I wonder who Vince Foster would endorse?
Erica, I'm not sure what your standard is for a "pretty convincing case," but Obama's lifetime score of 96 (out of 100) from the League of Conservation Voters makes a pretty convincing case that you're just trying to shill for Hillary in this post. By the way, Hillary's LCV score? 90.
As if Hillary and the DLC machine will be any better. They gave Detroit a free ride for 8 years in the 90's. The Clinton machine will clamp down and make it difficult/impossible for any real progressive movement to make a difference without their blessing. At least Obama's machine won't be as powerful in terms of shutting out the progressive movement.
Erica, you don't get it! Obama=change. Hillary=Bush. WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO KNOW ANY "EVIDENCE"?
You're really reaching, Erica.
But the Democratic sponsor of the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007" is so charismatic! Those greener-than-thous at Clean Air Watch let slip their envy of Obama's personal magnetism when they warned his bill was "almost certain to exacerbate the global warming problem."
They are just mad because they are so boring.
I hope you stretched out a bit before attempting that reach.
but the combination of Obama’s endorsements, his campaign statements, and his record in Congress makes a pretty convincing case that Obama has been, and will be, no great friend of the environment.
For fuck's sake. Is your shameless partisan hackery a genetic thing? The LCV, as someone else mentioned, gave Obama a near-perfect score, higher than Hillary.
Would it kill you to show a little intellectual honesty here and acknowledge this is some serious fucking hyperbole?
Well, I do hold it against Hillary that you've endorsed her, Erica. Company a person keeps, you know...
You are absolutely right, Erica. Unfortunately the members of the Obama cult refuse to hear anything about him that's not positively glowing.
He makes them feel speshul and warm and fuzzy, and what could possibly be more important than that?!
Every one of Erica's posts somehow leaves me compelled to support Obama out of sheer spite.
Michelle Malkin has more integrity.
Ah, but on the other hand, my friend Dave (who is an utter drunk and can't hold down a job) is a Hilary supporter, so clearly she would be bad for substance abuse programs and employment.
What is it with people who see everything as confirmation of their existing worldview? Don't they get a tiny bit suspicious when months go by without anything requiring reflection or generating a more complex reaction than "ha! I knew it!"?
Oh, hey, seriously, I gots a question.
You know how negative campaigning by Republicans doesn't actually make people go vote Republican, right? It just turns off independents, driving down voter turnout, doesn't it? And the reason the GOP does it is that they are not exactly popular: they win elections by making people angry, making them hate politics, and so they stay home.
Everybody knows this, right? At least I thought everybody knew it.
So how the hell are negative tactics like your shitty guilt-by-association attack on Obama going to help Hillary win against a Republican? Supposedly Hillary's a streetfighter, who will fight dirty right back at them when they swift boat her. But that won't make people vote for her. Negative campaigning from Hillary just drives down turnout, which always helps the Republicans. Doesn't it?
See, Obama won't win by out-Roving Rove. He wins by overcoming the negativity and getting people to the polls. Hillary's acid attacks just play into their hands.
you're only telling half the story here. do you have proof that hillary would be any better? one could easily infer that from the evidence you presented, but then you've only presented half the evidence.
Pretty convincing case for those who have already made up their mind, you mean.
It's not guilt by association, it's a perfectly valid point. Big Coal is Bad News, and the big daddy of big coal supports Obama. That's a problem.
It's not, however, the only meat on the plate. The ENVIRONMENT itself is not the only issue in the campaign, let alone the role of coal, and even a shill like Boucher has other things on his mind besides coal. Every candidate, including Clinton, is going to be making unpleasant compromises with, among other people, big industrial types. They are, after all, BIG. And important. That's what government is all about: managing the tradeoffs between opposing groups and ideas for the best POSSIBLE compromise for the country. If your idea of the best compromise is no compromise at all, you're always, always, always going to lose. People who disagree with you get a say, it's how it works.
But yes, Obama's connections to the coal industry, and the coal industry's rather pathetic attempt to paint themselves as the "green alternative", are troubling. I'm against them.
But it's not enough to turn me against Obama. If Big Coal got everything they wanted from the next Congress (which is where the action is going to come from, anyways, not the Presidency), but in exchange we got a firm minimum of 18 MPG for all new cars and trucks in the US, and a whammy of a tax on older vehicles that don't meet that standard (just talking out of my ass here, these are not actual proposals), I'd accept it.
And, as others have pointed out, I think it remains unproven that Clinton is better on the environment. What happened during her husband's term?
What happened is that Bill Clinton screwed up the negotiations for the BTU tax during his first two years and we ended up with no action on the environment from the feds at all save little regulatory steps too small to step on Industry as a whole. It was so little that California had to take a lead on vehicle emissions and Clinton was nice enough not to block it like Bush, still it was hardly a victory for environmentalists
I will happily, eagerly, proudly vote for either candidate, Obama or Clinton. I think both of them are oodles better than anything the GOP will eventually cough up, and acres better than Nader or Bloomberg.
But I will say that this is not the first time I've read about Obama and his questionable energy policies. He's also - I understand - pro nuclear power, which is ridiculous.
@13 - The Low-Voter-Turnout = Republican victory equation stopped working either in '94 or '00.
The new formula dictates energizing your base while keeping your oponents' base indifferent or ineffective. This results in both sides trying to keep overall turnout down, especially with new or occasional voters.
this has been my main complaint with obama all along. this and his healthcare plan. i like him as a politician but i really disagree on some key issues.
yeah and the great timber wars of the NW were fought under Clinton's watch with damn little help from him.
And huge tracts of BLM land in the SW had controls loosened on them and were opened up for development.
It's a wonder Al Gore didn't kill the fucker while he was asleep.
Or porking Monica.
He's also - I understand - pro nuclear power, which is ridiculous.
Being pro-nuclear power is not ridiculous; plenty have made arguments that the environmental effects of continued oil dependence are as bad or worse. And Hillary, for the record, said that nuclear power "has to be part of our energy solution".
ECB wouldn't mention such details, of course. It's cute that she tries to pretend her choice of candidates is somehow informed by policy and issues, but it's not convincing.
COMMENT DELETED: Racism
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
Shhh, gnossos. Anything bad that happened on Bill's watch is not Hilary's fault. She is a fiercely independent woman and her administration would be her own, and not reflect the failings of her husband's.
Of course, anything good that happened during Bill's presidency demonstrates Hilary's experience and capability to do the job.
This post is fabulous! I love political attack dogs!
ECB, do you REALLY want to play the "Guy With Flaw Y likes Candidate X, so X is Y!" game? Because that game will NOT be kind to your beloved vagina-possessing candidate.
ECB, the extent to which the Obamatons are going apeshit shows more than anything else could have exactly how strong your argument is. Nice job.
elenchos, read much?
This point was raised last time Erica pretended to have a reason to oppose Obama. Since Erica would never deign to answer questions or respond to criticism, I guess we're all supposed to quietly accept that Nuclear Power Is Bad, m'kay.
Of particular delight/pain is to watch the left become the anti-science camp the right is known to be.
also @25 yeah I know that those seem to be the rules for this game, but it sucks.
After 8 years of Bush it's easy to look back with nostalgia at the Clinton years. But seriously, their administration blew chunks. They betrayed almost everyone that brought them to the dance.
If she wants to run on that record then those betrayals need to be noted, as they -- and not what she says -- are the best predictor of what she will actually do.
ECB is to Obama what Andrew Sullivan is to Clinton.
@28 - so the League of Conservation Voters' record absolutely pales in significance to the fact that this one guy likes Obama? And defines Obama's record better than, well, his actual record? Have you really become this much of a hack yourself?
Or, you know, she's wrong. Whichever.
If I try to convince a room of evolutionary biologists that Intelligent Design is the way things happened, will the biologists' collective Losing of their Shit somehow mean that the I have a strong argument?
What's the Matter with Kansas? What are you trying to say, Sven?
I love to read what you write Fnarf. You always make me think and you always make sense.
Hey, Redacted, do you eat your mother's pussy with that mouth?
Oh, I gots this other question too.
Is Big Coal too stupid to to realize that their endorsement is the kiss of death? Because, like, they have a special program where they only hire utter retards as political consultants?
Or do they perhaps realize that the best way to get a Republican in the White House is to sandbag Obama with a big sloppy hug from dirty energy and help Hillary win the nomination?
here's a question that bears repeating - exactly how does annoying the shit out of people prove the strength of one's argument?
if erica wants to prove that hillary is the better choice based on environmental issues, she needs to present all the evidence, not just half of it. the fact that people have called her out for being extremely disingenuous does not prove her case. it just makes it really annoying.
Yes, six shooter, and nothing will energize the Republican base like D's nominating HRC. They are positively salivating at the prospect.
Obama, however, puts them in a quandry. Their base is NOT united against him -- heck, a good percentage of Republican voters are just as fed up with Bush & Co as the rest of us. It's not too early to be talking about Obama Republicans and their influence in November.
And with as much teflon as Obama has, the usual Republican tactics, Swiftboating, etc., won't be effective.
The new formula dictates energizing your base while keeping your oponents' base indifferent or ineffective. This results in both sides trying to keep overall turnout down, especially with new or occasional voters.
Posted by six shooter | January 22, 2008 6:25 PM
how can you obamatrons be calling ecb a partisan hack, when all annie does is write partisan hack post about that homophobic, conservative christian obama against hrc?
ecb is just calling it like it is.
I'm saying that Frank argues exactly the opposite- Republicans forged a demonic, unholy reign in the 90's by getting *more* voters to vote- specifically, home-schooling, creation-believing, abortion-clinic-firebombing evangelicals. These people didn't vote before Randall Terry and Operation Rescue got them fired up. They were like evil redneck Ents- they woke up and realized their power. Then the R's kept the jezoid mobs riled up in perpetuity by *not* giving them what they wanted, and blaming the resulting failure on liberals and the MSM. And because the redneck mobs are stunningly dense, they continue to fall for it.
But again, the opposite of what you were arguing. Perhaps I could have said it nicer earlier, but heat of battle and all that. Cheers.
This post is so blatantly partisan. Every candidate has some dubious supporters. Some of Hillary's supporters have gone to jail. John Edwards, your first choice, also has some dubious supporters.
You're a fuckin' partisan hack, pretending to be a journalist.
You're devoid of all crediblility.
You, bitching about the NY Times is a joke.
Rick Boucher may be a coalaholic, but he's also the best guy in the House on intellectual property issues and de-fanging the goddamn DMCA. He's the anti-Howard Berman in that respect. Obama could have (and paging Donnie McClurkin, does have) far worse friends.
I honestly can't figure out what the point of this post was. Obviously, as everyone pointed out, Erica's full of shit here, and she probably knows it. She's not going to persuade any Obama supporters by knowingly misrepresenting him; she'll just piss them off. But what does she gain from that, exactly?
brandon & the Obamatons-
Here's how it's been going:
Obama supporter (OS): Isn't he dreamy?!?
Clinton supporter (CS): I just don't see it.
OS: What?!? You're blind.
CS: Sorry. Just don't see it.
CS: Nope. Plus, isn't he, like, just the same thing?
OS: Whatwhatwhat?!? He's totally different!
CS: How so?
OS: It's obvious! The war!
CS: Did he vote on the war? I thought he was in IL.
OS: So! He said he would have!
CS: OK. But in everything else, they're the same, right?
OS: NO!!! Read this article on some blog I found that explains why he's so much better...
CS: Pass. Can you explain something he'd do differently than Clinton?
OS: That's not the point! It's what he says that's important! It's the ideas!
CS: Hmmm. If you say so.
and so on and so on and so on. Notice all the question marks from the Clinton Supporter and all the exclamation point from the Obama Supporter?
Whenever we get on some discussion here, 75% of the Obama supporters (with the exception of grownups like Will in Seattle, elenchos, and annie) immediately get all fucking bent out of shape. 95% of the time when somebody says "...but I'll support whichever candidate gets the nomination", it's a Clinton or Edwards supporter. Conversely, 95% of the time when somebody says "if Clinton gets the endorsement, I'm not voting / moving to Canada / throwing myself off a bridge", it's an Obama supporter.
So through that lens, it's absolutely no surprise that ECB makes one point about energy policy and all you twitchy douches jump down her throat.
Obama supporter that I am, I've got a response about Obama's energy policy. But first, it's worth repeating an observation that came up during the Prop. 1 campaign.
By now, pretty much anything Erica C. Barnett writes really ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Erica purports to admire the late Molly Ivins, an opinion writer with some bite but also some humor and perspective. But Erica is no Molly Ivins.
And really, that is by design. Obviously, a choice was made that what drives web traffic and ad revenue isn't another Molly Ivins caliber of writer. It's someone along the lines of a left-wing Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.
Well, I was going to say something about Obama and energy...
Obama represents Illinois, which is the #2 state in terms of coal reserves. So to him and his constituents, the coal industry means blue-collar jobs.
Big Sven@45: You just don't get it. ECB didn't make "one point about energy policy"; she used an endorsement from one guy as an attempt to get in a cheap, totally disingenuous stab about energy policy. If pressed, she'd admit that Obama is not that terrible a candidate on the environment - in fact, her and HRC really aren't that much different - but ECB's here to shill, not to perform any sort of real analysis. And this is why we "jump down her throat". I welcome an honest evaluation of of Obama vs. HRC on energy policy. It's clearly not going to come from her.
damn it - "him and HRC really aren't that much different"
OS: Stop lying.
CS: But Karl Rove lies.
OS: I know. Stop it.
dude, this was the laziest post ever. do you actually know anything about environmental issues? maybe you could be bothered to do some research before speaking out about what makes a "convincing case." dipshit.
This thread is ridiculous.
ECB is right on to give us these facts and no she doesn't have to give "all the facts" because here on Slog info comes in bits and pieces. Duh.
"And with as much teflon as Obama has, the usual Republican tactics, Swiftboating, etc., won't be effective,"
News flash: Obama's Not Magic, Has No Magic Teflon to Repel GOP Attacks.
When Obama in the general election says he brings a new transcendent politics blah blah blah......he's going to get hit with:
--this coal lover endorsement plus the prior votes for coal
--the support from the big nuclear company in Ill. plus his opennes to nuclear power
--he said last night he takes ancillary lobbyist money
--Resco, the Chi-town slumlord (now indicted), who helped him buy his house in Chicago (by buying the lot next door or something it's totally complicated and takes too long to explain why it isn't dirty) and
--he got endorsements from people to whom he gave money from a PAC he controls.
We need to know about this crap -- and to see how he deals with it -- now.
Believing Obama Will Repel Attacks Magically is not a good strategy for predicting how he'll do in a general election.
(Apol./credit Sarah Silverman).
"I don't use sleazy innuendo because I'm sleazy. I use sleazy innuendo to see if you're ready to take on the Republican Sleaze Machine. Why, let me show you how sleazy they are! This is for your own good! I hurt you because I love you!"
It's like the abusive parent excuse or something. What did Nietzsche say happens if you stare long enough into the abyss?
What? He totally promised to go the Prom with Nuclear Power!
No kidding, elenchos. Evidently all political content on the Slog is intended to be a rehearsal for dirty campaigns, not an actual source of news and analysis. Perhaps Annie should follow this one up with a post about how Hillary is a witchcraft-practicing lesbian.
@57 Yeah, well fuck you.
Obama has Magic Teflon =
Romney has Magic Underpants =
Erica, Josh (and Annie), please get a room. no seriously.
Speaking of guilt by association, did you know that Rupert Murdoch is a big fan of Hillary? To the point that he's done fundraisers for her? And why wouldn't he after everything she's done to increase media consolidation in this country.
One might say that Hillary Clinton is the Fox News Candidate.
Speaking as an Obama supporter, the one set of issues on which I feel he is, by far, the weakest is energy and the environment. And this is the one set of issues, together with transportation, that I care about most passionately. It's why I held out for an Al Gore run longer than perhaps I should have.
Obama made a great observation at the South Carolina debate. Something like, "None of our hands are perfectly clean."
Energy, and coal, may be the one area where Obama's hands are dirtiest (forgive the pun). There are some powerful coal interests in Illinois which Obama decided he would rather have as friends than foes. Actually, cg @47 said this better than I did.
As others have noted, it's not like Hillary Clinton's record on energy policy is any more distinguished. And now that Chris Dodd's DOA campaign is long gone, there's no presidential candidate who's really going out on a limb on things like global warming. Dodd had proposed a corporate carbon tax.
There are some promising signs, though, coming from Obama about energy and climate change. He has gone out of his way to make the point that there are no panaceas, that addressing these problems will take tough choices and collective sacrifice. Go to the "Energy & Environment" page on his Web site for details.
As for his standing by his support for nuclear power, to me that's a feather in his cap. It's all too easy to do like John Edwards did in the Nevada debate and say no to every impure form of energy, figuring that the voters are too gullible to figure that industrial economies can't just run on pixie dust. And to those nuclear skeptics, I ask, why can't France's success with nuclear power serve as a model for the United States?
Also, there's an exchange from the New Hampshire debate that economist Greg Mankiw excerpted to show how serious Obama is about energy and the environment. Mankiw supports a carbon tax. Obama supports a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade system. But Mankiw appreciated that Obama went out of his way to say that cap-and-trade, if done right, will not be painless for consumers.
it's not innuendo. it's not even implied. it's not typical passive agressive talk that passes for "discussion" around here.
it's open and straight up: Obama has negatives/we need to talk about them/because they're like, you know, negatives/and to know how he deals with them/to judge his electabilty.
Something wrong with that?
As I've stated over and over, Hillary has negatives, no doubt, Obama has positives, they're both great, like to see both on the ticket, blah blah blah.
The GOP attack dogs are going to rip into his guts and then he won't be so magically electable when it's October 20 2008 and all this crap is on about 1,000 TV ads every week in Ohio and Florida.
That'd be a bad time to finally find out what his answers are, and if he can deal with it. So far, on Slog the answer always is: ooooooh you're talking about negative things! stop it! he's magic! oooooooo!
That's not going to work in late October/first few days in Nov. 2008.
Wow, this thread needs some stoopidniss, STAT!
BTW, why would anyone dislike the term Obamatron, or be pissed off by it? Its great! Count me in!
Don't know what I'm talking about? Good!
@61 - unPC let's try to follow you here: ECB says that some guy endorses Obama, and uses this as an opportunity to say that Obama is bad for the environment. Obama supporters object. You say that there's no reason to object, because THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WILL THROW AT OBAMA.
So ... Republicans will say "Look! This little-known Democrat with coal links supports Obama, so he's bad on the environment"? Does that sound like something Republicans would say? Because it sounds more to me like something a Clinton partisan without much respect for fellow Democrats would say.
Does everyone forget the 90's? Remember how fuel emissions standards stood pat? Remember how we torpedoed the Kyoto conference before we even gave Bush the chance to veto it? Do you really not remember how weak Bill Clinton was on the environment, Erica?
I'm also driven crazy that this paper, which is one of the best on gay rights in the nation, would consider saying anything nice about a Clinton. DOMA, anyone? Don't Ask Don't Tell? Is anybody awake?
And less we forget, Obama has a 96 rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Clinton has a rating of 90.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Clinton is Change.
The Stranger is supported by revenue from ads, including online ads on the Slog here. The amount they can charge for these online ads depends a lot on how much traffic there is on this site, especially traffic that stays here and (for example) posts comments. Slog posts that get a lot of comments are therefore financially good for the Stranger. (This is clearly only reason they keep Mudede around.) Maybe ECB just got a bonus!
If New York was a big coal producer, Hillary would be running her campaign on coal to liquid fuel and talking about black lung disease as if it were a hoax.
Instead she's working for the nation's bankers; lawyers; and real estate agents, among others.
In short, they're tainted. A relevant question or two: who will beat McCain? Who wants to get us out of Iraq?
ECB, I have it on good authority that the fixie bike manufacturing lobby is coming out in favor of Clinton! What to do?!
Rick Boucher is also a 100% supporter of The Wind Industry (Big Wind, we might call it).
Ok, this deserves a response.
"...Obama supporters object. You say that there's no reason to object because THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WILL THROW AT OBAMA So ... Republicans will say "Look! This little-known Democrat with coal links supports Obama, so he's bad on the environment"?' Does that sound like something Republicans would say?"
No, you *made that up.*
I said that when you put this endorsement from D-SW Va Coal Country Man together with Obama's prior support for coal, and with Resko (the indicted policital fixer who helped him buy his house), and with the nuclear company who's one of his top donors, and his openness to nuclear power, and the endorsements he got after giving $$ donations from his PAC.....
his claim it's all about change goes up in smoke.
So, he won't be so magically electable -- he's kind of vaporware.
Unless he has some response, or shows us how he can deal with this crap, and pivot it to his advantage.
"Because it sounds more to me like something a Clinton partisan without much respect for fellow Democrats would say."
Oooooh, did you just play the passive aggressive Mr. Politenessman card?
But it's not disrespectful to raise issues or potential negatives of Obama and ask for answers.
It is unequal and disrespectful to Hillarytrons to diss her all the time and carp about her high negaatives, then refuse to discuss any negatives about Obama. Very disrespectful in fact. And, either naive, or intellectually dishonest.
It would also be disrespectful for me to assume that supporters of Obama are too tender or delicate to have a real dialogue, with the hard questions asked straight up.
I've respected Sen. Obama lots, often pointing to his greatness and strengths, saying Hillary should learn from him, and both have positives and negatives that we all need to assess.
The more I see from ECB, the more I wonder why she's pretending at "journalism" and not simply working as a hack writing copy for politicians? Couldn't you just see her in Kansas whispering to the editor of some small-town weekly newspaper - "I heard from my sources Obama was sworn into office on a Koran, if you can believe that!"
It's an easy game to play. Let's randomly look at recent Hillary endorsements. Let's see, Silvestre Reyes.
Is this the same Reyes who has refused to release the report about corrupt Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham?
In addition -
"A new political action committee created by the brother of Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) raised $50,000 this spring almost entirely from staff and clients of powerhouse lobbying shop PMA Group, and within weeks, those same donors reaped millions of dollars in earmarks from Reyes and other Members of Congress closely affiliated with PMA."
I guess using ECB's logic we can say that Hillary is the preferred candidate of corrupt politicians and those that want to protect corrupt politicians.
Just remember, Erica was like, uh, 13 in the nineties, so I dont think she really remembered the Clinton years...
The trolling in this thread is epic.
That guy from big coal advocates kindness to animals so I'm going to go kick my dog to prove I'm an environmentalist.
Precisely. Get out while you can ---- all you rats on a sinking ship.
That last line implies that Obama is along side Bush or something. BUSH is no great friend to the environment. That statement sounds like it came from Charles or something. Too absolute.
well played, coultergeist.
I call sock-puppetry on #5. The name "Greg" is taken, bitch. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
@2 and @3 are right. Fox's owner endorsing Sen Clinton is not good.
that is not true. i know for a fact i've written that obama is my choice but that i'd vote for whomever was nominated. i've read this from others as well. you do have some others posting they would never vote for hillary, but that's not all and probably not the majority.
LCV gives obama a better rating than clinton. a article posted previously noted obama was more progressive than clinton. obama doesn't seem to fight as dirty as clinton. these are substantial reasons to like him, in addition to the general appear of his positive message and attitude.
don't attack the strawman and imply that obama lacks substance (the typical argument against him) when that is not the case. and even if all of his supporters don't articulate his strength as well as you'd like, you still cannot dismiss the actual issues.
appeal, not appear.
Jay Inslee supports clean coal initiatives. Jay Inslee has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
You do the math.
ECB...this was a disingenuous SLOG entry.
ECB isn't racist.
She is a size queen. She loves black men.
Another Clintonian style bullshit generalization and misstatement. Here's an excerpt from Obama policy paper on coal....
"Obama will use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. Obama’s stringent cap on carbon will also make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities.
and Hillary will fill everyone with amazing feelings of happiness while prtoecting all pretty flowers and Obama wants to fill the world with evil coal.
I picture ECB yelling that before pouting in a corner and playing with her feminist toys from the 1960's.
Erica's right to bring up Obama's weaknesses on coal and energy and environmental issues in general. On the other hand, it's only a relative weakness, as he's generally pro-environment and he does have a higher scorecard rating that Clinton.
But Obama supporters exaggerate his record, just as Clinton supporters ignore her weaknesses. Remember, Obama has a mere two years of ratings, because he's only been in the Senate since 2005. Clinton's record goes back four more years. In 2005, they both had a 95% rating. The only comparable year in which Obama did better was in 2006. The only voting difference is that Clinton supported offshore drilling in Florida on two key votes for the same piece of legislation.
So, a fair assessment is that Obama is too close to coal and nuclear producers, and Clinton is too willing to drill domestically, but in general both have really good records. Clinton has a record three times as long and seems to have a better and more experienced grasp of the issues. In other words, the real differences are between these candidates and the Republicans, and progressives should be able to easily get behind either candidate as the nominee. As far as the primary goes, as with most issues, the differences are more stylistic and personal than substantive. Pick your favorite style or the one you trust more, but don't try to pretend that this is some huge difference on policy. It isn't.
I feel like that kid on the playground crying all the time because her parents are getting divorced.
I'm a Hillary supporter. I have major issues with Obama. I have bitched about his policies on multiple occasions. I love arguing. LOVE IT. But this shit is getting ridiculous. Clinton-haters: if you have a specific problem with her policies or endorsements- cools. That's something real, and something that is rationale to have a problem with her over. Same goes for Obama-haters. But the snide remarks about dishonesty and shady dealings are getting old. I LOVED the ECB post about various reasons Obama wasn't her candidate- I found it well thought out and researched. I'm glad that Annie brought up the misleading information about Abortion votes in Illinois- it shed light on something I didn't know about, and made me look more critically at the candidate I still support.
The sniping and the bitching on both sides is ridiculous. Obama is not a coke-doing-lying-slick-talkin'-asshole. He's a person who has done what he thought was best for the citizens of Illinois, and has genuinely improved things for many people. Clinton isn't a a scheming-power-hungry-shewitch. She's a person who has done what she thought was best for the citizens of Alabama, New York, and the U.S. They are both good people who want to do what is right for the U.S., although they have some different ideas about how to go about doing that.
Oh, and stop being assholes about how Hillary Clinton is not being unfairly portrayed just because you don't like her. Check out facebook- there are multiple groups with titles like "Hillary Should be in charge of the Laundry" and "Stop Running for President and make me a Sandwich". That is being sexist- you don't see anti-Obama groups titled "Stop running for President and go pick some cotton". It is clearly socially acceptable in this country to be openly sexist, while it's not socially acceptable to be openly racist. Rather than critique her policies, major media sources seem to be more concerned with asking questions like whether she's a convincing mother, or if her voice is too shrill in debates. When your critique of her is not as to her qualifications as a candidate, but as to her convincingness as a woman, then it's sexist.
Why aren't we all complaining constantly about the idiot stuff Huckabee, Romney and McCain are doing? A Republican Presidency means more theoretical wars on things which you can't really declare war on- like Drugs, and Terror, and Rainbows.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).