Obama's Faulty Memory

While campaigning in Pennsylvania this week, Senator Obama, on more than one occasion, said that the economy under President Clinton was one reason why the people of Pennsylvania have come under hard economic times.  It is obvious Obama was trying to get to Senator Clinton through her husband, but that doesn't change that what Sen. Obama said was factually inaccurate.

 

The fact is that people in all walks of life and pay groups did better on President Clinton's watch and under his economic program than any other administration that Obama can even remember.  The Department of Labor can attest to that.  There is no other administration that can match the economic progress achieved on Clinton's watch.  The people of Pennsylvania, who Obama was talking to, were certainly not better off on George W. Bush or the Reagan-Bush watch that started back 28 years ago.

 

In fact, the economy under President Clinton did so well for people across the pay scale, there is not another economy you can compare it to.  What other administration created over 22 million jobs in 8 years; had an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest in 30 years; the lowest crime rate in 30 years; balanced budgets with record surpluses while paying down over 400 billion dollars on the national debt?  I challenge Obama to come up with an administration that performed better for the people.

 

It is one thing to be in a political campaign when some people think they can say anything that is not factual, but that is a reflection on their character and a disservice to a President who worked so hard on the economy to reverse the 12 straight years of the Reagan-Bush era, where the American people lost ground economically. 

 

Obama may have the right to wallow in his hatred for President Clinton and his wife, but he does not have a right to knowingly misrepresent the truth and the facts.

Politics Pop Quiz: Who Said What?

Think you know who said what this campaign season?  Can you match the Republican talking points with the person who said them?  Take the Republican Attack Quiz by clicking here. 

The Morning Dose---4/17

The Morning Dose comes to us today from Taylor Marsh, reviewing the debate last night, in a blog post titled, Just How Soft Obama's Coverage Been?:

_________________________________________________________

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

The Morning Dose---4/14

The Morning Dose today comes from a guest post by Scan over at Taylor Marsh, titled, What It's All About:

_______________________________________________________________

I think we need to take a step back from this contentious primary season and remember what is really important.

All the debates, all this inter-party strife, all the "hit diaries" on behalf of both candidates, all the controversy about race and gender issues, and everything else we've been talking about for the past year...all of it will not matter a year from now. The only thing of true significance is what happens on November 4th, 2008. The only thing that matters is whether or not we will have a conservative Republican running the country for the next 4-8 years, or a progressive Democrat there instead. I don't need to list all the reasons why, but it's the difference between:

*No end in sight for our involvement in Iraq, or a swift withdrawal
*A Supreme Court full of Alitos and Scalias, or one full of Ginsburgs and Breyers.
*A continuation of Bush economics, or digging ourselves out from it
*Environmental issues on the back burner, or front-and-center
*The status quo indefinitely, or universal health care for all Americans

I had a conversation with a pro-Obama coworker just before the New Hampshire primary. At that time, I was for Hillary but Barack was my second choice, and I was prepared to back him strongly if it became clear it was over for Clinton. But I told my coworker that there was one clear, strong reason why I was so solidly pro-Hillary: My brain and my gut were telling me that she could definitely beat the Republicans in November, and I simply could not say the same thing about Obama. There was just too much we didn't know about him, and the stakes were too high for me to take that risk. That, and the Clintons don't know how to lose.

I see echoes of 2004 in our current election season. Back then, I saw one candidate that could have easily beaten Bush. That candidate was Wes Clark. When it became clear that John Kerry was on his way to the nomination, I saw him as a strong but beatable candidate, and all I could say to the Democrats of Iowa and New Hampshire was "Umm, guys...I hope you know what you're doing here." And sure enough, our hearts were eventually broken. I still firmly believe that if Clark was our nominee back then, he would be our president right now and perhaps coasting his way to reelection. There's no way to prove it, it's just what I think.

The point I am getting to is this: It has become clear to me that Obama will not be elected president. If he goes against McCain, he will lose. I've been leaning towards this line of thinking for about about a month now, but the controversy surrounding Rev. Wright has sealed the deal. I'm not sure that everyone appreciates just how deadly this sort of stuff is. His ties to him are deep, profound, influential, and probably unbreakable. To have such inflammatory and offensive rhetoric as "God Damn America!" and "U.S. of KKK A." coming from Obama's spiritual adviser and mentor is deeply troubling to the average American voter and should not be dismissed.

I had an interesting talk with my mom about this a couple of nights ago. She lives in Anson Texas, a small conservative town just north of Abilene (where I grew up). She is deeply religious and conservative (very common for Anson) but is not dizzy with love for McCain, either. As soon as I mentioned something about politics, she immediately wanted to talk about Obama and his pastor. She was completely outraged about it. Despite living in a small town in Texas and not being an avid viewer of cable news, she knew quite a lot about the situation. For instance, she knew that Obama had listened to Rev. Wright's tapes even in his youth at Harvard. Somewhat compassionately, I thought, she said she attempted to look at this in an understanding way but simply could not. I got the feeling that this was definitely the political talk of the town, and if Anson Texas is at all representative of small-town America, this is a big deal and big trouble for Obama. This may be tough for some to hear, but the truth is he might as well be Farrakhan to a great many people at this point. And the more people talk about this, the worse it will get, I believe. So I asked her, as a Republican, who she would choose if the options were only Clinton and Obama. "Hillary, in a heartbeat" she said. This coming from a woman who has HATED Clintons unabated since 1992.

I take no joy in the downfall of Obama. I will never forget where I was when he delivered his '04 Convention speech. It brought me to my feet and brought tears to my eyes. It was the best political speech of my adult life(...)

(...)These were the words of a future president, I thought. But it is clear that his campaign has not lived up to these words. As soon as I saw his co-chair on national television the day after New Hampshire questioning why Hillary did not cry for Katrina victims, but did cry over her physical appearance, I knew that his convention speech was just words...just a speech. And as soon as the information regarding Rev. Wright and Rezko came to light, I knew he did not have the judgment to be elected by the American people, or even to be the kind of president we need him to be.

But the good news is that we have another Democratic candidate in this race that can and will win in November.

That person is Mike Gravel.

....just kidding. It's Hillary.

If a progressive Democrat as president from 2009-2017 sounds like a good idea to you, I believe the time may be arriving to unite behind a candidate that can win and save our beloved country from the brink of disaster.

Madame President?

Clinton Further Responds to Obama's Remarks

Watch:

Fiscal Responsibility: A Necessity For A Sustained Economy

Balancing the federal budget, reducing spending, and paying down government debt has never been a priority or policy for Republican Presidents in the last 50 years.  That is the main reason the economy has never been on an even keel or sustained itself on the Republicans' watch.  Their ideology is to bankrupt the federal government so that social security, medicare, and other federal programs that work will have to be dismantled.  That is just one of the reasons that George W. Bush wanted to remake social security into private accounts. 

 

Contrary to what the American people have been led to believe, the federal government can afford needed programs if the budget is balanced and debt creation is eliminated.  Tax increases are not necessary to pay for needed programs when our house is fiscally sound.

 

Senator Clinton is the only presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is campaigning on fiscal discipline and a balanced budget.  She recognizes that without both, the economy will never be sustained and action after the fact will have to be taken, such as what is happening now with the fiscal disaster that Bush has laid on our country and its people.  It only takes common sense to realize how well off our country would be today had Bush not recklessly spent the $5.6 trillion surplus and had he followed the path of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility the previous administration left him.  But instead, he embarked upon a record deficit and debt spree never seen before in American history.

 

Senator Clinton understands the big picture of the benefits to the nation and its people and the rewards of being fiscally responsible.  The mess we are now in with the mortgage and financial industry would never have happened if Bush had the federal government's fiscal house in order.  During the campaign, the Republicans will once again try to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes.  The voters need to catch on to something: it has been the Republicans who are getting into their pockets in so many different ways.  $3.25 gallon gasoline is only one of the many examples.

 

Senator Clinton is in a position, with her experience, to bring back fiscal sanity and a balanced budget, to not only have a sustained and growing economy that creates new jobs, but to have the resources to do what is necessary to move our country forward and service the people's needs.  

The Morning Dose---4/12

Today's Morning Dose comes from Christy Macy of the Baltimore Sun, titled, "Clinton Offers a Bold Vision for American Foreign Policy":

_____________________________________________________________

While she clearly erred in her recent description of what happened at an airport in Bosnia years ago, the incident has been blown out of proportion. As one who has worked closely with her, I can say that Senator Clinton's experience and work overseas point to something far more significant: a new direction in American foreign policy, which is in desperate need of change.

When I was on her staff, Mrs. Clinton pursued a daunting schedule of foreign trips. She addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, exhorting the world's business and governmental leaders on the importance of international development as a foundation for civil society. She understood that peace in Northern Ireland depended on the engagement of citizens at the grass roots, especially women - a point she stressed in the Millennium Lecture at the University of Ireland in Galway. And she stood on the stage at the Palermo Opera House in Sicily, speaking passionately about the critical role of citizens' movements in the quest to defeat organized crime and reclaim communities.

For me, the depth of her commitment to these issues was evident not only during her moments in the spotlight. It also emerged behind the scenes, as she pushed us off the beaten track to consult people about their everyday lives and struggles. Over the years, in nearly 80 countries, these personal experiences and conversations deeply shaped her policy agenda and explain why she believes we must invest our prestige, power and dollars in human development.

One such occasion remains vivid: Mrs. Clinton's visit - up five flights of stairs - to a small women's legal clinic in Beijing. It was hot and stuffy, but the room was packed with women eager to meet with the first lady of the U.S. In a totalitarian country, where women's rights were still marginal at best, these women lawyers worked tirelessly to help others claim their rights on such issues as divorce and housing - often at some risk to themselves. They were stunned at Mrs. Clinton's knowledge of the issues they faced. After a lively discussion, one woman stood up. "You have no idea," she said, "what it means that you are here today with all of us. We will never forget this." And she began to weep.

A long drive to an isolated school in rural Morocco offered another example of Mrs. Clinton's immersion in grass-roots issues around the world. She believes that no nation can fully advance with half its population left behind.(...)

(...)What struck me about these numerous visits and conversations was Mrs. Clinton's unwavering commitment to identify and promote strategies with positive effects on people's lives. Wherever she went, she searched for concrete solutions to lift people out of poverty, create stronger communities, and bolster democratic institutions worldwide.

Mrs. Clinton has the interest, experience and credentials to reverse the incalculable damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on America's standing in the international community. We need a commander in chief who understands that American leadership depends on balancing military strength with our nation's heritage as a beacon of freedom and hope.

With Hillary, I think we get that balance - and more.

UPDATE: Clinton and McCain Camps Respond to Obama's Rural Pennsylvanians Comment

Sen. Hillary Clinton responded this way:

“I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience.

As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

Sen. McCain's campaign spokesperson responded, saying:

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking.  It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

THIS JUST IN: Rural Pennsylvanians Are Radical Religious Gun-Carrying Xenophobes

Well, that's according to Barack Obama, at least.  It was at a fundraiser in San Francisco where Obama had this to say:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.(...)

(...)So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is a real and growing problem for Barack Obama.  First, his wife says that for the first time in her adult life she is really proud of her country.  Then we find out that Barack Obama has been friends with Jeremiah Wright, a racist and anti-American pastor, for over 20 years.  Then he stereotypes white people in his "typical white person" comment about his grandmothers's racist attitudes.  

Now, let me be clear, I'm not claiming to know what Barack Obama believes in his heart, but I am increasingly troubled by what I hear --- if not for the pure anger it arises in me personally, for the harm it does Obama in the general election should he be the nominee.  

This latest comment is particularly disturbing.  In it, Obama sounds elitist and snobby.  He plays up the stereotype that liberals are big city guys who don't care about small town America.  Kerry was painted that way in '04...and Democrats lost.  In '92, Clinton was able to connect with rural voters, and look what happened --- he won.  

I'm also not sure what exactly Obama meant by what he said.  Sure, it's clearly condescending, but how does losing your job make you more likely to "cling to guns", making it sound like rural people are gun-obsessed gangsters?  How exactly does it make people racist and bigoted to people who are different from the them? 

I don't get it.  Obama's campaign is supposed to be about uniting the country.  Instead, he's dividing us.  Not just by race, but now by big city vs. small town.   Comments like this are just plain not helpful --- not just to Obama, but the entire party.  They're surely not helping us win the White House.  

Why The Democratic Race Should Continue...To The Convention

The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination that is playing out is a healthy sign of Democracy at work and at its best.  The American people have two final candidates who are in a close race (despite what the news media says) and the voters are taking their time in their assessment of the two.

 

Those who want Senator Clinton to drop out the race appear to be afraid to let the people vote in the final primaries and are dead wrong.  Those are the same people who say they do not want a brokered convention, but are clamoring for that in the primaries.  The primaries need to play out and the people need whatever time it takes to make sure that the best candidate is selected, not just as a nominee, but as a potential President.  That process will not hurt the Democrats chance to win in the general election in November; if anything, putting the best candidate forward will help the Democrats to win.    

 

The delegates who end up casting their votes should not rush to judgment before the voting process is completed.  There seems to be a movement for change, but who between the two candidates has actually articulated what they would change; how they intend to do it and carry it out.  George W. Bush ran on change in 2000---to change the tone in Washington.  He did not define it nor how he would accomplish it, but we all know that the change under his administration has been a disaster for our country.

 

The voters have to look beyond mere slogans of change, and instead focus on the issues and who can best handle those issues with a plan and deeds.  Experience at the federal and national level does matter; that is what the President has to manage and deal with.  Which of the two candidates has actually accomplished more for the people since they have been in Congress? That is a good indication of who would do better as President.

 

The larger problem that the voters face in the upcoming primaries is the news media having already made up their minds and pushing the candidate of their choice, failing to fairly and accurately report on this race.  I would hope that the voters exercise their own thoughts, listen to what the candidates actually propose to do, disregard what they hear in the news media, and then make their own judgement.  That would be the democratic way to choose the Democratic nominee for President.