Hillary Answers YOUR Questions

Hillaryclinton.com has launched a great new feature, called "Ask Hillary", where anyone can submit questions to Hillary and Hillary will answer the best ones.  If you ask me, this is a great way to use technology.  The fact is that many Americans who will be voting in the upcoming primaries won't get a chance to attend a Clinton rally where Hillary answers audience questions for 2 hours straight.  This new feature, however, allows Sen. Clinton to answer questions from those voters and that is what Democracy is all about.  It's not about going on a press tour and appearing on every political show possible to answer the questions of the biased media.  It is about listening to the American people and their questions and ultimately answering to them.  It empowers ordinary people to know that they too have just as much, if not more, stake in this than anyone seen on T.V.  

So, without further ado, here is the first of many installments of "Ask Hillary":

A Reckless Foreign Policy

George Bush's attempt to play God in Iraq and the Middle East is a prime example of a leader trying to use its military power with impunity to enforce its own warped ideology on other countries.

 

We now learn, (what people with common sense found out long ago) through a report by the Associated Press, that the Arab nations worry about Iran's increasing influence around the Region particularly in Iraq and Lebanon.  Sunni countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states fear Iran will dominate Iraq in coming years because of its influence on Iraq's Shiite politicians. 

 

The war and occupation in Iraq, over WMD that did not exist, will be entering its fifth year in March.  Prior to this war, the Arab nations knew that Saddam and Iraq held Iran in check.  This war did not only destabilized Iraq, but also the entire Middle East region.  And as I mentioned before, when this war is done, because of Bush's reckless behavior, Iran and Iraq will be close allies.

 

None of this speaks well for America, our security or the security of the Middle East.  With the balance of power shifting, Israel with its WMD, Bush's incompetence and the problems in Pakistan, another country with WMD, the whole Muslim world could blow up any minute now.  Bush's bully-mentality towards other countries has caused a great backlash against the United States and has and continues to endanger our security.  

 

Democracy was not forced on the United States; our founding fathers were responsible for that.  Democracy can not be forced on other countries like Bush thinks he has a right to do.  The terrorists who were responsible for attacking the U.S. on 9-11 still flourish and their influence is growing.  The action of Mr. Bush to start a war and occupation in Iraq, instead of action against those who attacked us on 9-11, has set the Middle East on fire.  Democracy forced on others is simply not true Democracy.  

 

The shame of all this is that our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price.  And we are still being told the surge is working, despite the fact that the reason given for the surge has never taken place.  2007 was the most deadly year in Iraq for our troops and for the Iraqi's.  In case any one has not noticed, 13 americans have already been killed in Iraq this month and from the same causes.  Our troops and our country were safer on the previous administration's watch.  That says it all. 

Congrats Hillary Clinton; My Message To The Media

Sen. Hillary Clinton, much to my and everyone in the world's surprise, pulled out a 3 point win in the New Hampshire primary when every poll proceeding Iowa had Clinton behind 8-15 points. Sen. Clinton deserves nothing but credit; she worked and her supporters worked their hearts out and in the end, that never-say-die attitude delivered Clinton a much needed win heading into the next stage of caucuses and primaries.  And I must say, Sen. Clinton's victory speech was so telling of exactly why she won, saying, "Over the last week, I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice."  Sen. Clinton did in fact find her own voice.  She found a way to connect with voters in the last day or two before the primary in a way that she was never able to do before.

And now, I want to address the media, particularly people like Chris Matthews.  Last Friday, after the Obama win in Iowa, the media became instantly obsessed with Barack Obama.  They flirted over him and played him up as if there was no tomorrow.  They instantly turned on Hillary and became unfairly harsh, bordering on cruel, to the Senator from New York.  There was no logical explanation for it, except of course, that Obama won Iowa and thats all the American people needed to know.  They didn't need to learn about Obama's record nor did the media think it was necessary for the American people to have any choice of their own in choosing the President.  Pundits were clear in what they wanted----a coronation for Obama.   

Last night, I was hopeful.  I though to myself, maybe this will be good enough to make the media realize that there is an actual Presidential election going on here.  I thought that maybe the media would see that the American people, not they alone, will choose our next President.  I was also hopeful for a less biased look at Sen.Clinton and at all the great qualities---experience, strength, leadership, perseverance---that she brings to the table.  Instead, what I awoke to was the media still giving an unfairly and unwarranted harsh look at the Clinton campaign in contrast to the soft, ultra-positive outlook they give to Obama.

What makes me even angrier is how the media is trying to spin this into an Obama win---somehow completely discrediting  Sen. Clinton's hard work that she put in to New Hampshire.  The most insulting explanation, came from people like Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Eugene Robinson, Michael Eric Dyson, among others, who somehow attribute Clinton's win to racism.  They claim that white people, at fear of sounding racist, told pollsters that they support Obama, even though they supported Clinton.  This explanation is beyond ridiculous.  The fact is that most recent polls had Obama in the 35-37% range.  This is exactly where he scored on Tuesday.  The difference is, of course, Clinton's votes, which saw an obvious spike.  What explains this?  The fact that anywhere from 10-15% of people in the conducted polls where undecided and about the same amount said that they supported a candidate, but could change their mind within the last few hours.  So, memo to the media, give credit where it's due.  Sen. Clinton worked tirelessly, taking hours and hours of questions from voters and truly opening herself up to voters.  Racism was not at work here, like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's victory must be attributed to the facts---that she herself and her hard-working supporters won over the many undecideds.

And, just to mention it, when Obama won Iowa, I didn't here anyone cry that Iowa was sexist.  I didn't here anyone say that, "o, you know, Iowa never elects women to high offices."  And rightfully so that they didn't say that.  Obama won Iowa because he worked hard at it and had impeccable organization.  So why the double standard?  Simple, Obama is the media's baby, and they have a natural hate for the Clinton's.  It's not fair, it's not right, but it is, for right now, reality.  The only way the American people are going to get a more fair, balanced media is to give the media a reality check----the American people will vote how they want to vote----not how the media tells them they have to.  So, to say that there was a racist undercurrent to Clinton's win, is not just insulting to the work of the Clinton campaign, but also to the integrity of New Hampshire voters. 

And finally, the Obama campaign is also out making sad excuses.  Their latest spin, laid out by Obama co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., has attributed Hillary's win to the tears she shed over a very emotional moment a few days ago.  If attributing a win to tearing-up wasn't silly enough, not to mention insulting to the very serious New Hampshire primary voters, Jackson went on to question the authenticity of Hillary's tears.  Again, like her or not, that moment where Clinton got teary-eyed was one of the realist moments ever seen on a campaign trail.  Again, this spin from both the Obama camp and the media is getting out

of control.  There is such a hate for Clinton that people are willing to say whatever they want to bring her down, and quite frankly, it's just plain wrong.  

On a side note, I give huge credit to people like Pat Buchanan, Dan Abrams, Craig Crawford, and Rachael Maddow for saying, in essence, "enough is enough" and trying, at least, to give fair coverage and change the media narrative towards Sen. Clinton. 

ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

Thank You Hillary

Hillary, whether you win or lose this nomination, I want to say thank you for your very hard work, work that you have done for 3 decades on behalf of the American public.  Today, after taking a question on why she's running and how she keeps going, this is how Sen. Clinton emotionally responded:

This is why I admire Sen. Clinton. She does what she does for the American public and she feels passionate about it.

Obama And Lobbyists: The Facts

Barack Obama, now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, has made a case in this election concerning what he claims is his outright disgust for lobbyists.  Although that it is true that Obama has not taken any money from special interests or lobbyists since he announced his candidacy, Obama did in fact have a "cozy" relationship with lobbyists before his Presidential bid, to say the least.  

So why does it matter if he no longer takes lobbyist money?  It matters because it reveals Obama to be something he claims not to be----just another politician.  He didn't mind taking lobbyist money until he realized it might challenge him politically.  This reminds me a whole lot of Mitt Romney, who was pro-choice until he decided to run for the GOP nomination.  Both Obama and Mitt made the calculated, political decision rather than a sincere, honest conversion.  They want votes.  In part, that's why I admire people like Clinton and McCain, not that I agree with them 100% of the time, but because they at least stand up for what they believe in.  They don't change just to try to gain points with an electorate.  You may not agree with them, but at least their consistent and sincere in their positions.  

So here is Obama's history with lobbyists:

-In Chicago, the AP reports, 

"Barack Obama played poker and basketball with lobbyists when he was a state senator. He took their campaign donations and worked with them to write legislation ... A look at Obama’s seven years in the Illinois Legislature reveals a complicated relationship with lobbyists - particularly for someone who now makes criticism of lobbyists a centerpiece of his presidential campaign."

-David Boniers of the Edwards's campaign had this to say:

"If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major -- sponsored a major health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."

-Now on to his Presidential ambitions, the No Quarter political blog reports:

"Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents."

-Domenico Montanaro of NBC, reports on the role of lobbyists in the Obama campaign:

"Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.   Michael Bauer is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama's campaign also has three state based lobbyists who play senior advising roles in August last year."

-Domenico also reports on Obama's national co-chair, Jim Hodges of South Carolina:

"Hodges is the founder of Hodges Consulting Group, a state-based lobbying firm he started in 2003. The firm is a subsidiary of Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P, a law firm that represents clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.  Hodges Consulting describes itself on its Web site as “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provide federal representation to clients.  Hodges is, in fact, a registered federal lobbyist, a search of the Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database shows."

-Oh, yea, and by the way, Obama does take lobbyist money it appears, just not at the federal level, as NBC's Domenico also reports:

"Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists. Obama has justified taking money from state based lobbyists and working with them."

It seems the media does indeed have a lot of dirt to report on.  Why leave it just to independent researchers on the internet?  The American public deserve the truth----a complete, un-biased vetting of all candidates running for public office, especially the Presidency.

Bill Is Absolutely Correct

Today, at a campaign rally, Bill Clinton once again laid out the truth about Obama.  I hope that New Hampshire and the country takes notice:

"They want you to believe it’s change versus the status quo or change versus experience.  Hillary wants you to believe it’s words versus deeds, talk versus action, rhetoric versus reality. You gotta decide who's right.  There’s a difference between talk and action.  It makes a big difference if you’ve actually changed other people’s lives, and if it’s the work of your life."

Bill also tackled the issue of Barack being against the war, before he was for it, before he was against it again:

"Senator Obama’s tried to beat the livin' daylights out of Hillary and everyone else about this. But in 2004 at the convention he said he didn’t know how he would have voted.  It’s inconsistent with the narrative, that he was always against the war, and everybody else was for it.  It was far more complicated.”

I Hope The Media Takes Notice

After months and months of Hillary Clinton and her record being negatively pounded by pundits and analysts in the media, the Clinton campaign is at least trying to get the media to pick up on Obama's record----and rightfully so.  I'm quite frankly sick of people like Chris Matthews who gush openly about Barack Obama and show an obvious bias towards him, yet attack Clinton for things that are proven false.  I'm not saying that the media should not be tough on Clinton, but rather saying they should be equally tough on all candidates, and that includes Sen. Obama.

I hope that now that the Clinton campaign is trying to bring issues to the forefront, the media picks up on it.  What I'm afraid of is that, instead of questioning Obama on his record, they will attack Hillary for pointing out Obama's record.  Of course, the media loved it when Obama went after Clinton's record earlier in the year.  But, if we can't get a fair and balanced media, we are doomed.  Instead of reporting on facts, they report on opinions, mostly their own, and on what makes a good story.  The truth gets pushed to the side to make room for the "media babies" like Obama and McCain.  Just remember, in 2000, Bush was the media's baby...and we all know how that turned out.  

Here is a short clip of an article from NBC's Mike Murray on the Clinton campaign trying to point out aspects of Obama's record that have been skipped over by the media and Obama's campaign's spin in response.

"After what she called Clinton's "real actions, real results" (on health care for children, foster care, and other issues), Clinton New Hampshire co-chair Kathy Sullivan pointed out that Obama opposed the Patriot Act when running for the Senate in 2004, but voted to extend it while in Congress. She also noted that he opposed the Iraq war, but also voted to fund it (until last year). Sullivan then implored the reporters to ask why Obama "has changed his position on critical issues... Inquiring voters want to know the answers to those questions."

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer later added, "People don't want talk. They want action."

Asked in the Q&A whether the conference call was a sign of desperation, after Obama's win in Iowa and his gains in the polls here, Sullivan replied, "When did looking at someone's record become an attack? That is actually vetting the candidates."

Asked for a response to the conference call, Obama spokesman Bill Burton emailed First Read, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire.

Singer, the Clinton spokesman, responds to Burton: "There’s nothing false or negative about pointing out basic facts in Senator Obama’s record.  It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama doesn’t think voters should have a chance to examine his record."

Let's hope that the media picks up on this so at least the voting public gets the information they need to make a well-informed decision, not only in Tuesday's primaries, but also in later voting.  After all, we are choosing a President here---we should elect a leader based on facts and his/her record, not because he/she can give a good speech or is seen as more popular.  

For the full NBC article, click here.

Choosing A President: Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama

America is in the midst of choosing its next President, it's next Commander-In-Chief.  But, although hopeful, I feel that we, as Democrats, may be making a mistake yet again.  I want to like Obama, I really do, and to some extent, I like him as a candidate in theory, but I just can't imagine this guy being President.  

I listen to Obama's speeches, I read his policy positions on his website, and I watch his debate performances.  All share the same characteristics: no substance, no "meat".  It's important to remember that this is a Presidential election, not a popularity contest.  Obama talks a great talk and can certainly give a great speech to fire up a crowd, but in the end, we need to ask ourselves, so what?  

Talking a good talk can only take one so far.  The next President needs to be able to enact the changes that Obama so often refers to.  

When are we going to start asking ourselves and Obama, what exactly do you mean by change. That question was posed to Obama tonight, in fact, and again, we heard the same rhetoric: "change this", "change that".  No substance; no insight on why he, Obama, is the candidate to make change or what he has done in the past, to serve as an example for the change he will bring.  

Obama and his supporters seem to think that all Obama needs to do is be elected and suddenly, Washington is going to change.  Obama, himself, might think, judging from his speeches and policies, that all he needs to do is say "change the war", "change healthcare", "change the economy", and "poof", all is going to be fixed.  If only it was that easy.  

Sen. Clinton, in stark contrast, has a long record of bringing about change.  She doesn't just talk about it, she has a record to back it up, whereas Obama does not.  If anyone knows how to bring about change, it's Hillary Clinton.  In 1979, Hillary brought about massive change in Arkansas when she expanded medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest regions.  A few years later, still in Arkansas, Hillary persevered a tough battle with special interests in drastically reforming the public school system.  As Arkansas First Lady, Clinton also put much pressure on local corporations to become more environment friendly, as well as advocated for stronger equality for women in the workplace.

Hillary fought for universal healthcare when it wasn't even popular in '93 and has fought for it everyday since.  Even today, Barack Obama does not advocate it.  She worked alongside Ted Kennedy and was the driving force behind SCHIP, providing healthcare for millions of uninsured children.  In '97, Hillary initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.  She traveled across the world and gave powerful speeches on behalf of the U.S. on critical issues.  She also had a huge part in creating "Vital Voices", an international program to promote women taking part in the political processes across the globe.  

In the Senate, Clinton has fought for change in numerous ways---including ethics reform. Hillary crossed party lines and, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, gave National Guard members and Reserves healthcare benefits.  Clinton was also, notably, the first Senator to call directly on the Pentagon to change course in Iraq, demanding withdrawal plans from them. 

For anyone to say that Hillary is somehow the "establishment" or the "status quo" is actually quite insulting to all that she has done.  Hillary, if anything, has fought the establishment and has fought for change.  Indeed, she not only fought for it, she achieved it on everything except universal healthcare, which she should be given enormous credit for fighting tirelessly for. If anyone has stood up to the interests and corporations, it has been Hillary Clinton.

So, my question is, why just hope for change when there's a candidate who has decades of actually fighting for change and bringing it about.  Every campaign season, there seems to be one major fallacy.  This year, the fallacy is the notion that Obama is the change candidate, while Hillary is not.  

I challenge Obama supporters to give me examples of meaningful change that he has brought about in his lifetime.  I assure you it can not compare to the change Hillary has brought about. 

Then there is the argument that Obama is the most electable Democrat, which I frankly just don't get.  He has not been tested; he has yet to face a contest against a serious Republican.  Do we really want November 2008 to be his training?  Just think, as I now do, that McCain is the GOP nominee.  Obama will get crushed.  Not because McCain is right on all the issues, but because of the experience question.  As hungry as Americans are for change, the majority that will vote in the General Election want experience as well.  Rightfully or not, the GOP will say that Obama is not qualified to handle major issues such as a serious terrorist attack or the growing international problems.  And, unlike in previous elections, they are right about Obama.  He does not have that kind of experience.  

McCain, or whomever is the GOP nominee, will not be able to make that same argument against Sen. Clinton.  Every single Republican I've seen interviews, including McCain, Lott, Graham, Giuliani, and even Bush, say that although they strongly disagree with Clinton's positions, she does have the experience and strength to handle those critical issues.  The GOP has already conceded that fact to Clinton; they won't be able to "out-experience" her.  

Clinton also has a strong record of winning over Republican support, even in the most unlikely places.  When she ran for Senate in 2000, the media narrative and, for that matter, the general consensus, was that there was no way Clinton would be able to win over conservative and moderate Republicans in upstate New York.  Not only did she win them over, but she won them over by an even larger margin in 2006.  Once Republicans get to hear the real Hillary Clinton, not the one that the GOP tries to create, they like what they hear.  In fact, in 2006, Clinton won 58 of New York's 62 counties, many of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004.  There is no doubt that Hillary, just as much as any other candidate, can appeal to Republicans.

The last thing I'll mention is the experience factor.  Let's come back to reality and realize that we're electing a President here.  A President needs experience.  Experience is what get things done.  Bill Richardson said it best tonight when he said that people somehow are starting to think that experience is some kind of disease in this election cycle.  I truly hope people come to there senses if that's how they feel.  

There is a war to safely end.  There is a healthcare crisis to fix.  The economy is in jeopardy. Those problems and many more aren't going to be solved by hoping for it.  The next President isn't going to be able to give a great speech and make them all just go away.  The next President is going to have to work hard to solve them.  I am confident that Hillary, not Obama, has the strength, perseverance, and experience to solve those problems and bring about true, meaningful change.  She has done that for decades; there is no reason to believe she won't do it as President.  

Here is a clip from tonight's debate that perfectly illustrates the points I'm trying to make:

The Iowa Caucuses: Taking Stock of What Happened

Well the Iowa Caucuses are finally over after thousands of hours of coverage by T.V. journalists before and after the voting.  Now, those same journalists and political advisers are going to tell the people how important the Iowa vote was and what it means to all the candidates.

 

Lets try to put the Iowa vote in a proper frame work that people should understand.  The great majority of Iowa's registered voters who will vote in this year's November Presidential election did not cast a vote in the caucuses on January 3.  But, because journalists sell spin and promote certain candidates, they build the caucuses up as being decisive for a candidate to win his party's nomination.  Iowa's caucuses rules and methods are not on the same level when compared to the other presidential primaries where all registered voters get a chance to cast their votes.

 

Television's devotion of so much time to a flawed caucus is to fill up time and influence the people's vote.  Like politicians, they are the world's greatest salesmen.  They are able to influence people even though they offer nothing to promote or improve the quality of politics in America nor do they objectively evaluate candidates.

 

I thought it was strange that journalists interviewed Rudy Giuliani during the returns of the Iowa caucus.  Here is a presidential candidate who skipped Iowa, will not campaign in New Hampshire, and is entering only the larger primaries.  But journalists spent time interviewing him because he is one of their boys.  Yet they dismiss the candidates who did campaign and come in below third place.

 

The total vote at the Iowa caucuses equaled approximately 20% of the voters who are qualified to vote in the Presidential general election in November 2008.  In other words, 80% of the eligible voters did not show up to caucus.  That should be an eye opener for any one who thinks that this caucus was decisive.

 

Hopefully the people of New Hampshire, who will vote in their party's primary on January 8, will tune out the T.V. journalists and all of their hype and spin and vote for the candidate that they think can best serve as the next president.  Their independent thought means much more to this country and good politics then all the spin created by the news media.