Here's the Beef! Obama's Outstanding Record of Achievement

By: The Grey Havens
Published On: 2/21/2008 8:39:27 PM

Many more reasons to support Barack Obama here, here, here, and here.

Comments



COMMENT HIDDEN (SWVA.Observer - 2/22/2008 3:48:47 AM)


Clinton missed 27.1% (Lowell - 2/22/2008 6:49:41 AM)
Chris Dodd missed 35.4%, Joe Biden missed 37.3%, John McCain missed 55.7%.  They were all campaigning for president. Who cares.


Incorrect (The Grey Havens - 2/22/2008 7:29:58 AM)
Check your numbers on McCain.


What's incorrect? (Lowell - 2/22/2008 7:34:47 AM)
Here's the link to "votes missed by member."

66.3% Tim Johnson
55.7% John McCain
38.8% Barack Obama
37.3% Joseph Biden
35.4% Christopher Dodd
29.0% Sam Brownback
27.1% Hillary Clinton



Oh, I see... (The Grey Havens - 2/22/2008 8:47:33 AM)
McCain missed almost as many votes as the guy who had a stroke, while Obama is clustered with a bunch of other Senators who were also running for President.

This is an excellent attack on Obama.  Really first rate.

pitiful



Of course it's pitiful (Lowell - 2/22/2008 8:52:39 AM)
which is why there's no reason to get worked up about it. They're grasping...


I don't really care about sideshow issues like this (aznew - 2/22/2008 2:43:17 PM)
because the number of votes a Senator attends doesn't really mean that much, given the way the Senate operates.

But for the sake of accuracy, I don't think it is quite accurate to suggest that Obama and Clinton are "clustered" in a group here. He has missed significantly more votes than her on a percentage basis, and I would guess on an absolute basis as well.

I find the apparent inability of Obama supporters to admit to any faults by the candidate, and to try to construe everything he does as a virtue, even if it is just on a relative basis, is quite interesting.

Perhaps it is simply good tactics and strategy -- never apologize, never explain.

But perhaps it is revealing of something else entirely.



All I said was (Lowell - 2/22/2008 2:45:53 PM)
"Who cares."  It has nothing to do with trying to "construe everything he does as a virtue."  I just don't give a rat's you-know-what about this.


I was addressing Grey Haven's point (aznew - 2/22/2008 2:48:25 PM)
as well as a more generalized observation.


I'd just point out (Lowell - 2/22/2008 3:03:42 PM)
that it's pretty unusual for the supporters of ANY candidate in the middle of an election campaign to criticize their candidate.  Thus, Dean and Clark supporters in 2003/2004 were totally gung-ho for their guys, as were Kaine supporters in 2005 and Webb supporters in 2006. It's just the way it works, pretty much.  


Here's the cluster I was referring to (The Grey Havens - 2/22/2008 3:35:53 PM)
38.8% Barack Obama
37.3% Joseph Biden
35.4% Christopher Dodd

I didn't mention Clinton.

But this is why people neither identify with nor identify policy positions.  Voters make decisions based on Vision and Values.  As soon as you get down to the minutae of policy, the chance of some ADD sideshow issue like this approaches mathematical certainty.

all of which is to say:

LOOOK!  Obama's friggin record!  STFU!



Thanks for clarifying what you meant (aznew - 2/22/2008 3:55:38 PM)
And no, you didn't mention Clinton, but you did mention other Senators running for President, so it was did seem as though you were including her.

As for the rest of your response, I have to say, I don't understand it or how it is at all responsive to the point I made about the inability of Obama supporters to admit to any flaw in their candidate.

As for your diary - a question. Do you know exactly what sponsoring a bill entails in the Illinois legislature? Does it involve any kind of effort, or is it the kind of deal where you just attach your name as a sponsor to demonstrate support?



It's the same as any legislative process (The Grey Havens - 2/22/2008 6:31:58 PM)
When you put your name on a bill, you put your rep on the line.

Introduction is leadership.  Sponsorship is ownership.  Co-sponsorship is responsibility.

The whole point of this is that Obama is every bit as qualified as Hillary or John McCain to be president.  The rest of the argument is bunk.

They have to attack Obama's oratory, energy, youth, vigor, brilliance, talent and exuberant following, because they ar things that the other two candidates don't have.

The thing is that the smoke from this smokescreen is blowing over.  

The big scandal with the McCain expose in the Times isn't some ilicit affair.  The real landmine here is thatthat St. McCain is just another politican in the pocket of big washington money, with a predeliction towards corruption.  He's no maverick, he's a guy who listens to his lobbyists more than his base.

And Hillary has a long long record of being engaged with Washington's moneyed interests.  She certainly has no interest in listening to her base.

Meanwhile, Obama's fantastic fundraising is the sine qua non of public/private financing.  He's responsible to his supporters, not the fund raisers, lobbyists and washington elites.

The trick here is that it's been a fantastic week for Obama.  America continues to get to know him and what he and his supporters are capable of.  Hillary did nothing to stop his momentum in the polls, and the Myth of St. McCain is dead forever.

It's starting to feel like morning in America.