“What good is it?” What GOOD IS IT to read the bill???? Are you freakin’ kidding me? Well, Rep. Conyers, I’ll tell you: I have a bit of a problem with our Congresspeople not bothering to know just what the hell they are voting on when they rush bills through. I think we have seen how that has worked out in terms of the Stimulus Bill, haven’t we? Cap and Trade? And now the Health Care Bill? “What good is it,” indeed. I am sure you have made your constituents SO proud to have you represent them.

Apparently, other American citizens actually care about “what good is it to read the bill,” too, as this piece by Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Kevin Ferris, would indicate, “Back Channels: Imagine: Reading A Bill Before Passing It.” See, to ME, this should go without saying. But apparently NOT to the people elected to do the people’s business:

In 1776, the rallying cry was, “No taxation without representation.”

Today, it could be, “No taxation without totally clueless representation.”

That’s what Americans got on June 26, when the House voted 219-212 for the “cap-and-tax” energy bill, as the Republicans refer to it. The bill ran more than 1,000 pages, and before members had time to digest that tome, 300 pages of amendments were added after midnight. When Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) started to read the additions, bill cosponsor Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) objected. He was rebuffed. There are no time limits for comments by House leaders.

“When you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 a.m., the American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Boehner said.

Whether this bill will lessen greenhouse-gas emissions – as Democrats hope – or kill countless jobs – as Republicans predict – or ever pass the Senate, remains to be seen. But the House vote did raise a question that cuts across party and ideology:

How can lawmakers vote on something so important without a thorough understanding of what’s in it?

Are you asking me? If so, my answer is, they should NOT be voting on ANYTHING they have not read thoroughly! Hell to the no, they should not laugh off the idea of READING it!

Of course, there are varying levels of bills. I understand that. So does Ferris:

Not the everyday “We hereby rename this post office in honor of so-and-so” or “We officially declare this Goldfish Month.” The big things, like an almost $800 billion stimulus plan, or an energy package that Politico said “would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.”

Actually reading such legislation, as the founders might say, should be self-evident.

But apparently not. So a little nudge is in order, especially with health-care reform looming.

One nudger is Colin Hanna, a former Chester County commissioner and president of the conservative advocacy group Let Freedom Ring. He has begun a campaign (www.pledgetoread.org) that asks members of the House and Senate to promise the following:

“I . . . pledge to my constituents and to the American people that I will not vote to enact any health-care reform package that:

“1) I have not read, personally, in its entirety; and,

“2) Has not been available, in its entirety, to the American people on the Internet for at least 72 hours, so that they can read it too.”

I know nothing about this organization, but still, how can you argue with reading the bill??? I might ad, this is FAR from a “conservatives only” issue:

Let Freedom Ring isn’t alone. A consortium of liberal and good-government groups is backing readthebill.org, and a libertarian group, DownsizeDC.org, essentially wants the two planks of Hanna’s pledge enacted as federal law.

Having been a commissioner, Hanna understands that lawmakers can’t read every line of every bill, but he argues that in some cases it’s necessary.

“There are certain issues of scope and importance that demand an extra measure of due diligence, including reading the bill in full,” he said in an interview. Health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus all rise to that level, he says, adding that legislators dismiss this sentiment at their peril.

“There is a rising public demand that bills be read,” he says. “And there is a rising public outrage against politicians who dismissively suggest that’s just the way Washington works.”

I know – you probably think he means John Conyers here. Nope. Someone with even more power:

He is referring to a Politico story about the initial response by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.) when asked about a pledge: laughter. But then Hoyer backpedaled, saying that of course members, staff, or review boards read bills, or at least “substantial portions.”

Hoyer’s reaction shows that the priority is not to make informed judgments and improve legislation, Hanna suggests, but to rush through bad laws before anyone can object.

“They want to completely control the entire legislative process and ram it down not only Congress’ throat but the American people’s throat, and we think that’s wrong,” Hanna says.

So it would seem. I don’t think that is solely a Democratic thing, but for a Party whose very name implies that it cares about DEMOCRACY, it is a bit of a problem, if you ask me. And ISN’T THIS FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PAID??? Geezum crow already! I guess if they are willing to give up a good portion of their salaries, that might be more understandable. Or have the work become part-time. Obama is used to that concept – he might actually go for that. Ahem. Naturally, that won’t happen anytime soon, so it is up to us:

If Congress hasn’t the time or inclination to read the bills, let the public do it. And that’s where Part 2 of the pledge comes in – allowing 72 hours for citizens to read legislation online before a vote.

“We have the technology to make complex legislation available for public and media inspection,” Hanna says. “We’re not being true to the ideals of democracy if we don’t take advantage of that technology.”

He has a point. Granted, a “read the bill” movement can come off as gimmicky, but given recent votes and the magnitude of the bills, how does one argue against citizen access to legislation? Candidate Obama had promised to post bills online before he signed them into law. He’s broken the promise, so let Congress set an even higher standard.

We’ll have a better idea tomorrow. On his Web site, Hanna has been tallying the number of pledge supporters. Tomorrow, he plans to reveal the names of those backers – as well as those who rejected or ignored the offer to sign the pledge.

At which time voters will be a little better informed, even if their senators and representatives refuse to be. (Contact Kevin Ferris at kf@phillynews.com, or 215-854-5305.)

Seems to me there are a couple of options here. Either the lawmakers make the bills SHORTER, and only address the issue at hand – and not throw in everything including the kitchen sink. OR they take the time to READ THE DAMN THING. Frankly, I don’t think that is too much to ask of them. Come to think of it, that is the very LEAST we can ask of them, don’t you think?

In Europe, he chastised America for what he called our “arrogance.” In the Caribbean, he gave the dictator of Venezuela a warm smile and a handshake, and called him “amigo.” Before the Saudi king, he bowed low and long.

And just the other day, in a cynical nod to Turkish generals, the American president who campaigned for human rights quietly avoided the word “genocide” in a resolution marking the anniversary of the 1915 Ottoman Turkish slaughter of more than a million Armenian Orthodox Christians.

A few years after that slaughter, as he prepared to engage in his own genocide of the Jews, Adolf Hitler was credited with saying: “Who remembers the Armenians?” The United States may remember, but our president can’t call it genocide.

Ah, yes, his trip to Turkey. Our guide in Turkey mentioned Obama’s two days spent there in Istanbul. He lifted up his hands, and his eyes to the heavens, and said, “yes, people here think he is the new savior.” There was a tinge of irony in his voice, thankfully. I was glad he appeared not to have been sucked in by Obama’s rhetoric. And all I could think was, “He has benefited from a GREAT marketing campaign, that man.” I might add, there were VERY few responses to the guide’s having said this, but in particular, there were no enthusiastic affirmations. Perhaps after Obama’s unwillingness to call genocide what is is, there may be fewer Turks who see him as The Messiah.

Kass continues:

Still, President Barack Obama offers himself up to an adoring world — and the enraptured, Hopium-smoking American media that helped elect him — as a leader more flexible than his hopelessly rigid predecessor, George W. Bush.

And he’s proved it, charming nations and their leaders, remaining in campaign mode, where he’s most comfortable.

While in Egypt, at the Citadel and its two mosques, we were all on the bus getting ready to leave. One of the constant souvenir hawks kept talking to people on the bus, and said, “I love Barack Obama! He will change the world! I hate George Bush and Tony Blair!” Well, I couldn’t disagree with his last assessment, but one of the other women on the bus, when he said Obama would “change the world, ” muttered, “We’ll see.” Again, not an enthusiastic response from the people on the bus (different group, for the most part, too, by the way). But it is clear that the MSM, Plouffe, and Axelrod meme that Obama really is a change agent, in contradiction to his entire political history thus far, and his underhanded way of even getting into politics in the first place (getting everyone thrown off the ballot), has taken root abroad. People believe what they want to believe, facts notwithstanding. It’s one thing for people in other countries to buy this stuff – they can’t vote here. Quite another that people here bought it. But I digress.

Back to the USA and John Kass:

But last week, he bowed to his base in the hard political left by reversing himself, opening the door for the prosecution of Bush Justice Department officials who helped develop harsh interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.

Some call it torture and legitimately oppose it. Others say harsh interrogation — such as waterboarding — was necessary after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But what Obama accomplished by opening the possibility of political witch hunts was to offer up one of his own eyes to his political supporters. He needs both eyes to see a dangerous world.

The week began when Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos to reiterate Obama’s pledge not to prosecute.

“He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided,” said Emanuel, no fool. “They shouldn’t be prosecuted. … It’s time for reflection. It’s not a time to use our energy in looking back in any sense of anger and retribution.”

Two days later, Obama abruptly changed course to please his anti-war base that demands a few severed political heads.

“With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say, that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general,” he said. “I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”

His critics used phrases such as “chilling effect” on intelligence gathering, but I call it the pucker factor. In all bureaucracies, it rolls down hill.

Of course, Obama caved. Anyone who thought he would do otherwise was sadly mistaken.

As for his releasing of the Torture memos, a number of my fellow writers at No Quarter have taken this on, including none other than Larry Johnson, American Girl In Italy, and SusanUnPC, to name a few. No need for me to get into that with such stellar writers already dealing with it, except to say – once again, Obama did not consider the implications and/or ramifications of doing so, including, as SusanUnPC pointed out, the impact on some of his more sychophantic supporters like Nancy Pelosi. (If you haven’t had a chance to read those, and others, I highly recommend that you do.)

Kass continues on the torture theme:

Reporters are kind of like intelligence gatherers. We don’t waterboard politicians, but we’re under pressure to get good information. So, let me tell you a story.

In 1985, I was a kid in the news business, and our gossip columnist, Mike Sneed — now at the Sun-Times — got the story of the year: “Reform” Mayor Harold Washington had been secretly taped pressuring a fellow to get out of the 3rd Ward aldermanic race. It sounded like raw politics. It didn’t sound anything like reform. And Washington was enraged.

Jim Squires, then our editor, decided to publish transcripts but tell readers the tapes were leaked by Washington’s white ethnic political opponents who wanted to embarrass him. Fair enough.

Then he ordered me and another young reporter to find Sneed’s source and walk back the cat. I didn’t want to do it, but he was the boss and Sneed understood, and after a few days, he dropped his harebrained scheme.

Yet for a long time afterward, sources worried they might be outed. Reporters were concerned their bosses might investigate their sources. And in the gathering of political intelligence, when sources start puckering up, they’re not going to kiss you. You get scooped.

And some editors shriek, “How did you get scooped?!” even when they knew that the boss made a decision that sent spasms through everything. More spasms ensue. The pucker factor multiplies exponentially.

Now THAT is a quote for the ages, isn’t it? “The pucker factor multiplies exponentially.”

Kass makes his point:

Obama isn’t an editor. He’s the president of a nation targeted by terrorists and constantly probed for weakness, even by our allies.

His intelligence gatherers — and others who give them the tools and the go-ahead — can’t spend their time wondering if he has their backs.

His statements surely sent spasms through bureaucracies that are vital to his own success and America’s safety. All because he wanted to campaign, rather than lead.

Our president has a fine ear for language and nuance. Yet sometimes he shapes his principles to fit the moment, something anyone who watches Chicago politics understood years ago(Emphasis mine.). The Democratic machine candidates he eagerly endorsed for re-election — from Boss Daley II to Cook County Board President Todd Stroger to disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich — are testament to Obama’s flexibility.

But he must stop campaigning someday, and start thinking like a chief executive. And he’ll need both eyes to see where he’s got to go. (
jskass@tribune.com)

I could not have said it better myself. Except to say that it isn’t just the intelligence gatherers who have to wonder if he has their backs, but ALL Americans. When the President of the United States goes abroad and insults the very people he was elected to serve, it does raise the question if he indeed does. Personally, I never suffered the illusion that he gave a damn about the American people – he seems to care about one person and person only: himself. Still, his position alone as POTUS would certainly IMPLY he has a duty to not trash us in other countries while apparently campaigning for Master of the Universe. Just sayin’.

And, while I know others are writing about this, a president who cares, really cares about the people whom he was elected to serve does NOT, DOES NOT, have a PHOTO OP of a 747 being chased by an F-16 Fighter Jet flying over lower Manhattan and New Jersey. The bubble surrounding this man and his inner circle is mighty thick, and mighty clueless. (If you have not yet heard about this incredibly insensitive, assholic move by the White House, click HERE and HERE for just two articles on this.)

If Obama is truly capable of leading, rather than just campaigning, and having his ego stroked, it is time, PAST time, for him to hop to it. And enough with the press conferences already, too. And the vacations (I’ve lost count, but it has been at least three in the first One Hundred Days. Feel free to enumerate them if you know of more!). And playing games while real issues are arising (golf, basketball, whatever). That is all to say, President Obama, get to work already.

There are many things wrongs with using a single category as a decisional tool for a job so complicated as the presidency. Surely one’s experience, character, judgment displayed in the past, leadership qualities, legislative accomplishment, patriotism, etc., should be considered.

Paper accomplishment has its limits. After all, Ted Kaczynski attended Harvard and earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from Michigan – but he was a destructive individual. Bill Gates, famous as an innovator and now a humanitarian, was in college only briefly. And many of us have had college professors who we would not entrust with picking up our newspaper from the driveway while we were away on vacation.

But let’s look anyway at the single variable of educational pedigree as a predictor of presidential performance. (Aside: McCain’s defenders may point out that McCain’s father and grandfather made four star admiral, though they were very poor Naval Academy students.)

Who were the great presidents and who were the failures? Numerous polls of historians show a fair consensus, with some large deviations for recent presidents, as might be expected. I chose the most recent polls listed at Wikipedia’s Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents, which have the advantage of the most coverage, but I looked at other listed polls when recent polls showed wide variation. I am not making a statistical comparison; changing standards of education over time make that a questionable task (as education has become more formalized over time). And to keep this at readable length, I have omitted many qualifications on my analysis. So here goes –

Among the top ten presidents, Lincoln’s formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling; he was largely self-educated. Washington may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. He was not taught Latin or Greek, as was common among the “educated” of the time, and never learned a foreign language. Nor did he attend college (Harvard, WM. & Mary, Yale and Princeton were available). His formal education ended around the age of 15.

Getting to the modern era, where paper degrees supposedly are a surrogate for intelligence, Truman (whose standing has risen to #7 in the polls) did not earn a college degree. Reagan (whose ranking, controversially, varies from 6 to 16) graduated from an institution of little note — Eureka College.

Eisenhower, now consistently ranked in the top ten, finished in the upper half of his class at the Military Academy, but was routinely criticized during the 1950’s as being not intellectual or well read.

On the other hand, the two Roosevelts, members of the highest echelons of America’s upper class, were very well educated. Wilson was perhaps the best educated president, and often ranks in the top ten, but his star is diminishing as historians place his imperialist foreign policy, his racism (he reinstituted segregation into the federal government) and sexism (he tried to have a leading suffragette committed to an insane asylum, and countenanced the brutal beating and prison torture of suffragette demonstrators), and his odious personal beliefs (e.g., he was a eugenicist) into modern perspective. Grover Cleveland, whose rankings vary from 8th to 20th, did not attend college.

Middling presidents (those ranking in the 20’s) include Hayes, who was first in his class at Kenyon College and who completed Harvard Law in two years. He is right now our only Harvard Law School graduate.

Bill Clinton (underrated in the polls, IMHO) went to Georgetown’s elite Foreign Service School, where he was Phi Beta Kappa. He studied at Oxford under a Rhodes Scholarship, and graduated from Yale Law School.

Taft (20th) graduated second from his Yale class, then got a law degree from Cincinnati. John Q. Adams (25th) went to Harvard. So, the middle of the pack has a number of well educated persons. (The famously well-read and educated John Kennedy with time has seen his rankings drop, to between 14 and 18.)

Now the fun part — the bottom of the rankings, and bowing to current popular opinion, let us start off by noting that though a mediocre student, George W. Bush attended Phillips Academy, Yale University, and has an MBA from Harvard. A perennial in the loser category, James Buchanan (ranked 40th), graduated from Dickinson College with honors, then studied law. Franklin Pierce (38th) finished third in his class at Bowdoin, then attended an unnamed law school.

Andrew Johnson (37th) was self-taught, a point for the degree=excellence school, but John Tyler (35th) graduated from the prestigious Wm. & Mary, then read for the law.

Jimmy Carter (34th) attended Georgia Tech before receiving an appointment to the United States Naval Academy where he received a physics degree in 1946. Carter finished a high 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Richard Nixon (32nd) was a Duke Law School graduate.

Hoover (31st) had a geology degree from Stanford, later becoming a mining engineer. Gerald Ford (28th) had a University of Michigan degree in political science and economics; at Yale Law he graduated in the top 25 percent of his class.

Again, this is a simplified analysis, but the proposition that academic achievement equates with expected presidential performance is so demonstrably false that a more rigorous analysis is unnecessary.

As Mark Twain said – “Never let formal education get in the way of your learning.”

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them – FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words – just speeches – just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short – he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

The privileged Penny Pritzker threw grassroots donors under the bus:

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The editors naively think that this is a “new” Barack Obama? Uh, no. That’s the real Barack Obama.

If only the New York Times and other MSM had paid any attention to Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union, when he described the REAL Barack Obama:

Read all about what Tom Buffenbarger saw in how the REAL Barack Obama operates (includes stories from Chicago newspapers).

Here are more broken promises that today’s Times editorial lists:

• “The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. …” [...]
• “The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. …”
• “On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.”

The editorial closes with these two paragraphs:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Look. The only “change” anyone can believe that Barack Obama will act on is any finger-to-the-wind “change” that helps him achieve his SOLE goal: Winning.

He is not abandoning his principles because he doesn’t have any that he holds dear.

He is not shifting his policies because he is not the policy wonk that Hillary Clinton is, and frankly doesn’t care that much about any policy.

Ambition is a vital trait in a political candidate. Ambition helps a candidate keep going when the going gets tough.

But ambition for the sake of ambition — for the sole objective of winning — is extremely dangerous. It suggests a personality that is wholly self-absorbed and only feigns caring and concern for others.

Hillary Clinton is ambitious. But she also cares deeply about enacting policies dear to her, and has a long track record of actually accomplishing great legislation and programs — particularly for children. Which is why, in my story yesterday morning, “Obama and the hoi aristoi,” I linked to the remarkable essays by Alegre and MarkJay:

“She Changes People’s Lives,” by Alegre

“Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know,” by MarkJay

:::::::::::

On February 20, 2008, we posted this YouTube as a warning. If only more people had heeded our warnings — but there was too much of a cult-like adoration of Obama for people to use their common sense, and also do some “due diligence” on this politician:

There’s still time to make this right. Before it’s too late. And the Democrats nominate an ill-qualified, inexperienced shape-shifter as its candidate, and thereby enable the election of John McCain.

There’s still time to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has already WON the key swing states and has already WON the hearts and brains of voters — particularly blue-collar workers who see through charlatans and who KNOW that delivering on promises matters more than speeches.

Barack Obama has made recent claims indicating pay equity for women would be a top priority if he were elected President. Sounds great. In fact, it might compel some to seriously consider his candidacy.

Don’t be fooled. What we’ve seen of Mr. Obama is a candidacy based on opportunism. Whenever convenient, he will use his prose to proclaim lofty ideals, ideals that many want so badly to believe in, ideals so many want to become realities.

Mr. Obama is all talk. How do we really know if his lofty ideals will translate into actual policy? We certainly can not point to his legislative accomplishments. There are too few. He may have been present but what the hell does that mean – nothing in the context of policy.

Anyone can advocate anything. A true leader turns advocacy into bona-fide action. We’ve not seen this from Mr. Obama. We have seen, unfortunately, reversals and inconsistencies.

Actions

While Mr. Obama may be an advocate for pay equity, analysis of his Senate staff leaves one to wonder. We know the reports that show women on his staff earn roughly $6,000 less than males on staff. But, here is further information:

• Of five staffers that earned more than $100,000 only one was a women
• Of staffers earning more than $23,000/year, 33 were men while 31 were women and the pay difference between them was >$10,000

Comparatively speaking, Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate staff is comprised more than 2 to 1 women to men. And, the pay is nearly equal. In fact, nearly 70% of Clinton’s staff are women.

Did You Know?

Senator John McCain’s Senate staff, comprised of 69 individuals as of October, 2007 which also includes interns, MORE than half were women. Excluding the 23 interns, the 30 women on his staff earned an average of $59,100 compared to the $56,600 earned by the 16 men.

Remember, talk is cheap. Look for action, past and present. I own my vote.

Strangely, Obama has decided to come clean (almost) on this ad. He removed the reference to passing a law to extend health care to wounded veterans. You know, that inartful statement LIE that he told on his first ad because Obama didn’t even vote for the legislation. Whoops!

Ironically the title of this new ad is Dignity. I suppose that Obama finally coming clean after blatantly lying in his first general election ad is considered being dignified by the Obama folk. I think it would have been more appropriately titled: Fessing Up.

So we get to the meat of this ad and lo and behold what do we learn? The troubling fact that of all of the legislative accomplishments he claims, not a single one of them has occurred since he became a US Senator. Get that? He hasn’t accomplished a single thing of note since becoming a US Senator.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

I suppose he has been too busy running for president to have actually accomplished something. Of course Obama probably considers all those speeches he is giving as legislative accomplishments. On the other hand, not accomplishing anything leaves one devoid of any record that can be criticized. It allows Obama to take every side of an issue. A politico du jour, so to speak. And he has definitely accomplished that.

So let’s see just how “dignified” Obama’s new ad is. Shall we?

The ad touts his leadership when he passed a law that moved people from welfare to work. It goes on to state that his leadership slashed the welfare rolls by 80 percent. Now here is where the trouble starts. Barky took credit for enforcing a federal law that he admitted he wouldn’t have supported to begin with. His exact words were:

Illinois Senate Transcript

I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it has some problems. But I’m a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons.

But sour puss Obama has no problem taking credit for something he claims to oppose. Hell, his new ad makes it seem like it was his idea to begin with. So much for dignity.

Obama also claims to have passed tax cuts for workers. Only trouble is that Obama was one of 43 co-sponsors of the legislation. And the record for Illinois Public Act 91-0700 contains no references to his active participation in either crafting the bill or arguing for it’s passage in any other way than voting for it. But geez he sure was Dignified actually taking the time out from his busy schedule to vote.

And just when you had lost hope that Obama had no real legislative achievements his new ad actually provides proof that he did something of value. In Illinois. During the 8 years he spent in the Illinois Senate. When he actually had the time to accomplish something. Because he wasn’t running for president. Yes, a single accomplishment. Woo Hoo!

Obama claims that he passed health care for kids and wouldn’t ya know it, he really did. He was the sponsor of Public Act 93-0063 and it really passed and it really did help children gain health care. And I commend him for doing this. It’s dignified and the right thing to do.

So kudos to you Senator Obama. I knew that if people dug deep enough they might find a single thing you actually did that actually helped anyone. Hell, Richard Nixon “passed” the EPA so I knew there was some good in you down deep somewhere. It took a lot of digging though.

Now you can brief your surrogates what to say the next time they are asked about your legislative achievements. Is that sweet or what? Just make sure that they give brief interviews.

But this begs the question Senator Obama. With of all the “accomplishments” you claim to have and all the superior judgment you claim to possess just why is it that you haven’t accomplished a single thing of note since becoming a US Senator?

Could it be that you haven’t been a US Senator long enough to actually do something. It took eight years to accomplish something in Illinois so maybe you are a slow achiever?

I’ll tell ya what. How about you spend 8 years in the US Senate? And maybe by then you will have actually accomplished something that is dignified. Really dignified. No questions asked dignified.

After that maybe we can talk.

But Until Then: What have you done for me lately?