my first thought was "ah, so here's the make good for Clinton."
Look at the way it went down. He let the Clinton supporter talk for 3 solid minutes without interrupting with a question. She gave bland talking points with no substance to them whatsoever. Then Matthews threw it to the Congressman and turned into Jack McCoy on Law and Order. He never asked Clinton's rep a similar question, he let the cross-talk and resulting awkward silence from the satellite delay make him look more incompetent, then gave Clinton's rep the last word. I thought Olbermann's response was the perfect undercut to the whole nonsense. I could imagine Matthews picking up the phone at the break and saying to Mark Penn "are we even now? Can Shuster come back? Ok? Good..."
-
Gotta love the Internets
Funny reading some people comparing Obama's sponsored/co-sponsored legislation to Clinton's passed legislation. Two different horses, especially in a Republican-controlled Congress. Yes, legislative accomplishments aren't the sole criteria for selecting a president, but it's a factor. Also, comparing Bill Clinton/GWB's "legislative accomplishments" prior to becoming president is a bit misleading. One could argue they were elected in part because they had executive branch experience, albeit at the state level (and in Bush's case, in a state with a week governor).
But if you want numbers, the Internets are cool that way. With the click of a button I can tell you that Clinton sponsored/authored 150 bills and resolutions in the current Congress (starting Jan. 2007, when the Dems took control) and co-sponsored 483, 4 of which became law, none of which she was the lead sponsor. Obama has sponsored 113 bills and resolutions and co-sponsored 375, 3 of which have become law, none of which he was the lead sponsor. One of those bills that became law, to issue a postage stamp for breast cancer funds, they were both a co-sponsor.
What does it mean? Who knows.
-
"This isn't the first time a pundit has brought up this question"
Forget the punditry... this is the same question that a few of us have been asking for months now and have yet to find a useful answer. "Read Obama's website, it's all there in great detail", I'm told. So, I have and it's all very eloquent, indeed. And what detailed wish-lists. But, how does he propose to accomplish all the things that are on his wish-lists? THAT's where I, for one, find nothing but hot air. Half of the stuff he says he's going to do aren't even the purview of the President and are barely within a President's power to influence. I find it unsettling that he finds it necessary to pander to so gullible a constituency.
I can understand that it's politically better if Obama can get away with skipping over details; pretty wish lists only look pretty when dirty details are kept hidden. So it doesn't benefit Obama to answer the "how" questions if he doesn't have to. I understand that. At the same time, it leaves me to continue wondering whether this pig-in-a-poke will turn out to be just another empty suit.