ME = CRACKPOT

Here are some of my rants out there in web-land.  I know I sound like a nut, but anyone following the coverage every day from December through early March knows that this is but a fraction of the stuff to complain about in the press.  This does not include everything I have written...yikes.

THE NEW REPUBLIC

Disputations: Was '3 A.M.' Racist?
by Orlando Patterson
Orlando Patterson responds to Sean Wilentz on race and the '08 campaign.
Post Date Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Posted by susan k. (NYC)
If [you say] her ad was attempting to evoke a criminal element, why not say she is being sexist [rather than racist] since she does not show any grown men in the ad? After all, crimes (including burglary) are overwhelmingly committed by men. Frankly, I think it is a refreshing argument to say that we need a woman in the White House because females tend NOT to be power-hungry and tend NOT to commit crimes. Forget race. I am perhaps a sexist: I think it is about time a female led this country. Men have caused enough damage.

[NB:  I actually think that projecting a criminal element onto this ad is absurd in the first place; I was just s'posing.]


Disputations: The '3 A.M.' Fight Continues
by Sean Wilentz
Post Date Thursday, March 13, 2008
(my post is in response to some of the other posts)

Posted by susan k. (okay,kruglinski) (NYC)
The Jesse Jackson Jr. clip: To see it google-video "jesse jackson hillary katrina" Evoking Katrina evokes race, since no one can talk about it without mentioning that mostly blacks were affected. Whether that is a fair leap of logic or not (to assume that it is a racial issue), Jackson obviously knew what he was doing when he ODDLY brought it up, and it was a low blow. 

And for that matter, implying that HRC's MLK quote was offensive--which came out of Obama's mouth: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement.She is free to explain that"--THAT was the lowest blow of this entire campaign, and it came directly from the candidate. Sure, at the next debate Obama took it back..."Oh, gee whiz, I know Hillary's not a racist (chuckle)"...but the damage was done and it certainly affected votes. 

The demonizing of Bill Clinton, one of the most popular and successful presidents in history ("fairy tale" and "Jackson won in SC" were both comments that were in bounds as much as anything Obama has said...the media swallowed the Obama campaign's interpretation like a bunch of children swallowing candy); this Obama-in-ethnic-garb-photo silliness; Bob Herbert's "Hillary said Obama is not a Muslim AS FAR AS SHE KNOWS"--a complete twisting of her words...the list of twisted facts and interpretations in the mainstream press is endless. I cannot believe how naive, unprofessional, irresponsible and unethical the press has been over the past several months. A fair and ethical press is an essential element in democracy--ours is practically doing as much damage as the scheming of the Bush administration (which it somehow didn't notice until too late). 

And RE: Hillary being a bitch and power-hungry: Stop casting the Iraq vote in black and white (29 democratic senators in total voted "yea"...were they all casting a vote so that they could run for pres?). Clinton was personally given incorrect info from the highest authorities, she was the senator of the state that had lost thousands of lives to terrorism, Saddam lowered people into acid and gouged the eyes of children...he was evil, the info was that he had WMD, he would certainly unhesitatingly use them...the vote was about putting pressure on him to let inspectors in, which he did...the vote was NOT as simple as everyone makes it out to be. Jumping on the long-standing right-wing Billary-are-evil bandwagon is as naive as jumping on the Obama-is-a-saint bandwagon. Life is complex...grow up.

NEW YORK TIMES

The Opinionator, New York Times
March 13, 2008, 2:20 pm
A Sermon’s Echoes Threaten Obama
By CHRIS SUELLENTROP

[they did NOT post my comment, but it was something like:]

You posted Taylor Marsh's words out of context and changed the meaning [to a pro-Obama slant]. And as I write, this blog entry is the top story on the Politics page of the NYT site. Check it out, public editor.

[NB: They did run several other posts about the out-of-context quote/slant, but there was no reason not to post my comment which including the info about where the story was positioned on the web site.]

The Opinionator, New York Times
March 7, 2008, 1:05 pm
A Silence at the Clinton Library
By TOBIN HARSHAW

Once again, all is not as black and white as pundits like to pretend it is.

From the USA Today article that this blog entry is based upon, a more nuanced view of what’s what:

“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
— Posted by susan k., NYC

The Caucus, New York Times
February 25, 2008, 9:15 pm
Time to Count the Doughnuts
By SAM ROBERTS AND GRIFFIN PALMER

(article about how much Clinton spent on donuts)

Many people here have said “Lighten up, it’s just a joke article,” and yet people like Frank Rich take this kind of info and use it in their articles to convince people to vote for Obama (see his Audacity of Hopelessness column last Sunday). So actually, this kind of fluff–sadly, in this election–does seem to have serious impact when you have big-time highly paid writers including it in their well-read columns in complete seriousness.
— Posted by susan k., NYC

Going First Most of the Time
By David D. Kirkpatrick and Kitty Bennett
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)

To the Editors:

The entire premise of this article is based on an incorrect fact. Senator Clinton was obviously not complaining about being the first to answer a question in each debate. She was complaining about always being asked the first question of each back-and-forth round of questioning. When she made that statement, it was actually the SECOND overall question of the night (the first being about her change of tone--"Shame on you, Obama," etc., the second being about NAFTA). Being questioned first in any round of questioning has a clear disadvantage in that the second person gets to reflect and criticize the first answer, and due to time constraints the second person also often gets the last word.

May I add that the continual twisting of the facts in your news coverage of the democratic race is shameful.
-------------------
The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):

"And in the one-on-one debate last Thursday, she received the first question on the overwhelming majority of topics and thus spoke first about twice as often as he did."

NB:  The next day pundits and bloggers started talking about how HRC was wimpy because she does not want the first question of a debate, which is clearly not what she was talking about...I knew this would happen, that's why I wrote about this.


Democrats Clash on Trade, Health and Tactics
By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zelleny
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)

CORRECTION:
The article states:

"As the debate turned to trade agreements, Mrs. Clinton interrupted the discussion to chastise the moderators, saying she was always asked the first substantive question."

What she said was (from your transcript):

"SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious,"

What she was obviously referring to was the fact that she is constantly asked the FIRST question in the back-and-forth of questioning on each topic, which give her opponent the advantage to challenge her initial statement, and to often get the last word on the subject due to the time constraints. She was NOT saying that she is opposed to being the first one in a debate to be asked a substantive question, as your writer reports.

Thank you for correcting this.

The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):

(In fact, in their two other one-on-one debates, Mrs. Clinton was asked to answer the first question and then was asked more questions over all.)

To the Public Editor

RE: clinton coverage/debate article (Feb. 22)
Dear Mr. Hoyt:

While it is bad enough that the bias of the paper's opinion writers has led to a relentless attack in a flimsy but startlingly vicious way, I am even more troubled by the fact that the news department, covering the election in general, is also biased against her.

I notice in today's article "Debate Takes on Contentious Air for Democrats" (Feb 22), the writers lean towards attacking Clinton, even though the coverage in other outlets (such as CNN, who broadcast the debate) was far more even-handed.

This paragraph is evidence of this:

Mrs. Clinton, who is girding for March 4 Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio that aides say she must win, alternated between high notes early in the debate — smiling and nodding at Mr. Obama, pitching her economic plans for the umpteenth time — and pointed criticisms that she has been making somewhat fruitlessly for weeks now, like portraying Mr. Obama as all talk and little action.

"Upteenth time"? "Fruitlessly"? Aren't those Dowd-like extrapolations that fall squarely in the "opinion" camp?

But the most egregious problem with the article is that the writers chopped off the ending of the concluding quote by Clinton. She received a standing ovation for that statement (not mentioned by your writers even though it is unusual in a debate and most other outlets are mention it), but your writers only included the beginning of it, throwing off the entire meaning of the quote, making it sound self-indulgent. Your writers end the quote with:

“You know, no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” she said, reaching over to shake her rival’s hand. “You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.”

Here's what they left out:

"I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about." (standing ovation)

In general, it is clear that this newspaper writes almost exclusively "feel good" articles about Obama, and nothing but attack articles or news articles with a thinly veiled bias against Clinton. That would be fine if she were Hitler, but this is not the case and I believe readers deserve a more even-handed treatment of campaign events. By twisting the truth or leaving out part of the picture, you are changing the written history and influencing the outcome of this election to the individual writers' liking.

And at the bottom of all of this bias is the "why?" question. To say it is because of sexism ellicits rolling eyes and "oh please" comments. And yet, if the roles were flipped, and Clinton were the one getting this much support from a news department, certainly the idea of racism would be thrown at your newspaper. It is difficult to otherwise explain the phenomenon.

Thank you for reading,

Bob Herbert, New York Times
Confronting the Kitchen Sink
March 8, 2008

To the Editor and Public Editor:

Mr. Herbert writes about Clinon's response to rumors about Obama being Muslim:

"In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'

As far as I know."

Herbert is unprofessionally and unethically taking Senator Clinton's words out of context, twisting the meaning. The full text shows that there is no wavering in her conviction that Obama is NOT a Muslim.

The full back-and-forth with Senator Clinton was this:

KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

Bob Herbert should be ashamed to mess with the truth as he has in this column, painting Clinton as sleazy when she was being the opposite. Talk about sleazy and "kitchen sink"...how ironic Mr. Herbert. It is one thing to have lively, extremely opinioned Op-Ed writers, another to have several writers on staff who consistently twist the facts to suit their presidential candidate of choice.

Maureen Dowd, New York Times
To Catch a Thief
February 20, 2008

To the Editor:

Dowd claims that “Yes, we will,” a stump-speech chant (incorrectly referred to as a slogan) used by Clinton, is a “theft” of the Obama slogan “Yes, we can.” Actually, parodying or rephrasing the opponent's words is a common strategy used by all of the candidates, including Obama, as any five year-old paying attention to the stump speeches can tell you. Dowd then implies that “Americans still have that can-do spirit” is similarly a theft. I'm pretty sure that was not a slogan, either; that it is simply a sentence uttered by Clinton that includes the word “can.” Perhaps your fact-checkers could be pitching in so that Ms. Dowd does not embarrass the newspaper by stretching the truth like Silly Putty? But then, why should she or the other opinion writers stop doing that when it so effectively gives them the power to change the course of a presidential election?

Present Perfect
Abner J. Mikva
February 16, 2008

Mr. Shipley,

Is it not a conflict of interest to have Abner Mikva writing an opinion piece about Barack Obama? Obviously they worked together at U. of Chicago, and Mikva has been a close advisor to Obama for years (see references below, which I found in about one minute of googling). Shouldn't this have been at least acknowledged in Mikva's bio?

I have been extremely disappointed in the Op-Ed section of the times, which has been tabloid-like, unprofessional, and shockingly uneven. I have already written to the public editor about the tabloid-level writing. I look forward to future analysis of the media coverage of this democratic race, which will surely exposure the double standard (protection of an ethnic minority, exaggerated fault-finding of a female) that has been prevalent in the media (including among female writers). There is no other way to explain the stomach-turning pile-on against Clinton, and the lack of any critical commentary for Obama, and The New York Times may be the leader in this use of double standard.

Thank you for reading this.

For Obama and Mikva connection, see:

WBEZ Chicago public radio:
"Abner Mikva is a political ally, advisor and friend of Barack Obama. "

NPR:
"Privately, Obama was discussing the issue with friends and political mentors like Abner Mikva."

Washington Post:
In a life-history piece about Obama: "For advice, Obama sought out older Democrats like former Congressman Abner Mikva and tapped ties at the University of Chicago, where he taught constitutional law."

[Shipley Blackberried me personally to apologize and correct this.]

"Correction: February 16, 2008
Earlier editions of this article failed to disclose that the author serves as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign."

To the Public Editor

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

The New York Times has tremendous influence over votes, not just in NYC but nationwide. That is why it has been so disappointing to read recent New York Times columns about the presidential race. As I try to decide who to vote for in the primary, my questions include: What are some of the interesting insights to come out of the debates or stump speeches, in the experts' opinions? How honest are the candidates being about their past? What are some significant details of a candidate's political history and career? What have they achieved or attempted to achieve? Where have they gone wrong in their political careers? For which issues have they been flexible or steadfast in their political convictions? Politically, who specifically have they worked with, successfully or unsuccessfully? Who are their allies or enemies? Who might they appoint to their cabinet, should they win? What might happen within the first year of their presidency? How realistic are their political goals? What will they need to execute their plan for this country? What problems might they have, long-term, if they become the nominee for their party? What are some obstacles they may face? How might they represent this country to the rest of the world, considering their backgrounds and histories?

I have been searching for answers to these questions in the pages of the New York Times, and instead I have found essays about campaign strategy, superficial likeability, isolated minor events in the race (that would be meaningless but for their coverage), the current state of feminism and racism, etc. Usually these essays are based on little information, big guesses, personal projections, or reflections from other media. This is tabloid fodder. The New York Times, in its Op-Ed columns, is following the presidential race as if was a high school cheerleader popularity contest, not a race to obtain the challenging and incalculably important *job* of being a world leader, President of the United States, in a time of crisis. I ask that the paper please stop insulting our intelligence.

Thank you for reading.

Stanley Fish, New York Times
February 17, 2008
When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational

I am not a Stanley Fish groupie, but it is so refreshing to read a columnist in the NY Times who writes carefully considered essays full of substance and fresh ideas, rather than parroting tabloid-style accusations or magically mind-reading the intentions of the candidates, with no evidence to back up their claims. The fascinating responses to this column are a testament to that. I’d like to see Dowd or Rich try to drum up this kind of intelligent discussion. They cannot. Their columns can only elicit “I feel the same way,” or “You don’t know what you are talking about/Please stop trying to pull a fast one on the readers, we are not morons.” (And thanks also to Krugman when he discusses policy.)

As far as identity politics, if we are going to say it is legit, let us not forget that women tend NOT to be power-hungry, tend NOT to commit crimes, tend to be more helpful and choose careers where they are helping others. And recently it has been shown (repeatedly) that when women in Third World societies are given control over the community’s money or policy decisions, they uplift their community (helping children, improving education, health care, resources, etc.). I believe Clinton’s career is evidence of this, and I know everyone is now going to write about what a weaselly bitch she is, but I believe the vilification of HRC is all bluster (first from the right, now from the Obama camp) and no substance.

For another op-ed with substance–and that is critical of both the Clinton and Obama camps–see E.J. Dionne’s “Can Clinton Bounce Back?” in the Wash Post (reprinted in The Record).
— Posted by susan k., NYC

Roger Cohen, New York Times
A Realist Called Obama
February 18, 2008

“Obama…is best placed to seize and shape a new world of such possibilities. He has the youth, the global background, the ability to move people, and the demonstrated talent for reaching across lines of division, even those etched in black and white.”

Global background? Youth? Transcending black and white? More puffery, little substance.

“A romantic view of Clinton might be that she has the guts and savvy to free herself of her husband’s coterie of the world’s rich and famous, with its dubious deal-making from Kazakhstan to Colombia, and ensure that a White House with a president and ex-president in it projects U.S. renewal rather than the tawdrier sides of Clintonism.”

Umm, let’s see, Clinton was not part of any international scandals, he presided over peace, under him our military strategies were well-thought out and executed, he was admired by the leaders of other nations (as was his wife)…Could you and all of the other columnists bashing the Clintons PLEASE be more specific? Because you love shouting the punch lines but continually fail to provide the lead-up.

Nicolas Kristoff, New York Times
Obama's Kenyan Roots
February 24, 2008

(in which Kristoff goes to Kenya and meets Obama's step-grandmother, who does not speak English and who Obama has met about three times in his life, and who refuses an interview with Kristoff...The piece is about how cool it is that Obama has Kenyan relatives (and yet it doesn't go much beyond this one step-grandmother who he had not interviewed) and implies that this makes for a good presidential candidate.)

I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Obama’s family since I don’t know much about them (althoug surely his childhood was not as tidy as he spins it in his memoir), and I don’t think a person should be penalized for their family. (Including when their husband was one of the most popular and successful presidents in history…what a monster that guy was, fighting for middle and lower income people, creating a balanced budget and economic expansion, creating positive relationships with national leaders all around the world…sheesh, don’t let him get anywhere near the White House again.)

But I do have a feeling that Obama could have serial killers for parents and you guys at the Times would still somehow conjure up some kind of positive spin on it. Just please know that many of your readers are nauseous from your complete inability to criticize a single thing about Obama, and your complete obsession with burning HRC at the stake, fanning the flames day after day, week after week, with the flimsiest of arguments. I literally meet people every week who say they are sick to their stomach about the coverage. These people tend not to be the ones loading up the comments boards with their propaganda, pretending to be kind old veterans and whatnot (amazing how many posters keep mentioning their advanced age lately when they rave about Obama! What a coincidence!).
— Posted by susan k., NYC


The Opinionator, New York Times site
Wonky Enough
By Chris Suellentrop

February 14, 2008

1. Obama is a risk. Plain and simple. We really don’t know how he would do, because he hasn’t had enough experience (community org, lecturer at a university, student president of a JOURNAL do NOT count as presidential experience). So if you are thinking “I’d rather have a guy whose judgment I suspect is similar to mine based almost entirely on the evidence that he spoke against the war way back when” (and without knowing how he would ACTUALLY have voted if he had to vote), then you are taking a big risk. With the U.S. in shambles, now is the worst possible time to take a risk. We are talking life and death: How we exit this war, how we deal with terrorism and threatening nations, health care, the economy, etc.

2. To argue that you want to go with the person who repeats the word “hope” over and over above the person who actually knows what she’s doing/talking about is the same as voting for the guy who you’d most like to have a beer with. We did that eight years ago.

3. The Iraq vote was very complex…Edwards, Kerry–in all 29 democrats in the Senate–voted Yea. Were they all selling out? Did they all want to send Americans to their death for selfish political reasons? Were they all horrible people because of that vote, which was made on the judgment of many many lies from the Bush cabal–lies having to do with the threat of a truly evil dictator at the level of Hitler and Stalin, a man who could acquire much control over the Middle East, post-9/11? If the Iraq resolution vote is the only reason you “detest” HRC, then you are falling for the Obama campaign rhetoric. His never casting a vote (because he couldn’t) means squat now and in the future if he becomes our pres.

4. Obama’s character: So you want to vote for the saint in this campaign, huh? The saint who played the race card in the most underhanded way, implying that HRC and Bill Clinton said things that were racially charged when in fact they had not? (MLK/Johnson and Jesse Jackson comments were NOT racially charged…there was nothing wrong with those statements…they are perceived that way because of how the Obama campaign spun them…THINK ABOUT IT). The saint who was getting mushy over Ronald Reagan…Gee, he wasn’t lying through his teeth there to win over votes, was he? If you don’t see the slickness in Obama’s campaign, then you are as naive as a newborn pup. And if you think about it, HRC’s campaign has pulled NOTHING equivalent…she only argues policy, she has so far only fought on the fairest of terms. Just because people are screaming “cheater” (the likes of cheerleading princess Maureen Dowd, towering football star Frank Rich, and the rest of the Happy Days gang) doesn’t make it real.

5. If all of this warped thinking is not the result of a “cult of personality” i don’t know what is. We are like Rome before the fall. We all want the tall, handsome smooth-talker, who somehow can do no wrong, instead of the person who actually is best qualified to make a fast, sharp 180 degree turn with this half-sunk ship.

— Posted by Susan Kruglinski

Gail Collins, New York Times
Editing Hillary’s Story
January 24, 2008

If there is something to say about Bill Clinton’s behavior on the campaign trail messing with Hillary’s chances, I missed it in all your slashing and burning of Hillary and Bill.

Once again I ask you supposedly smart Op-Ed writers of the NYT: WHY exactly should I vote for Obama, and WHY exactly should I NOT vote for Clinton? I’m not a moron…I”m not voting for someone because they have charisma (let’s have a beer!). So please stop insulting my intelligence and, if you writers are indeed clever enough to actually comment on the differences between the two candidates, please do so.

— Posted by Susan K.

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
Women Leaders

February 9, 2008

Sorry, I am a fan of your column, I predicted you would win the Pulitzer because of your incredible writing about woman, but I have to say about this column:

Gee, ya think? Suddenly the NYT columnists are feeling guilty about bashing Hillary and seeing how absurd and sexist it is? A little late for that. Oh well, we’ll just have to roll the dice with Obama, whose health care plan and Iraq pullout make little sense, and who we know almost nothing about as far as executing duties of the office of president. Thanks to the media for the relentless bashing of the person most qualified to be president. You did a great job keeping a gal down.

— Posted by susan k.

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
Hillary, Barack, Experience

January 19, 2008
 

I greatly respect your writing, but am disappointed in the flimsiness of this Op-Ed, as I have been lately with all NYT Op-Eds about the pres. race. Could somebody please tell me in plain English why I SHOULD vote for Obama and why I should NOT vote for Clinton? Don’t quibble about what they were like in fourth grade, who has worked in the trenches and been a do-gooder (they both have), or who has more charisma (let’s have a beer!).

Tell me who would realistically survive the election if they are their party’s nominee, who would be able to execute their goals quickly and efficiently as president, who would be the best choice as an international negotiator, etc.

I am more than willing to change my mind and vote for Obama if someone would please make a good case for Obama and against Clinton. So far this hasn’t happened, and I feel pretty strongly that, even if we assumed both were equal in every other way, Obama will get flattened like a pancake by the Republicans because of his dicey background, which is bound to have a few skeletons that will be spun hard (and expertly) by the other side…as they always do. (Read Obama’s memoir?).

— Posted by Susan K.

SLATE

can't find article, was part of XX Factor on Slate
more meaningless bashing
by sak
01/27/2008, 5:08 PM

"As women, we always knew Hillary would have a rough time getting beyond being the missus.."

...And then the rest of the article proceeds to do exactly that...no issues addressed, no solid pieces of evidence to bolster the argument, just an inabilitiy to get past seeing her as the missus. Nice.

"Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to be on his team and to make it on her own. She wants credit for her successes and credit for his. She wanted him on the sidelines in this campaign until she needed a soccer hooligan."

She does? Evidence? Can you read minds? Has she spoken words to this effect? Evidence in her conduct that would lead us to believe this?

"One of the qualities in Hillary Clinton that scares me most is her lack of a fixed sense of self...this Clinton campaign has also reinvented itself almost weekly since January: We’ve had Falling to Pieces Week; Finding Our Voice Week; Unloading a Carton of Whupass Week; and then Heh, Heh, That Bill Is a Maniac Week."

Actually, all of those "reinventions" have nothing to do with how she has acted or her message. They are the media's interpretations of non-events (like her choking up, as all human beings do, including male candidates who are currently running) that the media have blown out of proportion. The media, such as Slate and the NY Times, ignore the issues to focus on tabloid-style bashing and, in the process, distract the voters from thinking about who would actually make a better president.

"Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us. Any woman in public life inevitably still struggles to define herself in opposition to men. But Hillary has an even bigger cross to bear: She’s still defining herself in opposition to Bill."

Wow. What century is this again? Thanks for perpetuating prejudice against women, girlfriend.

My Op-Ed that the New York Times and Washington Post did not publish (those bastards):

Obama’s Downfall: A Science Fiction Story

In an attempt to understand some of the oddities in our universe, theoretical physicists have come upon an intriguing concept: It is entirely possible that, besides our own universe, there are an infinite number of parallel universes somewhere out there. In these parallel universes, everything else that could possibly happen at this moment is happening: You have just won your fifth Oscar as best director, Mallowmars cure the common cold, Tom Cruise is a psychiatrist, and so on.

If this is true, it follows that in one of these universes, Barack Obama, the first black man to have a shot at the presidency, has just gracefully exited the race against Hillary Clinton, the first woman within spitting distance, for the Democratic ticket. He had been doing well; many thought he was a shoo-in. But in one of the most dramatic contests in political history, Obama lost momentum and fell mortally behind in the primaries.

In this alternate universe, Obama’s life-story and political history are swapped with Clinton’s. To voters, Senator Obama is seen as the nerdy and annoying policy wonk, condemned for his Iraq resolution vote. His opponent, a political unknown until she gave a rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, has become the golden girl. Clinton has little experience and her policies have been criticized, but her strength is her ability to inspire people in speeches and her promises of change from the “same old government.”

To understand Obama’s historic fall from grace, let’s examine the press coverage of the world’s first black candidate to almost make it to the White House. Interestingly, the press in this other universe has been virtually identical to the press coverage in our world, but what has happened here to Clinton has instead happened to Obama:

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC: "There's just something about Obama that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary."

Meghan Daum, Los Angeles Times: “Obama just wants this too badly. His Achilles heel is. …he is visibly salivating from hunger. That may be OK for white candidates…But if there's anything that's drilled into African American's heads…it's the importance of playing hard to get, of pretending we don't want anything at all."

Washington Post: “[Obama stated:] ‘Susan B. Anthony's dream began to be realized when President Wilson passed the Nineteenth Amendment. It took a president to get it done.’ Critics read that as playing down Anthony's importance in the women’s movement…Clinton: ’Senator Obama made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark…He is free to explain that.’”

Chris Matthews, MSNBC [on Obama’s statement to his alma mater that the all-black school prepared him for the all-white club of politics]: "Is [he] pandering or playing to the black crowd…This anti-white thing…is that something you can sort of spruce up, you can play up, up there?"

CBS.com: “When Michelle Obama referred to Clinton's explanation of her Iraq resolution vote as ‘the biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen,’ many women heard more than policy criticism. They heard a dismissive attack on the first woman with a real chance of winning the White House. They heard echoes of gender battles of the past. And they heard it from someone who was supposed to be on their side.”

New York Post: “…the media focus was once again on Michelle Obama, who said…: "Geraldine Ferraro won New Hampshire in '84 and '88. Ferraro ran a good campaign. And Clinton ran a good campaign here." Slate.com: “Michelle Obama has explicitly belittled Clinton's New Hampshire victory by comparing it to Geraldine Ferraro's…”

Associated Press: “Sex Museum Displays Barack Obama Statue: Cast in resin and bearing ample ‘family jewels,’ a sculpture of the Democrat was unveiled this week at the Museum of Sex in Manhattan…’His sexuality is on display, prominently portraying sexual power which some people still consider too threatening,’ sculptor Daniel Edwards said.”

Katie Couric, 60 Minutes, interviewing Obama: "Someone told me your nickname in school was Mr. Softie. Is that true?"

Reuters: “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama…was met by a couple of hecklers at a campaign event who shouted ‘Shine my Shoes, Shine my Shoes.’”

Rush Limbaugh: “Will this country want to actually watch a black man get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”

While heartening that this society is showing enthusiastic support of a female candidate--especially since, like in our universe, women were unable to even cast a vote until 1920--these press clippings reveal an intolerance for an African American candidate: double-standard fault-finding, blatant racism, etc. Thank God our own universe is nothing like this, a place where hyper-criticism and intolerance to an entire category of human beings is no further than the articles in the newspaper you may be holding in your hands.

FOLLOWING ARE RESPONSES TO THE MEDIA'S CRITICISMS OF HILLARY CLINTON:

She voted for the launch of the Iraq war.
So did Edwards, Kerry, ultra-liberal Bush-hater Henry Waxman (House vote), Schumer, etc.--in all 29 dems in the Senate, and 81 dems in the House.  Did all of these people vote Yea to run for pres in the future or to forward their own political agendas?  Did they all sell out?  Hard to believe.

Saddam Hussein was easily as evil as Hitler or Stalin (his hero).  He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the most vicious way (chemical weapons), he killed any politician who opposed him, including family members, he had women pulled off the street so that he and his cronies could rape them in rape rooms.  He would have people lowered slowly in a vat of acid, would have the eyes gouged out of children to make their parents suffer; torture for him was first resort, not last. He would order people who did not want to carry out these acts of torture to execute much of this torture, or they would in turn be tortured to death.  When he was a kid, he would heat up metal spears and shove them through dogs and cats.  This is as evil a man as can exist on this Earth, and there was much evidence presented that he would soon have nuke capabilities.  He also was swinging much power in his territory.  He clearly wanted to unite the Middle East and possibly other nations (Russian, N. Korea, etc.) against the U.S. (and Israel).  Please imagine if that had actually happened.

Clinton had been personally, face-to-face informed by the highest authorities in the presidential office that Saddam was not just accumulating WMD, but had in his possession a means to attack the East coast undetected (a bio attack). Considering that she represented NYC, she likely felt much pressure regarding this vote. She certainly did NOT vote for the internationally unsupported, unjustifiable occupation and attack that actually took place. She voted for FORCEFUL DISARMAMENT (assuming there were arms; she was informed that there were). Here is exactly what she said to the President and congress in a speech about the resolution just before the vote:

“While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

“If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

“If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply [NB:  He did comply], then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

“…I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.

“…So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.”

--Clinton's complete speech
--An article from 2004 where Edwards says, in hindsight, and with the information about WMD that he has at the time of the article, he STILL would vote for the Iraq Resolution.
--An interesting post explaining the Iraq resolution vote in 2002
--An Atlantic article by Kenneth Pollack, a liberal and Middle East intelligence insider who wrote The Threatening Storm, a book about why we should invade Iraq. The article is about why we have not seen WMD in Iraq.

Eight years as First Lady does not count as “experience.”
In her case, it does. Imagine if Bill Clinton had a brother with the identical background of Hillary Clinton (law, community service, lots of politics). Imagine he had appointed that brother to take on the health care system, as a close advisor, and/or to travel abroad as a representative of the U.S. Would we be questioning the legitimacy of that brother’s political experience in those years? Doubt it. To argue that a politically experienced and ambitious First Lady--given important responsibilities, both domestically and internationally--did not gain experience is sexist and absurd.

If she’s elected, we will have to deal with Bill Clinton in the White House again-- dipping his fingers into everything, causing division. Egads.
In the eight years that Bill Clinton was president we had the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, the budget was balanced, we had the first federal surplus since 1969, lower and middle income people were given some protection at tax time, the rich were not protected, we had peace, we were internationally respected, the public had EASIER access to information/documents from the White House and government, we successfully defended the Albanians against the Serbs with only two U.S. casualties, and Clinton left the office with a 65% approval rating, higher than anyone since WWII. All the while, he was up against a Republican-heavy senate and house. So yes. God forbid THAT guy pitches in.

She messed up her attempt at health care reform.
She was not able to get her health care vision passed because she INSISTED on health care for ALL. She was strongly opposed by conservatives and insurers (surprise!) and she would not back down on that point. If she had backed down, she might have gotten something passed, and now everyone would be complaining that she did not get us health care for all. Obviously, she now has more insight into how to maneuver this vision to make it a reality.

She is not an appealing person.
Shall we vote for someone with whom we’d like to have a beer? Everything she has done during this campaign has been fair. Unfair is Obama allowing his crew to twist her words so that they are implied to be racist. (Obama: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement…She is free to explain that.”) I would like to see an example of Clinton twisting ANY of Obama’s words (send to sakrug8 at gmail.com). I certainly can’t imagine her twisting his words into something that implies he is sexist. She simply attacks on issues, history, etc.

She didn’t leave Bill when he was unfaithful, which reflects on her weak character.
It is amazing how often this comes up. It has NOTHING to do with her ability to be president, and again, it is sexist. If a First Lady cheated on the President, she would be tarred and feathered, and if the President stayed with her, he would be lauded as a saint for sticking by her. For all we know Hillary gave Bill permission to philander. What difference does that make in the business of politics? And why in the world would anyone assume they know what she was thinking at the time?

The Clinton Presidential Library has accepted donations from Saudi Arabians.
As has the Bush, Reagan and Carter libraries, and quite possibly every presidential library before. It is a goodwill gesture from other countries to donate to a presidential library. Is the implication in this accusation that they accepted money from terrorists? The evil muslims? If so, that is rather racist. Not to mention that this doesn't have much to do with Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Whitewater

Oh, please.  That was a controversy shouted over and over by the Republicans until it stuck.  It amounted to nothing. Nothing evil was proven, and even if it was, it would have been minor--to the point of meaningless--in the world of politics.  And yet this controversy is probably more familiar to the average person than the Iran-Contra scandal.  Or the entire history of Reagan setting us up for doom in the Middle East.  And it is probably equated with all of the Bush scandals.  That's how powerful the Republican machine is.  

She will be divisive, not pulling together dems and reps.
She actually has worked well with (reasonable) Republicans in the past, but more important is this: We have just been through a national nightmare, with end results that include a disconnection between the office of the president and the rest of the government, limitations in civilian freedoms and rights to privacy, the implementation of torture by military personnel, the development of an antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world, a decline in national security and safety against terrorists and enemies, a tanking economy, the excising of ethics from corporate America, etc. We don’t exactly NEED a uniter right now. We need someone who can make a quick 180 degree turn with this ship. That is NOT an easy task, and it has little to do with making everyone happy at once. Some people, who have been doing very well under Bush, need to be made very unhappy, actually.


PROBLEMS WITH OBAMA:

He has very little experience.
Not just a little. Very little. Much of his experience in the senate has been gearing up for the presidential race.  Community organizer, student president of a journal, lecturer (not professor) at a university--a pretty flimsy resume, to say the least.  Considering the economy, the war, our international rep, health care, education, future terrorist attacks, more global-warming natural disasters, etc., do we really want someone so green at the helm?  I think it will be deadly dangerous, for human lives and for the financial stability of the U.S., our position as a world power, etc.  I think right now we are Rome before the fall, and we are foolish to go with someone who is completely new to this kind of work.

He is not the saint everyone makes him out to be--he is a slick politician.

He has used the race card in the most underhanded way, implying that Bill (mentioning Jesse Jackson's wins in SC) and Hillary (her MLK/Johnson statement) have made racist or race-card comments, when they have not in any way.  This is unforgivable.  He is slick, e.g. His absurd "Reagan was better than Clinton, brought positive change to U.S." remark.   He says what people want to hear in a vague way--he is a master politician in that he can charm without really saying anything.  It is ironic that HRC (and Bill) has been accused of this when she spends most of her time talking about issues and answering questions at her rallies.  He clearly fudges his life story in his memoir. It is painfully apparent to anyone who reads it, and some lies have been specifically pointed out:  His talking about race issues with his high school buddy (he and others say Obama was noticeably absent from these discussions and meetings), his claim that his parents met and fell in love during the Selma march (impossible), his supposed central role in the Altgeld Gardens Asbestos Campaign (he was not at all), etc.

The other side will flatten him like a pancake if he gets the ticket.
I’m sure he’s a very nice and smart man, I'm sure he could be presidential material. But in his memoir, he puts a hard spin on his weird and very sad childhood/background, making it sound rosy. The Republicans will go to town with this stuff. I am not saying that the following would make him a bad president or a bad person, I am saying that this is the kind of stuff that will freak out the voters once the Republicans put their spin on it: His dad was a polygamist, already married to one woman (who was pregnant when he left for the U.S.) when he married Obama's mother (which in turn was a shotgun wedding), and then married yet another woman after leaving Obama's mother (sans divorce) (this is not in the memoir but a well accepted fact; the other two wives are still alive). His step-dad was a corrupt government official (source: memoir) working for a genocidal maniac (Suharto). His maternal grandfather, dad and step-dad were all womanizers (source: memoir). He thanks his "Choom Gang" (pot smoking buddies) in his high school yearbook. He did hard drugs; was not just a drug dabbler (did coke in high school, partied through college (source: memoir)). It is well publicized that people he has dealt with in the past have been unethical or even criminal (Tony Rezko, etc.). Likelihood of other skeletons in his closet: very high. Again, all of that stuff in his background would be fine, except for the way every campaign in history has gone down: Republicans spin spin spin, making perfectly nice people seem irresponsible and bad, drowning out all reason. The voters will no longer want to have a beer with him. A conservative will win.

Hillary has been through the ringer already...there's not a whole lot they can say about her (see anti-Hillary sites and anti-Hillary Op-Ed pieces, which almost always grab at straws).

BONUS:
comments from my friend Corey Powell, exec. editor of Discover Magazine:

* the idea that he will be able to get things done because he's a fresh face and will arrive with a blast of bipartisan support might be true...or it might be utterly false. We simply don't know yet, because it depends on evidence of his character (which we don't yet have) and on the tone of the campaign (which has not yet happened).

* his claim to high-mindedness is contradicted by his willingness to distort the "fairy tale" line, the MLK line, and a general disconcerting tendency to allow his supporters to shout racism when the attacks get tough. The fact that he didn't bother to denounce his church's support of Farrakhan until forced to do it by media critics is also unnerving.

* the section about how the GOP will flatten Obama comes across a bit over the top, even though I agree with the basic premise. So far he's been playing to Democratic primary voters, who are strong lefties. Most of the country hasn't yet heard his full, complicated life story. Times are different than they were--Guiliani's life is a mess and it's not clear if that stuff really hurt him (more like his corruption problems and boneheaded strategy). Maybe Obama will get a free pass. The point is that there are a lot of potential points of attack, in addition to a lot of political problems with Obama.

* and to that point--what exactly are his positions, anyway? Broadly speaking his views look similar to Clinton's except a bit more conservative, a bit more directed toward market solutions rather than government-directed ones. If he's elected on the generic mood of coming together, feeling bipartisan, etc, that could fall apart the second he proposes legislation, since so far he is not pushing any idea beyond bit, vague themes.

And on the Clinton side, I'd say that an awful lot of her baggage is with the media. That is a significant problem, actually--they could make it difficult for her to govern, and her own high-minded way of dealing with the press hasn't helped things. But she worked it out in the Senate, so we at least have evidence she can work bipartisan. So far we know nothing about Obama.

Finally, I think you do have to acknowledge the potential for Bill to be a genuine meddler. If he visits foreign dignitaries and floats his own policy ideas--not too hard to imagine--that could work a lot of mischief. But again, this is a matter of contrast, in we know a LOT about Clinton's policy team but not nearly so much about Obama's, and that's what really counts.

SOME LINKS:
-Fantastic article about the media coverage of the race -- Chicago Tribune
-The unknown: Is Obama Ready? -- AP
-An historian's take on Obama as president
-Some falsehoods in Obama's memoir -- Chicago Tribune
-Article about Obama's destitute childhood friend, fresh out of prison, with Obama warning him not to speak with reporters. Worrisome.

-MTV News article about likability

-Gloria Steinem's NYT Op-Ed...Yes, it is rock solid.

THE THING THAT NOBODY WILL SAY:

In this country, we are so scarred by racism, we (rightly) are very sensitive to anything that could possible be construed as racist.  But on the flip side, sexism is a joke.  We can joke about how weak men are "ladies," we can depict H. Clinton as a witch, the Museum of Sex can make fun of her by displaying a topless bust of her.  These kinds of indignities would be looked upon as shocking if they were cast against someone who is an ethnic minority.  If you read some of the vicious Op-Eds and posts against HRC, and swap her name for Obama's, you will see how slanted the coverage is--there are things said about Clinton on a daily basis that would never be said by Obama's worst enemy.  The truth is, over history, women have been oppressed on a larger scale than any other "minority" and all around the world they continue to be persecuted because they are women: Treated as property, sexually abused as if it were a normal part of life and not a hate crime, treated as "dirty" and "subservient" by religions and cultures. If we are going to be sensitive about race, we should be equally sensitive about gender, since that is the most entrenched prejudice in the history of the world. Conversely, if we can joke or speak negatively about a woman, we should also be able to joke or speak negatively about a person who is a racial minority.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN THIS ELECTION:
If a terrorist attack hit the U.S. right after the new president takes office (which some have predicted may happen) who could best deal with it?
Who might the new president appoint to the cabinet?
How easily will the candidate be able to execute his/her plan upon election?
How honest have the candidates been about their own histories?
Who have the candidates worked with successfully or unsuccessfully?
What might happen during the first year of presidency?
How might the candidates represent themselves to the rest of the world?
How might other world leaders perceive and deal with the candidate?
Who can pull this country out of the quagmire—which includes war, crashing economy, lost ethics, international rep, religious/non-religious division, floundering education system, no health care, etc.—quickly and efficiently?

HILLARY CLINTON EXPERIENCE

Below are excerpts from a thoroughly sourced bio of HRC from Wikipedia.  I think this clearly shows how much more experience she has than Obama.  In fact, I did not even include the presidential years.  Please go to the wiki entry to read entire article.

Early Years
Raised in a politically conservative household, at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon, and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964. Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.

College
In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science. She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position. In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association. She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views. Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination. Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.
In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement; she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).

Law school
Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor. In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.
She interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes; two of its four partners were current or former communist party members. She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973. The article became frequently cited in the field.

Career (pre-White House)
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.
In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton also taught. In February 1977, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law, while also working pro bono in child advocacy
Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.
Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979. Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.
In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.
As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.
From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it. She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.

[[BECAUSE MANY LIKE TO SAY THAT HER POLITICAL EXPERIENCE DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL YEARS DOESN'T COUNT, I WILL LEAVE THAT OUT, AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. LET'S JUST SAY SHE DID NOTHING BUT SEW BUTTONS DURING THOSE YEARS...]]

United States Senator
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders. 
Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including theEconomic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit.
Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.
Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it. Clinton responded to GeneralDavid Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.
In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end. In May and June 2007, regarding the high-profile, hotly debated comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the bill, which eventually failed to gain cloture.

[[By the way, vote for vote she is almost identical to Obama (see Washington Post database of senate votes).]]

Thank you for reading.

-Susan Kruglinski (sakrug8 at gmail.com)
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------