Clinton is to LBJ, as Obama is to MLK?

Once the interest in Hillary Clinton’s tears had run its course, the political world quickly shifted its attention late yesterday to some odd remarks about Clinton, Obama, LBJ, and Martin Luther King.

First, a little context. At Saturday night’s debate, Clinton warned of the dangers associated with “false hope.” Yesterday, Obama told a New Hampshire audience that he rejects that kind of thinking, and alluded to the 1960s as an example: “Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, ‘Sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can’t be done, false hope.’ We don’t need leaders who tell us what we can’t do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us.”

Asked to respond to Obama’s comments, Clinton told Fox News:

“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”

There’s a video of the Fox News segment online.

I suppose there are a couple of ways to look at Clinton’s comments, some less flattering than others.

Josh Marshall thinks Clinton was comparing herself to LBJ, while making Obama JFK.

It’s an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents — Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it’s not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ.

Now I know in writing this I’m going to get tons of emails saying I’m defending an indefensible statement, making excuses for her, etc. I’m not. It’s poorly worded, and easy to misunderstand. And it will be misunderstood. Her ‘false hopes’ line from the debate was one of the worst of the campaign. And you can read her realization of the dream point as putting a lot of focus on legislation and sort of discounting activism. But when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn’t match up with the line that’s circulating — that she was saying Obama’s King and she’s LBJ.

And taking the other side, among others, is Oliver Willis.

It’s not as if Lyndon Johnson couldn’t wait to sign the Civil Rights Act. He was right to do it and it changed the country. But there is no civil rights movement, there is no America as we know it today without the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. How could she say this? In my eyes, and the eyes of millions of people of all races and sexes, Rev. King is the greatest American who ever lived. He was not just a talker, which is what Sen. Clinton’s message seems to be here. MLK was the ultimate “doer”. The sterling example of what it means in America to stand up for what’s right by putting your life on the line.

How could she? How. Could. She.

I suppose it’s a matter open to some interpretation, but my inclination is to side with Oliver on this. The key part of the quote is this: “It took a president to get it done.” It fits into Clinton’s broader argument about “talk vs. action” — and in this context, it seemed Clinton was referring to King as someone who talked, while Johnson was the one who “got it done.”

The more charitable interpretation suggests that Clinton was comparing Obama to John F. Kennedy, though as campaign comparisons go, that may not be where Clinton wants to go, either.

Some of the errors that have taken Clinton off her game the last few weeks seem easily avoided. I think we can safely add this one to the list.

The sad part of how this debate is framing up is that ultimately it took both – a King to give viability to the cause, LBJ to do the difficult implementation. The current back and forth between Clinton and Obama (or Clinton and everyone else) creates a false dichotomy that suggests that either half of the equation alone would have gotten us were we needed to be.

Her quote above was politically stupid, but on its face factually true: King and Kennedy inspired the dreams, without which LBJ would not have had a policy to implement. It took an experienced old hand to tie down the loose ends and make it tangible. Really, that is pretty hard to argue with.

The problem is that history has surely favored King and Kennedy over LBJ. She is, in a way, making herself smaller by tying herself to the one of the three with the undersized historical legacy. I think I get why she would do it — she can’t be King or Kennedy (or Obama), that just isn’t who she is. She is a dry, hard working, tough insider type. Her only option is to show how important those types have been at key moments in history. It is a strategy that makes sense “on paper,” but anyone around her with political instinct should have known it would never play well “in practice.”

  • What America needs now is a FDR not an MLK or a LBJ.

    FDR ran America during recession and only a person with similar qualities can manage the nation during the oncoming and inevitable recession

    I cant figure out how Americans continue to center on the Iraq issue when the huge axe of recession is over their necks.

  • She is a dry, hard working, tough insider type.

    She should be running for Senate Majority Leader then (Lord knows we need a leader in the Senate). Tying herself to LBJ is stupid on a number of levels even on paper – LBJ is not just famous for pushing historic civil rights legislation but ALSO for expanding a disatrous war halfway across the world. Clinton invoking LBJ, besides being politically tone-deaf in the ways enumerated here, also brings back reminders of her own disastrous miscalculations about wars on the other side of the world.

    Clinton’s campaign seems to be getting stupider by the hour lately. I wonder if they’re not getting enough sleep.

  • Hils comparing herself to LBJ isn’t all that smart considering LBJ also pushed a pointless war that cost thousands if not millions their lives. Whatever LBJ’s strengths were on the domestic front, they were eclipsed his weaknesses that continued the tragedy of the Vietnam War.

    And what the hell is wrong with having dreams? I’m a practical man by nature and profession, but even I understand that practical people need to be inspired too. Many of the events of human development were begun by dreamers such as the Renaissance and even the Space Age.

    Too many people are consumed by fear of failure which from my perspective is probably the biggest cause of failure. Hils isn’t smart by playing that card. Only way she could have beaten Obama’s message is to show she can inspire and make people hope (maybe not practical, but so what.)

  • I don’t know if I can explain my thinking on this, but here goes…

    The surface problem is, I think, all about the ways people communicate, and maybe there’s a bit of gender difference in there, too – it isn’t a myth that men and women communicate in different ways – anyone who’s married can attest to that.

    We have a woman who, as a candidate, is addressing the fact that nothing gets done by hope and rhetoric alone – there’s a ton of process that has to be undertaken in order to take something from an idea or an agenda to legislation or meaningful action.

    We have a man, who, has the power to stir people’s emotions, make them feel hopeful, get them to believe, but what is he proposing will come of all of that? What is the change he wants to effect? Is it just about “coming together?” Is his theory that once we come together, then we’ll figure out what we all want to do?

    It just seems to me that Obama, while he does have a gift for inspiration, is having to keep the message one that is light on specifics because to be specific means that maybe he loses votes.

    Does Hillary, responding to Obama’s references to MLK, Jr., have to forget about the passage of the Civil Rights Act because there’s something about LBJ that doesn’t work for her?

    She’s talking process and he’s just talking – and yet, while he gets the rock star treatment, she gets brickbats. Is she wrong that without the Civil Rights Act the progress that ensued might have taken a lot longer to happen? Or is she right to point out that talk, for all it does to inspire, is just talk if nothing comes of it.

    In fact, what seems to be happening is that she’s communicating like a man, and he’s communicating like a woman. Think that’s ridiculous? Woman comes home from work, and starts telling man about her day, and relates some problems and tells man all about it. Man tells woman how to fix her problem. Woman wasn’t looking for solutions – she just wanted to talk and express her feelings.

    Now, Hillary may be talking like a problem-solver, but I have to say I would feel better if she had tried to solve more of them when as a Senator. And ditto for Obama –I’d very much like to hear something of substance from Obama before I have to hear it in a presidential debate, at which point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

  • NonyNony at 4, I hope we don’t have to feel that we owe Clinton a consolation prize if she loses the nomination. I would not like to see her become the Senate Majority Leader because I do not see her as a leader. In her campaign she has always followed, not led, followed what campaigners have done in the past and followed Obama and other Democrats do in the present when she sees that their strategies work or that their positions “sell”, wiggling on Iraq and pulling the rug from under Spitzer over the drivers’ licenses. Sorry, she has no convictions of her own. Some have suggested Dodd for SML, and I think that he would be a much better choice.

  • I haven’t decided who I am supporting (among the Democrats that is), but I have to say a lot of the flak Clinton has been taking the last couple of days seems to me to be unfair and just piling on when she seems to be down. I revere MLK, but it is absolutely true that it took the ultimate insider, LBJ, to get the civil rights legislation passed. You need both the dreamers and the doers to move a country forward. Giving all the power to one type or the other will get you no where.

  • Not that I’m now, or have ever been, a Hillary fan, but of course there is such a thing as false hope. Politicians peddle it all the time.

    Clinton has been widely criticized for making the false hope remark in the first place, and she does, no doubt, wish that she hadn’t. But given that she did, the question on the table was: “You’re offering America hope. Can you actually deliver, or is it false hope?”

    Obama responded by wrapping himself in a JFK-MLK blanket (in pretty much the same way as Bush reflexively wrapped himself in the flag), but he really didn’t address the question at all. Just dodged it by distracting us with JFK and MLK, and that fine, fine oratory.

    Does Obama really not have any argument at all to explain why the hope he is offering is not false hope?

  • Some have suggested Dodd for SML, and I think that he would be a much better choice.

    Oh, I agree with that. My point is that if you’re a “dry, hard-working, tough insider type” then you need to find the areas in the structure where you can work to your strengths. The positions of Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are phenomenally powerful in the US, and when they’re in the hands of either corrupt snake-oil salesmen or wishy-washy weenies they are alternatingly harmful and useless. But they’re the perfect places for tough, insider types to get in and do some real good. If Clinton sees herself as that type of person, then that’s the area of government she should be targetting. The position of President is one where you need someone with vision, the ability to inspire, and a firm handle on foreign policy. Clinton fails all three of those in my book (though she’s still light-years ahead of the “best” candidates on the R side of the equation this cycle in those areas).

    Personally, I think Dodd would have been a better choice for Majority Leader than Reid was – Reid seemed like an effective Minority Leader but he seems like the type who just can’t play from a position of strength. I don’t know how good Dodd would be, but it seems like he certainly couldn’t be much worse than Reid.

  • Anne said:
    fact, what seems to be happening is that she’s communicating like a man, and he’s communicating like a woman. Think that’s ridiculous? Woman comes home from work, and starts telling man about her day, and relates some problems and tells man all about it. Man tells woman how to fix her problem. Woman wasn’t looking for solutions – she just wanted to talk and express her feelings.

    This is a brilliant point. You describe a dynamic that most men just don’t understand.

    The other reason Obama could be short on specifics is that as soon as any Democrat offers specifics on any plan to change the status quo, the Republican smear machine, with the complicity of the corporate-controlled media, finds some weakness and uses it to tear the whole plan down.

    I’m still not sure about Obama, but I’m very sure about Clinton (see below).

  • I’m inclined to agree with John Marshall that Clinton is trying to counter Obama’s efforts to make himself into the next JFK. The problem is that there is no way Hillary is anything like Lyndon Johnson.

    Given Clinton’s continued support of the Defense of Bigotry (Marriage) Act, I couldn’t imagine she would ever drive legislation like the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act through Congress. With her approval of so-called bankruptcy ‘reform’ and welfare ‘reform’, not to mention her plan to expand health insurance by funneling taxpayer money to the insurance corporations, there’s no way she would ever embrace LBJ’s Great Society Programs of eliminating poverty and improving education.

    As I’ve said before, I think Hillary Clinton would make an amazing chief of staff for a president.

  • LBJ ran away from the Viet Nam nightmare, rather than deal with it. For the record, it was that very issue that caused him to not run for re-election. Will HRC, likewise, hide from the issue?

    LBJ also implemented something that had been in the works for a good number of years. The fight for racial equality began long before he was ever born; all he did was push a few buttons, turn a few cranks, and scream “I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!”

    When THAT analogy is applied, Hillary becomes the charlatan behind the curtain—and Obama becomes “the curtain pulled back, for all to see the grand fraud….”

  • Given the present climate in Washington, no president will be able to accomplish anything significant without the ability to inspire the American people. If we elect a president who is a capable, non-inspirational legislator (think LBJ – or Hillary), gridlock will continue, Republicans will block anything progressive because their special interests don’t want it, or they will block things… just because!

    Megosh at #2 says we need another FDR. Thank you for saying that, megosh, I couldn’t agree more. The only way that we can break the Republicans’ evil fortress against progress is to deny them their electoral support. That will take a president who can put together more than a 51% plurality, someone who can take office with a real mandate. There are a lot of people out there who have been voting Republican who have seen the error of their ways, but just need a face-saving reason to switch to the Democrats. Hillary isn’t that reason.

    Obama has shown us his ability to inspire. Edwards has shown that ability to some degree, but his rhetoric (with which I agree 100%) is more divisive. Hillary? I don’t think so.

    In the past couple of days I have used the phrase “second coming of FDR” several times to describe what we need. Is Obama The One? Who knows? He’s young and relatively untested, but he definitely has the ability to inspire, without which nothing is going to get done by the next Democratic president.

    NonyNony @ #4, I like your suggestion – Hillary for Senate majority leader. That’s a great role for an “agent of change.” Sometimes we forget that legislation (theoretically) doesn’t originate in the White House, it originates in Congress. Let Hillary write and introduce good legislation. I have no doubt that she is capable of it. Let our Inspirational President (whoever it may be) rally the country behind it, co-opting a few Republicans and denying recalcitrant Republicans their electoral support. Let Hillary get the legislation through the Senate and to the President’s desk.

    But whatever we do, let’s not lose hope because of our past and current disappointments. Hillary upset me with her thoughtless remark about “false hope,” and now that she seems determined to stand by it, she’s lost me for good. If I couldn’t hope, I wouldn’t pay any attention to politics. Neither will anyone else who feels hopeless. Let’s offer hope to people who have disengaged themselves from politics. Let’s encourage them to hope. What can it hurt?

  • megosh @ 2said: “I can’t figure out how Americans continue to center on the Iraq issue when the huge axe of recession is over their necks.”

    Perhaps because (a) we really don’t like to see injustice, especially when we perpetrate it, and (b) the costs of the war have a strong (negative) effect on the economy. The war may well be what causes the recession, between draining money and weakening us in the world.

  • I really don’t see all the hype for Obama. First off he has never had to make a hard decision at all and he has little or no legislature experience to speak of. My vote is still for Clinton because she will be there when times get tough. And believe me times are going to get tough.

  • Now, Hillary may be talking like a problem-solver, but I have to say I would feel better if she had tried to solve more of them when as a Senator. And ditto for Obama –I’d very much like to hear something of substance from Obama before I have to hear it in a presidential debate, at which point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

    I’m absolutely not a fan, but Clinton has tried to solve problems in the Senate–streamlining the adoption process, for instance. That’s an important issue and it seems she did good work on it.

    But it’s not a “tough fight.” There’s no pro-red tape constituency she needed to undermine or overwhelm–a sustained focus on the problem was sufficient. Also true of her efforts to make sure the troops in the (tragically stupid) war (she supported) had body armor; there was no faction arguing “Those wusses don’t need no stinkin’ body armor!”

    As for Obama, he has takes on some tougher fights, in Illinois and in the US Senate (ethics reform). What maybe is more impressive, though, is that he went to the auto unions and told them we needed a higher fuel efficiency standard, and he went to the teachers union and expressed his support for merit pay. In both cases, he said, “I want to do this with you, not to you”–and while this didn’t win him friends or endorsements, I think it did offer a clue as to how this guy will try to govern.

    To put it mildly, I find it very hard to imagine Clinton going to an interest group and telling them anything they weren’t very happy to hear.

    Obama is being cast right now as an inspirational, aspirational figure. As a supporter, I’m pleased about this–but as someone who wants an effective and honorable government more than anything, I’m more excited about his willingness to be a truth-teller even when it’s not politically expedient.

  • In response to megosh at #2, I completely agree . . . but unfortunately, the only FDR figure we have right now, Al Gore, has decided not to run. If he had jumped in, and picked Obama for VP, I think we’d be looking at a Democratic majority for decades to come. It would be like FDR and JFK running on one ticket.

    But, alas, it is not to be.

  • As each of these state races approaches, candidates are talking non-stop, of-the-cuff and under grueling conditions, and I think we run the risk of over analyzing every utterance that doesn’t come out quite right.

    Certainly we want a nominee who can handle pressure and perform under adverse conditions, but presidents rarely has to do what these candidates are doing. If there’s a crisis, a bunch of advisors hammer out a statement and the president delivers it — he/she doesn’t jump in front of a camera and start talking. Even presidential press conferences tend to be more limited in subject and scope than what we have going on in these campaigns, where the landscape is moving under their feet and oftentimes candidates are expected to talk before having time to really think

    I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t be critical of what candidates say, just that we need to be mindful that there’s no editorial process in place in many of these interviews and speeches. A word or phrase or comparison that would never have made it into a press release comes out and there’s no way to get it back. I doubt anyone here would want to be held accountable for all the things each has written in the past month, much over the course of our careers. And we have things like delete and undo.

  • MW – please….

    How dare you patronize and trivialize MLKs accomplishments! In case you’ve forgotten (if you ever knew), there was a hell of a lot more going on than just “dreaming” and speeches back then. MLK had rocks thrown at him, police dogs let lose on him and other peaceful protestors, he was arrested and beaten several times, people were kidnapped and murdered, and oh yeah if I remember correctly, MLK was shot to death for all his do nothing “dreaming”.

    LBJ had the easy part. Having your secretary put in some overtime to type up some legislation that would help prevent the country from descending further into a racial war was “practical” don’t you think, maybe even prudent? Gee, what “sacrifices” LBJ must have made to get it done.

    I know a lot of people like Hillary Clinton. Sure she’s smart and works hard, but she’s totally full of herself and likes to take a lot more bloody credit for things than she deserves.

  • Okie said, “Let Hillary write and introduce good legislation. I have no doubt that she is capable of it. Let our Inspirational President (whoever it may be) rally the country behind it, co-opting a few Republicans and denying recalcitrant Republicans their electoral support. Let Hillary get the legislation through the Senate and to the President’s desk.”

    This is my “collective spine” hope for government by Democrats. It is hard for politicians to do something that seems unpopular, such as arguing against a war when it is being pushed by a president, the opposition party, much of their own party, and pretty much the entire media and 80% of the electorate. With a Democrat in the White House and other Democrats in charge of the Senate and the House, one hopes (hopefully not falsely) reinforce each others’ better instincts and work together for the common good. (Yes, I am well aware of the overall history of intraparty conflict between the executive and legislative branched, but that does not have to be inevitable, as Republicans have shown in the last 8 years.)

  • dajafi – I probably should have been more specific about the problems I wished Clinton had worked on – the whole constellation of legislation that involves torture and the MCA and wiretapping – and I sure wish she had stood up to Alitom, but she’s not the only one there I feel this way about.

    As for Obama – do you have any info that would shed some light on why Obama went to the trouble of seeking out Lugar as a mentor in order to get himself on the Foreign Relations committee, and then, when he got the chair of the subcommittee on western Europe, never held a polcy hearing or even traveled to meet and work on our alliances with those leaders. I just don’t get that.

  • WMB @ 20:

    LBJ had the easy part. Having your secretary put in some overtime to type up some legislation that would help prevent the country from descending further into a racial war was “practical” don’t you think, maybe even prudent? Gee, what “sacrifices” LBJ must have made to get it done.

    Wow, is that totally devoid of any knowledge of history. The Civil Rights Act was an astoundingly hard piece of legislation to pass. It wasn’t just a matter of having some secretary type it up – it isn’t like it flew through on a unanimous voice vote. The coalition was precarious, there were extended filibusters, there was the ongoing matter of how to create a process and substance that ended with less, rather than more, violence.

    LBJ, for all of his faults (and there were a great many) was one of the best at the mechanics of passing legislation, at twisting arms, making deals, using the power of whatever pulpit he had at the time. He knew what made each of his colleagues tick, he mastered the arcane procedural stuff of Congress that many there do not take time to learn. And it took that to make the CRA a reality.

  • Anne, Hillary Clinton has made it very clear that she believes the executive deserves a great deal of deference from the legislature. Between that philosophical view–understandable given her ’90s experience, but in my view flat wrong and very frightening for democracy–and her ever-present political fear of being tagged as “soft on terror/defense/whatever,” it was probably never in the cards for her to take a strong stand against torture, wiretapping, and the other Bush abuses. Not that she’s for them–I don’t think she is. But she waited for others to lead, and then when it was safe added her voice.

    (Obama didn’t exactly distinguish himself for political courage in this area either. I guess the most charitable explanation for either of them was that people like Feingold, Durbin and Dodd were on point.)

    I don’t know why he didn’t do more with the subcommittee you speak of; this is only the second time I remember hearing about that. I liked that he attached himself to Lugar, whom I always thought of as one of the more responsible and sensible Republicans, especially on nuclear nonproliferation. But I’m sure there is an argument to be made against Obama on that subcommittee.

    I don’t hold him to be perfect and I don’t feel compelled to defend him in every instance. I just think he’s the best option for the country right now given all considerations.

  • Isn’t it relevant to the discussion that MLK could only inspire through his retoric because the political access to people of color, any color, was firmly closed at the Presidential level in the 60’s, 70′ 80′ 90’s, etc. Come Hillary, just play the race card and move on…

  • Yes, and JFK was hopeful to get Vietnam started, but it took a President, LBJ, to get so many people killed. MLK was a symbol of hope. LBJ was a symbol of fear.

  • LBJ was a symbol of fear.

    True, and an honest evaluation would have to show that he did a lot of legislating through fear. His tactics weren’t pretty. He did a lot of strong-arming, much of it of a “no holds barred” variety.

    And I can think of nothing the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate more richly deserve. I happen to think Team Clinton would take great glee (through which I could live vicariously) in sticking it to the folks who have made their lives – and along the way the lives of countless Americans and millions of others around the world – hell. I fear Obama will show them a misguided mercy and let them off the hook for their extraordinary crimes – which will only embolden the next round who (like the party did for decades post-Goldwater) will simply lay low and wait for Obama to be gone before returning to their old form, unchastened because they were unpunished.

    Yes, I’m bitter much.

  • Anne–

    Obama sought Lugar because Lugar is, bar none, the best in the Senate on non-proliferation issues. The two of them went to Russia together to monitor Nunn-Lugar activities, and then drafted very good legislation (Lugar-Obama) to extend Nunn-Lugar to conventional weapons. These are fantastic, wonky things we should be praising.

    As for his Western Europe SubCommitee, that reminds me of a Dilbert comic strip. In the strip, Wally realizes that attendance is often mistaken for productivity, and starts showing up at every meeting he can, even for depts in which doesn’t work and nobody knows him. He, of course, draws lavish praise from the bosses.

    Meanwhile, here’s what Obama has done on foreign policy issues, as described by the user DanK over at Talking Points Memo:

    It looks like Obama’s emphasis, for his first few years in the Senate at least, has been to visit the “front lines”, so to speak, of US strategic competition and conflict. The Caspian region, Africa and the Middle East are the places where the US, Russia and China are now hotly contesting for influence, clients and access against a background of political instability and war.

    Djibouti, for example, is the location of the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa; which Obama visited on his trip. Kenya also is a vital African relationship for the US. The US, I believe, still has an agreement with Kenya that allows it access to the port of Mombasa and airfields at Embakasi and Nanyuki. Obama’s trip to Kenya sparked an outbreak of “Obama-mania,” and so in itself contributed to positive US-Kenyan relations aside from any other business Obama did there.

    Chad is a crucial spot where the US appears to be cooperating with our new best buddies the French on a sub-Saharan strategy.

    Obama’s trips have tended to deal with substantive issues, not just fact-finding, networking and schmoozing with old friends. In advance of his trip to Africa, Obama and Leahy successfully passed an amendment to provide $13 million in assistance to the DRC for military reform and election assistance. However, his trip to the Congo was canceled, I believe, because of intensified violence.

    His trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Dick Lugar was concerned with keeping tabs on Nunn-Lugar activities, and was followed up with the Lugar-Obama bill to extend Nunn-Lugar to conventional weapons proliferation.

    In South Africa, Obama vigorously and publicly criticized the South African government’s AIDS response, and he and his wife took an AIDS test there themselves.

    Now, what do you think is more important? ^That^, or holding sub-committee meetings? I think the answer should be obvious.

    For a little more on his trip to Kenya, including a note how Obama “directly confronted President Mwai Kibaki over corruption”, leading to maj. Gen Scott Gration to get on board the Obama bandwagon, see the article linked below, though the article is more about the maj General and his support for Obama.

    The whole complaint that Obama lacks substance is just a canard. He’s actually proven to be one of the hardest-working, substantial Senators we’ve had in his first few years. As already linked to by the Carpetbagger himself just a couple days ago, read this for more on his legislative work in Congress.

    article on Kenya and the General

  • And I’d add that Obama has put out nearly identical domestic policy proposals to both Clinton and Edwards, as noted by The New Republic today.

    Consider the noisiest topic of dispute: the ongoing controversy over whether to require that every American obtain health insurance, an idea Hillary Clinton and John Edwards endorse and Barack Obama does not. While it’s an important dispute–without such a requirement, millions of additional Americans might end up without coverage–it’s really the only area of serious disagreement. All three Democrats say they want universal coverage. And all three Democrats would make insurance more accessible by heavily regulating the private insurance industry, providing financial assistance to people who need help paying for coverage, and then expanding public insurance programs for those people still too poor to afford any policy at all.

    The consensus extends beyond health care. When it comes to averting catastrophic global warming, all three candidates have proposed the same essential scheme: They would each create a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set an overall limit on dangerous emissions, auction off pollution permits, and then allow companies to trade the permits among themselves. When it comes to improving America’s schools, all three candidates have pledged to change, but not eliminate, the No Child Left Behind Act–by providing the measure with more money and by changing the system for testing students, so that it more accurately measures progress on a year-to-year basis. Nor is it just the particular proposals that the Democrats have in common. It’s the relative priority they seem to give them. While all three have pledged to reduce budget deficits, in part by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, all three have also indicated they won’t insist on fully balancing the budget immediately–because such a hasty move, they recognize, might mean giving up on worthy investments or spending proposals.

    I’m amazed that people are calling for him to be “more specific” on policy; being more specific on policy in stump speeches is precisely why Clinton is not getting votes, why Kerry had trouble generating enthusiasm. People don’t want to be read a laundry list, they want to hear a narrative about the way the world is and what it can be. However, he’s given myriad speeches in the last 10 months, on sub-prime mortgages, the tax code, foreign policy (twice), investment in the inner-city communities and failing schools, etc etc etc.

  • Zeitgeist,

    There were also a lot more moderates in the Republican party in Johnson’s time than their are now. Hell, Richard Nixon would have to run as a Democrat these days. The biggest problem with Dick Gephardt and Tom Dashle in 2001-2002 was not that they were too unwilling to reach across the aisle. If anything, it was excessive willingness to meet Republicans half way — even on a national security issue, where partisanship once stopped at the water’s edge — that landed us in Iraq. Some people have very short memories.

  • I like a previous comment that Clinton should be running for Senate Majority Leader. It’s hard to believe that she’d roll over as easily as silly Harry Reid.

  • Michael – thanks for your input.

    I think where I am on this, as I may have mentioned at some point, is that I am an Edwards supporter, and he will get my vote in my primary, but…I can see writing on the wall as well as anyone, and I don’t want to get to March, with Edwards possibly dropping out – despite what he says about hanging in until the convention – and have to turn on a dime from feeling negative about Obama to positive. I’d like to know that I can vote for Obama in the general, if he is the nominee, with the feeling that he’s more than just the last Democrat standing.

    Does that make sense?

  • Makes total sense!

    And I’ll be happy to provide any information you want/need along the way. I hope the tone didn’t come off wrong in those posts, b/c I meant to be respectful, but sometimes I know i can come off as impatient or condescending (and sometimes I am! its a fault)

  • hey okie*** “…Obama has shown us his ability to inspire. Edwards has shown that ability to some degree, but his rhetoric (with which I agree 100%) is more divisive. Hillary? I don’t think so.”
    How the hell can you change anything without being divisive? Does Obama really believe that all he has to do is gather everyone into the same room and they will then agree on how to move forward? It’s a ridiculous assumption. Invite Hitler and his gang in and let’s see if we can all come together…I mean the whole idea is just stupid. Obama has no sense of urgency to stop what is happening to this country economically and all other ways. There is a huge battle brewing and needs to be fought to take this county out of the hands of what FDR called the “economic royalists”. It will be a dem who wins the presidency but hopefully we won’t get one who is willing to “gum it to death”. We must take the country back from those who have divided it. Edwards is the new FDR. He is the necessity candidate. A starving man will look for food out of necessity…his ‘hope’ is that he will find it. This nation is the starving man being kept from searching for nourishment. We must deal with what “is” before we can get what we “hope” for. Obama is devoid of reality always talking about what should be …what we should feel…Edwards points to what is…and how to deal with this disaster we find ourselves in. Our nation’s collapse is now and it is a partisan fight against the powers that have put us here. We need Edwards now…we need a 60 vote majority in the senate and a house majority not a 50-50 bipartisan ‘let’s all work together’ clusterfuck that Obama stands for.

  • btw…Just because the three dems in question say “health care for all”, doesn’t mean any of their plans are worth anything. Only Kucinich’s plan is truly a not for profit national health care plan. The others are just debating how much profit to give the ins cos and how much tax dollars should be used to subsidize…yeah that’s really going to make a difference. The CEO’s may have to cut their salary to under a billion/yr.

    Talking ‘no child left behind’ and better student loans when higher education should be FREE like in other industrialized nations.
    All these dems are better than their GOP counter parts but they are still pushing the money party. They all say they will listen to us when in fact they already have their mind’s made up and are not listening to what a majority have already stated they want. Not for profit single payer national healthcare, free higher education, are just 2 issues on which they have quit listening to us. They will however continue to listen to the lobbyists except Edwards who has vowed to eventually get the private ins co out of our health care.

  • I am from Western New York and Hillary Clinton is my U.S. Senator. She has worked diligently to bring a biotech and hi tech industry to this former rust belt area. She has helped our reservists, who are leaving all the time from Niagara Falls AirForce Base to go to Iraq. I could go on and on, but frankly it would not matter to the political press. Hillary has been a great Senator and hopefully will stay there. I wonder what Senator Obama has accomplished for the people of Illinois. I never hear that discussed. If Senator Obama is elected he will be asking Senator Clinton for her help. She will give it with all she has because this is not an ego thing with her. It’s called love of your fellow man-sounds like maybe a real Christian may like her.

  • Woman comes home from work, and starts telling man about her day, and relates some problems and tells man all about it. Man tells woman how to fix her problem. Woman wasn’t looking for solutions – she just wanted to talk and express her feelings. — Anne, @6

    Funny… In our household, it has always been the other way ’round. At least until, during one session, when I tried to offer practical solutions and my husband tried to shoot them down, he finally burst out “will you please just let me bitch?” After which, I only offered possible solutions when he asked for my input.

    As for Hillary’s statement… I wish she had said something like: “it takes both — a visionary designer and a nuts-and-bolts mechanic — to produce a great and smoothly working piece of machinery. But we can only have one president. And, at this point, I think this country needs the mechanic more than it needs the visionary; we still have the vision of the Founding Fathers to fall back on, but we’re in sore need of ‘rude mechanicals’, who can get things done, competently. And I’m that person”.

    It would have taken her longer to say than what she did say, but would not have left people with the impression that she was dissing not just Obama but MLK and everyone who’d put their lives on the line in the Civil Rights movement as well. Sigh… it’s a long and grueling campaign…

  • She is not saying she’s LBJ and O is MLK. She IS saying that one inspired the people and one became president and changed legislation. WHich is what she is saying that she will do.

  • I think everyone should allow the candidates to run their campaigns and allow Hillary Clinton to FiNALLY take the gloves off with BO. He has NO experience and only dreams of what he might be able to do….this is anything but racial or gender driven!!! I could care less that she is a woman, I care however, that she has 35 yrs of experience DOING exactly what I would like to see the President do! and if she has what it takes which she has PROVEN she does then she is the one. On the other hand Obama does not have the experience which turns me off right away..and that is mostly do to the fact that neither did BUSH and he has screwed up EVERYTHING known to man in this country and I for one do not want to go thru that again!! Senator Clinton’s husband also is great with foreign policy and economics which would be great to have him in her cabinet. Afterall, during his two terms was the FIRST time in 70 years that the US had a balanced budget and OWED NO OTHER COUNTRY MONEY!! That is big.! WE NEED BOTH of the CLINTONS yesterday!!

  • Isn’t it true that JFK came before LBJ? And isn’t it also true that without the essential legwork of MLK and JFK, LBJ’s Great Society would never have been politically possible? Sure LBJ’s fight against poverty was a personal one, but do you really think he would have pushed the legislation so fervently, while being bogged down in Vietnam, had it not been intricately tied to JFK’s legacy. This is without even mentioning what JFK would have done in his remaining year in office, much less another term!

    Yes, LBJ’s role was imperative from a grind-it-out legislative stand point, but without the inspiration of JFK we’re merely talking about LBJ as a president who dragged the U.S. into an unpopular war with falsified facts (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution)…sounds slightly familiar.

    Hillary is the nuts-and-bolts legislator. The guy behind the guy (excuse the expression) The one who can roll up her sleeves and mix it up amongst those policy wonks in Washington. Much as LBJ acted as power broker, Hillary has that same tenacity to get things done (not to mention the fact that Hillary is almost as paranoid as LBJ was) And the thing that Hillary supporters can, for some reason, not understand is that it is not because she is a woman. Hillary is probably more capable than Bill in most areas, but she lacks an essential leadership quality: charisma. Cynics believe charisma to be as important as well-coiffed hair, but they are wrong. Bill could diffuse a room full of even the most staunch conservatives. Sure they would still disagree on the fundamental grounds of liberal and conservative values, but he created the possibility for compromise and progress. Hillary, on the other hand, thrives in a combative atmosphere, one not completely removed from the Karl Rove law of 51%. If Hillary could eek out that majority she would do it and feel completely satisfied. And that is good. But for those who believe a leader is so much greater than the sum of his or her political parts, it is only sufficient. The utter mess our nation is in today does not call for a mere recovery from Bush ills, it calls for a new mindset and Obama demands it.

  • Comments are closed.