Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton: No Leadership Abilities?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:37 AM
Original message
Hillary Clinton: No Leadership Abilities?
Edited on Mon Apr-23-07 11:40 AM by wyldwolf
I just heard/read that charge, or an equivalent of it, again. Hillary Clinton has no record of leadership. That is why she is unsuitable to be President. Specious at best...

I don't buy into the charge against Clinton because I remember the 90s well. I remember after losing the debate on healthcare reform, President Clinton sought to keep Hillary's influence in his administration low key. But the public record, quotes from administration officials and other leaders, tell a different tale.

When asked about his wife's role in his administration in August of 2000, President Bill Clinton said "She basically had an unprecedented level of activity in her present position over the last eight years.''

Her record as First Lady, Hillary Clinton says, includes work on a major Clinton administration child-care initiative, a huge federal-state children's health insurance program, adoption and foster care bills and foreign aid appropriations for small loans overseas.

''The record's there, and what I did is sort of self-evident I think, but it may come as new information to a lot of people,'' Mrs. Clinton said in an interview in 2000.

Pressed later about whether her new descriptions of acting as, in essence, a senior presidential adviser went beyond the job of first lady, Mrs. Clinton laughed out loud and said: ''I'm not going to have it any more. And the next first lady doesn't have to do it.''

Agency heads, other administration officials, Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill generally confirm Mrs. Clinton's assertions, but say that her role was kept quiet to avoid the kind of vilification she had attracted over her central part in health care policy.

Mrs. Clinton described her White House issues staff, which had offices in both the West Wing and the old Executive Office Building, ''as part of the domestic policy operation in the White House.'' Although she also had a small staff in the East Wing to handle first lady social responsibilities, Mrs. Clinton said that ''I realized very soon that, you know, if I had some first lady staff over here, I wouldn't be able to get things done.''

She said that she and her policy staff had the responsibility for pushing legislation and programs that would benefit children, women and health care -- issues that have concerned her, she said, for the last 30 years.

Mrs. Clinton's Democratic supporters on Capitol Hill echo her claims.

''Her office and her in particular were key allies of ours and the progressives in the Senate who were trying to pursue an agenda in the areas of children, education, health care and job training,'' said Nick Littlefield, who worked with Senator Edward M. Kennedy and was the staff director to the Health, Education and Labor Committee at the time. He added that ''once we discovered that Mrs. Clinton was running a public advocacy organization inside the White House, it followed automatically that we would start talking to her.''

She said, for example, that the Clinton administration program to guarantee free immunizations for poor and uninsured children, passed in 1993, ''was basically drafted in my office under my supervision.'' The program was a precursor to health care and its policy was largely rejected by Congress, but the Clinton administration did get $585 million for vaccines.

Mrs. Clinton also said that her staff had a large part in the development of the Corporation for National Service, the Clinton administration's domestic version of the Peace Corps.

''I hired Shirley Sagawa, who had been Ted Kennedy's person on national service, and so basically it was my staff that was involved in drafting that legislation,'' she said.

Eli J. Segal, the first chief executive of the Corporation for National Service and the 1992 Clinton campaign chief of staff, called the first lady's assertion ''100 percent correct.''

Among her other accomplishments, Mrs. Clinton said she helped to initiate and promote the Children's Health Insurance Program, created by Congress in 1997 to provide $24 billion over five years to states to insure children.

''She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done,'' Mr. Littlefield of the Health, Education and Labor Committee said. He said that he and Senator Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the major force behind the bill, enlisted Mrs. Clinton's help in the spring of 1997 when the president became ''skittish'' about the program. Mr. Littlefield said the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, was threatening that it was a ''deal buster'' on the balanced budget agreement that he and Mr. Clinton had reached.

''At that point we went to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You've got to get the president to come around on this thing,' '' Mr. Littlefield said. ''And she said, 'Absolutely.' And we very quickly noticed a change. The president was very much on board.''

She also said she helped to write bills on adoption and foster care, and lobbied for them.

At the end of the 1997 Congressional session, Representative Dave Camp, a conservative Michigan Republican who was frantically negotiating to save an adoption bill, got a call in the House cloakroom from Mrs. Clinton.

''It was 9:30 or 10 at night,'' Mr. Camp recalled. ''I thought only Congressional night owls did that. I was surprised. You know, you're working wearily on these things, and you're worrying whether this is doing any good.'' Mrs. Clinton gave him a pep talk, Mr. Camp said, and told him the bill was worth it.

''I want to be honest,'' he said. ''It was helpful to me.''

The bill, an administration priority intended to speed up the adoption of children in foster care, had been heavily promoted by Mrs. Clinton on Capitol Hill. Four days after her call, it passed the House and Senate and was soon signed into law by the president.

Others in the Clinton Administration said that they learned to count on Mrs. Clinton as more than a spokeswoman.

''I don't think that the Endowment would be alive today if it weren't for strong White House support, and I'm sure she plays a very important role,'' said Jane Alexander, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

At the Agency for International Development, Brian Atwood, the administrator, said of Mrs. Clinton's grasp of complex development issues: ''She understands these issues better than 90 percent of the people who operate within the foreign policy community.''

Mrs. Clinton has been working with A.I.D. to import to inner cities lessons learned abroad, on child immunization, for example, and inexpensive techniques to combat diarrhea. She has taken a particularly strong interest in ''microenterprise lending,'' or efforts in developing nations and troubled cities to lend small amounts of money for new businesses, often run by women.

It is no coincidence, Mr. Atwood said, that the Administration is seeking to slightly increase the budget for A.I.D. next year. ''She deserves more credit for that,'' he said, ''than anyone.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E7DA143FF932A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E6D9133BF933A15752C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Oddly enough, the GOP (who swore up and down that Hillary was running the White House) will now tell you she had no leadership role. Unfortunately, some on the left - out of political convenience - agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Go sic'em Hil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good information - Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. and who says the left are one-issue voters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Iraq, i think is an important issue. 655,000 reasons at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."
That's Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked if she thought homosexuality is immoral.

Just to debunk your "one-issue" garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You've debunked nothing
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. We liberals take issue with Mrs. Clinton on far more than 1 issue. That's what I proved.
And I debunked your bullshit notion that somehow all this opposition to Clinton is only because of the opposition to the Iraq War.

If Clinton feels she doesn't need to take a stand on homosexuality, then I feel I don't need to vote for her, and that anyone with an interest in gay rights would probably like to know something like this before they go vote for her.

We at the reality-based community will always welcome a new member, no matter how long you've been insulting us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. still, you've debunked nothing
Clinton clarified her position... as did Obama after he avoided the question all together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. "Young people today think work is a four-letter word."
Another gem from her.

Sorry, I'm a young person and I don't appreciate being told that.

I am not sold on Obama either. It seems like all of the "Big Three" have made some bad judgment calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. hey, by the way, Wellstone supported DOMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. She also supported attacking welfare, and convinced Bill to sign the Republican
anti-welfare bill.
Can the rich thank her enough? Gutsy leadership there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Al Gore was the president's pointman on welfare reform
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Spread the credit around. Gore gored the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
71. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Joad
Are there any Democrats you support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Mrs. Clinton's Record of *Leadership* in The Senate
1. Criminalization of flag burning
2. Banning violent video games
3. Medals for millitary in the cold war

That's everything that I can recall that she's taken a leadership role on while in the Senate. Can you add to this list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. yeah, I can add to the list
1. She has introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.

2. She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program.

3. She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism.

4. She sponsored legislation to increase America’s commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis

5. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. And Also - Increasing The Size of our Military
By 100,000 troops, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Good!
Along with John Kerry, Howard Dean, and others, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. Outstanding!
Give that woman a "little tin God" award for being completely out of touch with what's truly important to the average American Citizen. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. Senator Clinton has done a great job for ALL of New York State.........
Edited on Mon Apr-23-07 12:13 PM by Double T
as our Junior Senator. She offers the kind of leadership our nation desperately needs. Bill Clinton is an added bonus and is the most capable person to reclaim the former good standing of our nation with the other countries of the world.

Check these links: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/

http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. She can lead but I don't want to follow where she's heading.
She'll still lead us over the cliff,just at a slower pace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If exclamation points were facts you'd be unstoppable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. Is that real Magic Wand or a Sears Magic Wand?
How do you suppose the Congress will pass legislation without this funny little thing called not having enough votes... oh never mind... storm the gates! Um...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. OH, Here it comes! The 3rd Party threat!
Jayzus, don't these people ever learn? If they hadn't encouraged Nader to run, because they didn't like Gore (at the moment). No matter how many votes were stolen Gore would have won Florida, except, Nader siphoned enough votes off to the Green Party to throw Florida to Bush! Gore would still be the current president.

What in the world is wrong with you people? Are you mathematically challenged or what?

Thanks alot for your idealogical purity that has done absolutely nothing but harm to this country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. We're a big tent. But I wish we wouldn't let people back into our party that would be that stupid.
Voting third party right now isn't an option.

We need a damn Democrat in the White House.

If that's Hillary, by god get me a damn yard sign and some voters to call!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. that's the spirit
The Supreme Court shapes our lives for a generation and we must not allow the next judge(s) to be appointed by the GOP.

After the dust settles in the primary, it's go time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
78. The Court alone is good enough reason
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 10:13 AM by JNelson6563
to support the Dem over the Rethug. The next term will be pivotal, we must make sure it doesn't pivot it's way right off the cliff. It's on a precipice now.

Inasmuch as I have been personally very disappointed in Senator Clinton that is not nearly enough for me to surrender the SCOTUS. Won't vote Rethug, won't throw my vote away on third party.

For the time being I will continue to focus on local party efforts and to hope Gore jumps in. If he doesn't I'm not sure who I'll vote for in the primary but I know who I'll vote for in the GE. The winner of the primary. :-)

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. ABAR or I. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. No matter how many times some people say "make it so"
Edited on Mon Apr-23-07 04:53 PM by ShortnFiery
the vast majority of us reality based democrats KNOW that HRC doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.

If we allow all HRC's money, political influence and the DLC machine to BUY HER the nomination, then we deserve the republican president that will be elected in 2008. :(

Newsflash: HRC can NOT win the General Election. IMO, nothing is truer than the foregoing statement. I only hope that it will NOT be tested, i.e., HRC does not get the democratic nomination. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Ah, hush!
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. Actually the "third party threat" comes from guys like Lieberman.
Who promptly made good on his threat.

Pot, meet kettle. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. What a cop out!
what else can we expect. You think because you batter and lie about our strongest democratic candidate, that candidate is going to kowtow to one segment of society, the Democratic Left Wing? Hold your breath and turn blue for all I care. Our Demo president HAS to represent everyone in the country, not cater to special interests, whether it's the Left Wing OR The Right Wing, like it is now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
22. What you have described isn't really leadership
Doesn't mean she doesn't have it, but its currently undocumented, at least for me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. and here, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of setting the bar just out of her reach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. NOt really, nothing you said indicated any sort of personal leadership
and given the lack of reality in the M$M, its hard to know what to believe from them. Its not rasing the bar, its saying that nothing has indeed been demonstrated. Personal eadership is not getting bills passed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. and here, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of setting the bar just out of her reach.
leadershp redefined just for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Get real...
I ts hard for pols to show strong personal leadership. Carter did, Bill Clinton has, so arguably has McCain, in no small part to his military background. Neither Bush would know what leadership is if it bit them on the nose. Its not just guys either. Eleanor Holmes Norton certainly has shown it over the years.

Part of its opportunity. I haven't seen it from Obama or Kucinich either. Of all the Dem candidates, IMO, only Richardson has been known for being an effective leader over time.

Unlike others, I am not saying the lack of general acceptance of them as effective leaders means it does not exist. Few if any get close enough to see the high level pols in action.

Its just my opinion, and its not rasing the bar for Hillary or anyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Solo_in_MD, I have never been otherwise. "Personal leadership" is a subjective term
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Latest in a long line of examples...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
26. On at least one claim she clearly inflated her role
Edited on Mon Apr-23-07 04:47 PM by karynnj
"Among her other accomplishments, Mrs. Clinton said she helped to initiate and promote the Children's Health Insurance Program, created by Congress in 1997 to provide $24 billion over five years to states to insure children.

''She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done,'' Mr. Littlefield of the Health, Education and Labor Committee said. He said that he and Senator Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the major force behind the bill enlisted Mrs. Clinton's help in the spring of 1997 when the president became ''skittish'' about the program"" (The bill was passed in early April - so is this implying that Clinton might have vetoed it?)

I read a post last week, where it was claimed to have initiated the S-CHIP program. Because that differed from what I had heard in the past, I used Thomas to get the Senate record on the floor speeches on this.

In 2004, Senator Kennedy spoke of how in 1996, he and Senator Kerry introduced THE HEALTHY CHILDREN FAMILY ASSISTANCE HEALTH INSURANCE ACT to provide insurance to children without insurance in low income families above the Medicaid level. I found it was introduced in Oct 1996 and re-introduced in January 2007. Kennedy said this bill became the core of the S-CHIP program. The S-CHIP program was sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch and was a bipartisan compromise between the Kerry/Kennedy bill and some changes to make Hatch accept the bill. Kerry was a co-sponsor of the bill that retained many features of the earlier bill. Hatch, in his comments pointed out the difference between S-CHIP and the Kerry-Kennedy bill - the biggest differences were that it was done through the states and it had to be reapproved rather than being an entitlement bill. (These are substantial differences)

Senator Hatch made a very big point of it NOT being related to the Clinton plan, which he criticized in his speech. I read the floor statements of Kennedy, Hatch, Kerry and Dodd - none of them says one word about Hillary Clinton being involved or thanking her. It would seem that especially as Hatch criticizes Hillary's plan if she were involved in this he would say so. In her autobiography, Clinton mentions working behind the scenes with Kennedy and Hatch on S-CHIP but does not claim to have initiated it. To me it seemed that this was put in almost to balance the failure of the health care objective.

Hatch and Kennedy were very experienced getting things through Congress, while Hillary wasn't. So, it seems Hillary's role was to convince her husband it made sense. She very likely did act to get the states to use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
39. Could you point out something She has done in the Senate?
Putting Bubbas comments aside; what has Hillary done in 7 years in the senate? What has she "led" on? One might expect that would be a more likely place to find evidence of leadership ability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. you could start by reading the thread. At least two posts contain that info. Including one of mine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. I assume you refer to your post number 10 ...
And what actual effect have any of the listed bills had?
Three of them were band aids and the other two did nothing at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. wait a minute now. What difference does it make what effect they had?
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 07:33 AM by wyldwolf
A Senator or congressman can't MAKE a bill pass or a President sign them into law. What effect has anything Kucinich (for example) ever done had?

You asked what she did in Congress. I told you.

Talking to some of you is like a maze of ever-changing directions. In this thread alone ...

... Clinton has no leadership abilities... she had demonstrated many leadership abilities...But she demonstrated no PERSONAL leadership abilities..."Personal" is a subjective term... But she's done nothing in the Senate...she's done a lot in the senate.. but she hasn't done anything I think has had any effect... :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. You want to talk Kucinich?
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 07:48 AM by primative1
Last I checked Kucinich continues to take controversial stands on things people actualy care about. Maybe if some of "leaders" would come through and exercise some of their "leadership abilities" in these matters it wouldnt be left to DK.
But thanks for bringing this up.
I will agree, when it comes to "leadership abilities", at least amongst out present 08 candidates, we can choose DK or fantasia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Sure. And let's use YOUR standards. What EFFECTS has anything he's said had?
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 08:03 AM by wyldwolf
Last I checked Kucinich continues to take controversial stands on things people actualy care about.

But what EFFECTS have they had?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. He has succeded in steering the conversation ...
People now actualy openly discuss what he has been saying for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. only in that little corner you reside in... unless you have documented examples...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Hmm ... last I heard ...
.. A well funded candidate named John Edwards is speeling the same rhetoric DK used in 04. Edwards now proposed we repeal NAFTA .... Hmmm ... Now where have I heard this before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. he's pandering to the leftwing fanbase
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 08:09 AM by wyldwolf
...the same way Dennis "I was anti-choice and pro-flag burning amendment" Kucinich does.

Fact is, Kucinich is a second-rate congressman who grandstands but, by the end of the day, has no effect on this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. And back to the topic DeJur
and I suppose the same could be said about HC except, oh yeah, she panders to a wealthier clientele. That makes all the difference IMO. You can count on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. no, see. She actually gets things done. Kucinich TALKS about getting things done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. Hmm ...
But I thought we already concluded that what little she actualy got done had no actual effect.
So you seem to prod me to chose between someone who can get things done which have no actual effect or someone who talks about getting things done that would have an effect but who cant get them done?
Tough call IMO.
I know, how about if someone who could get things done, works on doing things that have actual effect.
That would seem more appropriate at this point in time than the dreaded "triangulation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Pathetic....
Lets say you were a computer programmer, and you developed this beautiful piece of software that meets a market need....

You pass it off to the sales and marketing department. and they drop the ball...don't get it out there, don't market it effectively, and it flops...

Would you say the computer programmer didn't get anything done...

Fact is, Hillary Clinton, in slightly over one term, most of the time in the minority, has become an extraordinarily effective Senator...

Dennis Kucinich on the other hand, is a gadfly, throwing out left wing bromides to his rabid fan base, with no intention of expending the political capital it takes to actually make progress in any of these areas...

And if you think Hillary's work in the Senate has no effect...I suggest you ring up some Engine companies in New York City and ask them how effective she has been at getting them the money they need to actually do their job as first responders, rather than the lip service paid to them by Rudy and the Repubs...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Left wing -right wing ....
Who keeps moving the ball.
Most of what you call left wing bromides are accepted beliefs of most CENTRIST citizens.
As for the fighting for pork angle I doubt that will get you far on the argument for ACCOMPLISMENTS.
Wouldnt that make Senator Byrd the hands down champion (on our side at least)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Yeah...way to avoid the topic...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. By you ...
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #66
72. no, you concluded that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Oh, we must continue then ...
When you started number 44 with:

"wait a minute now. What difference does it make what effect they had";

I thought you were agreeing that the actions you highlighted had no actual effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. Pointless...
Primitive1 knows he is backed into a corner...And is now simply playing rope a dope...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. rope a dope is a great way to describe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. Geez ....
You don't get to just close off the debate by declaring yourself the winner. You have to make some point first and I am still waiting for you to make one :)
Here is a tid bit to consider. Maybe you will get to use it someday if (god forbid) HC winds up as our nominee.
Since you brought up "homeland security" spending as one of HC defining accomplishments I would like to share with you, this one positive observation I have had of her.
In the days immediately following 9-11 it was HC who was on the streets of NY appearing to be embodying some semblance of government control in an otherwise barren landscape marked by the stark fact that BushCo were still hiding under whatever rock they chose to hide under.
That impression lingers, even years later and I'm sure other people remember it as well.
But do we really need another homeland security president or is it time to move on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. Controversial?
Hardly...he is pandering to his left wing fan base...nothing controversial about it...

If he had had any balls at all he would have voted for the current Iraq funding bill containing a withdrawal deadline...

Keith Ellison, a freshman, and liberal from the same wing of the party showed true courage on that vote...something Kucinich cannot muster!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. Well that would make the vote controversial then ,wouldnt it?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. Not to his fan base it wouldn't...
The controversial vote for Ellison was a Yea vote....which he made...

Kucinich took the easy way out...his left wing constituency expected him to oppose it and he did...again showing he would rather appease them than actually make progress...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. ...
Excerpts from a fairly good article on Hillary's rise...she has, in a very short time, become a very successful Senator. Ask the firefighters in New York City, who went from booing her at a benefit, to now being her strongest supporters...ask what they think of her leadership.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary


Byrd features significantly in Clinton’s two biggest accomplishments in the Senate. The day after September 11, she surveyed the devastation at Ground Zero with New York’s other senator, Charles Schumer. Realizing the need for federal help, she called Byrd first thing the next morning. “We’re in real trouble, and it’s going to take a lot to put the city back together. Can you help?” This time Byrd agreed at once: “Count me as the third senator from New York.” With his assistance on the Appropriations Committee, New York secured $20 billion in recovery funds, and Clinton likely cinched her reelection.


The other major accomplishment involved the Pentagon’s list of recommended military-base closures, announced last May, which included the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, one of the largest employers in a depressed area of the state. From her seat on the Armed Services Committee, Clinton played a prominent role in fighting the decision of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), and found Byrd a useful ally. West Virginia’s Air National Guard base had also been targeted for closure. Late one Friday night while preparing an appeal, a Byrd staffer came across an obscure 1917 statute denying the federal government the authority to close a National Guard base without authorization from the state’s governor—which, if he valued his job, would never be forthcoming. Byrd’s staff tipped off Clinton’s, since New York’s appeal hearing came sooner. Through her work on Armed Services, Clinton had developed close relationships with several Air Force sources at the Pentagon, and got hold of a document showing that the savings claimed for closing the Niagara station had been grossly exaggerated. Clinton personally laid out the information to the BRAC chairman, Anthony Principi. In September, word came from the White House that New York had been spared.



Years of accumulated resentments over such slights have helped form one very significant dimension of Clinton’s strong working relationships in the Senate: her popularity among female staff members—even many Republicans—is almost universal. Something entirely unexpected happened as I went around inquiring about her working habits. Republican women, who are supposed to despise Clinton by reflex, would first describe seething as they sat behind their boss at some hearing or other and watched Clinton charm whichever beacon of conservatism was her target. But many eventually went on to confess a grudging admiration for her, for reasons that initially struck me as bizarre. “She wore slacks to her swearing-in ceremony,” one such staffer marveled. “I mean, you just don’t do that in the Senate.” Her point was that Clinton has flourished in the male-dominated milieu without making the normal concessions demanded of women, and has done so—this is important if you’re a Republican—without making a big feminist stink about it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton


Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities.

She co-sponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.

She included language in an energy bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally conscious construction projects, and introduced an amendment that funds job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools.



And from the NOW website, reasons for their support of her...among many issues

Clinton has supported and is the lead sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Clinton was a leader in our fight to prevent the Department of Labor from undermining overtime protections for low-income workers, mostly women.


http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/hillary/issues.html


In 2005 she co-sponsored with Senator Lindsey Graham the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition proposal regarding incentives and rewards for completely domestic American manufacturing companies.

In June, 2005, she united with Senator Bill Frist to push for the modernization of medical records, claiming that thousands of deaths caused by medical mistakes, such as misreading prescriptions, can be prevented by greater reliance on computer technology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. But Saveelemer...
What if she has a plan, approved by the world’s leading economists, to provide free health care to every American and their pets.

So what? SHE backed the Iraq War

What if she has a plan to eliminate poverty in just 3 months. Experts say it is wonderful!

So what? She BACKED the Iraq War

What if she will fund research literally guaranteed to cure cancer, aids, impotence, prevent pregnancy, and turn water to wine - all in just one pill!!

SO WHAT!!! SHE BACKED THE IRAQ WAR AND SHE WON’T KISS MY ASS AND APOLOGIZE!!!

…and on and on and on and on….
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. Really?
Well what is the plan? I'm all ears.
Now would be a great time to introduce these great ideas, no?
People are dying every day. Why hold back on such brilliance?
Since she has such great ideas wouldn't it make sense to implement them now .... But no .... First things first and then we get to find out what we already know.
I have a great plan to build a time machine. I'm going to travel into tomorrow and buy a newspaper and then come back and play the lottery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. I guess sarcasm is lost on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. ...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
64. If she HAD those three conjectured items, the situation would be different
Then there would be strong reasons to back her even though she has NOT led on Iraq. She has not only not led, she and her husband fought those who were leading.

Her recent NYT interview where she spoke of having a bigger on-going role (to protect oil and Israel - per her statement) has put other Democrats in a quandry. Yesterday, on Hardball, Senator Durbin dealt with it by saying he hadn't heard it. No one wants to publicly disagree - though this is far more pro-war than the party as a whole. She has a right to be away from the center of opinion - just as I thought Kerry did last year in the opposite direction. However, she is NOT the nominee yet and we have the right to challange her position there, just as Clinton people have criticized Edwards' position.

Iraq is one of several big issues. Even if people were to accept that Hillary is a leader, it is fair and right to still reject her if we think she is leading in the wrong direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. those were ficticious examples to show how nothing is good enough for the left..
..while Iraq is in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #65
74. The problem is that the example of Hillary does not test that theory
Edited on Tue Apr-24-07 09:42 AM by karynnj
If you look at some of the other issues, she does not have huge strengths. In a speech last week, Bill Clinton said there were three main big issues. Curiously, none involved foreign policy or Iraq. However he ignores that he did very little on 2 of them while in office the first time.

Environment - Even though Gore was Clinton's VP, the Clintons did nothing to raise CAFE standards and they allowed the huge SUV segment to not be included as cars - allowing a de facto decrease in acceptable mileage. There was no push to invest in alternative energy or higher efficiency technologies. In the booming economic times, this was doable. Bush 1 was president when the clean air act was passed. There was no comparable major legislation under Clinton. Clinton did very little on this issue.

The main Clinton accomplishments were a series of executive orders in the last months of his presidency, which Bush promptly overturned. Had these been done much earlier, they could have been implemented and any problems solved. This would have made them less likely to be easily undone. Clinton's record in Arkansas was considered to be mediocre at best. He was bad on chicken farms in particular. It is fair to put their records together because that is what you did on the good side in the op.

Economic inequality - The gap between the rich and poor grew enormously in the Clinton years. In fact, rate at which the gap grew increased. This was due to his policies as well as the huge inflated dot com boom.

Health care - Of the three, this is the strongest Clinton issue, though it is not as strong in reality as in their claims. Hillary did push and get vaccines for poor children. Her health plan was a failure and some of the reasons were that it was developed in secret with Ira Magaziner. At one point she argued against having to say who they heard from. The Finance committee Democrats did not like the plan. In her book and website, she says she had a role in S-CHIP, but the Senate speeches at the time do not credit her with being the force behind it. In fact, Orrin Hatch makes the point several times that it is not a Clinton plan. If she runs, I doubt any Democrat will challenge that - but it bothers me that she seems to be taking credit for everything the Senate did when Clinton was President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. the anti-Hillary posters in this thread proves that theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. i agree that SOME people may fit that
and there are people who are one issue voters. I've seen posts ruling out Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden for the IWR. One went a step further and ruled out Obama for his vote on Kerry/Feingold.

Iraq is a huge issue and many in saying Iraq may mean something broader, foreign policy. In addition there are likely people who are not one issue voters, but who have a threshold on that issue that a candidate has to pass. Hillary has the most extreme position of all of these people. It is valid to reject her simply on this issue.

What I addressed is that she may not be super good on the other issues. But, my bigger point is that at least people in any of these categories are rejecting someone based on ISSUES. This seems commendable. I would have more problem if it were based on less meaningful things - like being a woman, being too short or too tall or too nice or too mean ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
45. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq thanks to her leadership abilities
Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Why try again when I succeeded the first time?
Our soldiers are dying in Iraq thanks to her leadership abilities

And Obama's, and Edwards'...

Once again, you get fixated on Iraq.

What if she has a plan, approved by the world’s leading economists, to provide free health care to every American and their pets.

So what? SHE backed the Iraq War

What if she has a plan to eliminate poverty in just 3 months. Experts say it is wonderful!

So what? She BACKED the Iraq War

What if she will fund research literally guaranteed to cure cancer, aids, impotence, prevent pregnancy, and turn water to wine - all in just one pill!!

SO WHAT!!! SHE BACKED THE IRAQ WAR AND SHE WON’T KISS MY ASS AND APOLOGIZE!!!

…and on and on and on and on….
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. She doesn't have any of those things...
...and she still supports the war. You should try and come up with another line of diversion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-24-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. the diversion is yours.
You should try to think beyond the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC