I’ll be brief.
You know what I would like to see from the Presidential candidates who just so happen to be Senators in a time where the current political climate is crying for real leadership from prominent members of the Senate? I’d like to see them take a step back – even if for a day or two – even in a major speech, hell, even in a campaign advertisement – and really step up on one of the many issues that is facing this country right now.
They have run two very different and two very successful campaigns. I approve of one a lot less than the other, but even with all that “the other” campaign has said, done or focused on, if that Senator actually spoke out strongly and forcefully about telecom immunity, or the ongoing funding of total destruction, loss of life and waste in Iraq, or some of the other laws being ignored or broken by this administration, then I wouldn’t care about the rest of the campaign.
That Senator would really impress me.
Or if either of them used the enormous amount of exposure and attention they have to demonstrate leadership on the issues that they will have to deal with if elected President, like conducting real oversight and promising to hold those accountable for breaking the law or really speaking out against and taking steps to ending the power grab that the Executive Branch has made, or even coming to Washington DC to stand with Senate leaders like Chris Dodd in defending the Constitution.
There is a long time between now and the Pennsylvania primary. Both campaigns just raised scads of money. This is the time to demonstrate leadership, not just talk about it.
There is a great way to show how you would be a strong and respected Commander in Chief. Not by saying that you would. Not by saying that the other one wouldn’t. But by being honest and open and candid about what is happening on the ground in Iraq, by recognizing and putting pressure on other Senators to start ending this debacle NOW, not three months after being elected.
Now.
Start putting pressure on those who ignore the law or abet lawbreaking. Like Mukasey. Like the others who want retroactive immunity to protect Bush. Like those who ignored subpoenas. Or those who decided to stop looking for the missing emails.
If either of them wanted to really stand out from the other, if either of them demonstrated the leadership that they say they have and the other one doesn’t have, if either of them took the next few weeks to step up at the job they were elected to do, that would convince a lot of people that they are ready for the job they hope to get.
And the Village would immediately hang Harry Reid around their necks and say they are “too partisan” and clutch their pearls for “playing politics” and starting a “witch hunt”, allowing cover for Saint McCain of Our Lady Of Perpetual Warfare to come in and say “My friends, when I’m in the White House, I’ll be the real agent of change.”
And then Senator would immediately fold like they have so many times before on the issues over the last 14 months.
But it’s a nice thought, clams.
I’ll defend them both on this point.
They call campaign days “years” for good reason. You have to do much more on the campaign trail every day than you do as President most days. It’s horrific, their schedules.
That said, however, I think it’s not necessary that they “take the lead”, but that they show some acknowledgement of what’s important and do what they can.
To that point, it’s worth noting that Obama made time in his schedule to vote against telco immunity. Clinton did not.
And when Kenya’s election process devolved into violence, Obama was on the phone and on the Kenyan airwaves immediately pleading for a peaceful settlement. Desmond Tutu stepped in and made the actual peace accord, so to speak, but Obama was all over that. (Clinton, to my knowledge, did nothing.)
Yes, but was it at 3 AM?
I guess it doesn’t count if it’s at 6 a.m. Good point.
clinton made time yesterday
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6386
?
That’s a page about Clinton and Afghanistan, now.
she took the lead on an issue…exactly what clammy was looking for…i played with the idea of attributing that press release to obama to see what the reaction would be,…you see obama walks on water and clinton cant do anything right….quite frankly i read the whole thing, understood it, and tried to find something comparable from obama….i havent seen much in the way of well thought out policy on any issue from obama, especially foreign policy….which is one of the reasons i would put clinton at the top of the shared ticket.
booman asked for hillary supporters to tell him how she could possibly win the nomination….i didnt answer his request for a few reasons….first off i took a little break from the political blogs for mental health reasons….the negative energy from both the obama leaning blogs and the clinton leaning blogs is disgusting to me and it affects me in not so good ways….second he asked for opinions from clinton supporters….i dont really feel like im a clinton supporter…i would take either one of them…i wont give money to either of them, i wont do any campaign work at all beyond sending friends and family things i find of interest on both candidates whether negative or positive….at places like taylor marsh’s blog i find myself defending clinton and pointing out the double standards and on blogs like booman tribune i find myself defending clinton…i voted for clinton in the delaware primary because i was disgusted with the pile on from the media and the blogs i used to feel were my home….im distressed by lots of things about clinton….im unimpressed by obama….im praying someone figures a way to bring everyone together….i was hoping it would be obama…i mean he is the unity guy….or maybe edwards or dean or gore or carter could talk some sense into these people…we need a unity summit….i do think there is a huge chance they will both be on the ticket together and i think hillary will be on top…..and i think that ticket will crush mccain…ill take either one on top as long as we win….in the end i only care about winning….for the sake of the supreme court.
clammy has posted this diary to both dk and bt….and all i see is a bunch of arguing…almost nothing of substance being offered up….this is a mirror of congress….all fighting…nothing really getting done….when the people lead the leaders follow and people are just more interested in fighting than anything else so no wonder we are where we are.
a famous dominatrix once told me “some people, all they want to do is fight”.
that should have been at taylor marsh’s blog i find myself defending obama.
I don’t want to be a party-pooper, but my big question is: What is she going to do about pipeline security? You know, that’s the real reason when Bush invaded Afghanistan, and why we’re still there. To get the oil and gas from those Stans so’s they can bypass Putin’s pals. After all, we’re not still in Afghanistan because Osama was there six or seven years ago. That would be… CRAZY!
I note that her innovative anti-drug plan is identical to Nixon’s initiation of the war on drugs, Mexico division, with the exception that there is no specific mention of paraquat. By the way, the Clintons couldn’t keep cocaine from being flown into Mena, Arkansas (and Bush’s DEA head, Asa Hutchinson, was the federal prosecutor in that corner of razorback country back when those duffel bags of white powder were incoming).
could you post obamas plans for pipeline security, an afghanistan plan, how he plans to deal with pakistan, or how he intends to fight the war on drugs, or poverty, or terror, or ANYTHING!!!!!
quit bitching and show me some beef
See below!
i am glad you raised this question, and it should be asked of both.
i have raised it with friends who support Hillary, because they are always telling me about her years of experience and leadership. i counter by asking what she has taken a vocal stand on in such a way as to provide leadership.
all that comes to mind for me is her “leadership” in introducing a bill prohibiting flag-burning.
A 24 year-old in my house is pissed at Clinton for her grandstanding over video games while the megacorporations play Katamari with the world.
perhaps this is just the question Edwards has been asking
I’ve long been in favor of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton’s praise of John McCain, her identifying with him and ridiculing of Obama’s ‘letter’ have only strengthened my decision. Her apparent lack of loyalty to the Democratic Party I find monstrous. But she is still a Democrat. So what’s the game. It took me a long time to get a sense of where she’s heading.
Any one can see she’s trying to paint Obama into the corner as weak, especially on the military aspects of national security. Her strategists’ thinking must go something like this:
1. Compare her favorably to Mr. McCain on the military aspect of national security. ‘You see, I’m as good as he is.’ I have no idea how she intends to make the comparison stick. She’s completely inexperienced. The goal is to lower Obama’s support among Democrats who are nervous about 3 A.M. red-telephone calls to the White House. Of course.
2. The tactic will, she hopes, increase her chances in the coming primary contests, perhaps drawing more independents and cross-over repugnants, and eventually help her secure the nomination, whatever way possible.
3. Then, in the national campaign, she will focus on McCain and savage him on all other areas of policy, espcially the economy. She can say: ‘Look, I’m as good as Senator McCain on the security front and better than him in everything else, don’t you remember how great the economy was when I was first lady’, pointing to her husband.
Maybe this helps to explain the whole intricate clusterfuck this primary has been turning into.
I forgot to say that taking the lead on a particular issue is the most obvious way that Obama can regain the initiative. Or is it too much to ask? Barack, in some ways you are much too timid, so Clinton is calling you out.