You made the assertion it is BS...prove it.

Posted at January 22, 2008 5:12 PM in response to Why Race Matters in South Carolina

She just falsely thought that her idea was good enough that it would overcome the odds. But to turn her first failure as a national figure into the definition of her strengths and weaknesses is entirely unfair

How is it unfair about pointing out that her style of leadership resulted in faliure and that her style of leadership has not changed when she uses  President LBJ as an example, (while discounting the contributions  of mobilizing change as merely a 'dream),  of how she will go about getting things done?

Ganz's fundamental point is that Hillary has not learned from her mistake. Ordinarily when someone has a first failure, they learn from it. Hillary has not.  We know this because of her vote on the war and the K-L act. Hillary still believes that her wielding power will bring about change, she remains ignorant of  the political skills and leadership required to bring about fundamental policy issues whether they be healthcare, education, foreign policy or the economy.

Overall, based on the pattern of her subsequent legislative and leadership failures. Ganz makes the case that Hillary continues to make the same fundamental judgment errors and points to that first failure as illustrative of character not just that of a rookie mistake . Ganze demonstrates it was not inexperience but rather a character trait deficit as  can be shown based on her future actions. A character trait that will remain missing no matter what experience she accrues is Ganz's most salient point.

Ganz tell us, if experience is the reason a person selects Hillary to vote for they are in for a big surprise as she lacks the judgment to lead despite her claims of experience.

Posted at January 22, 2008 9:23 AM in response to Clinton, Obama, MLK: Leadership for Change?

 the fact that pundits really seem dedicated to turning verbal cigars into things that are much more than cigars and guaranteeing themselves jobs in the process

Unfortunately, so do Bill and Hillary Clinton as well.

Posted at January 22, 2008 9:02 AM in response to Clinton, Obama, MLK: Leadership for Change?

What was she supposed to have changed? What do you want changed? Along with your opinion about what needs to be changed, there are 100 million Americans who want something changed also.

Bev, can you tell us what she has changed? Hillary claims to have 35 years of bringing about change, change of what? She has not been a legislator other than the past 6 years and by her own admission, change is only possible through legislation. What legislative changes of social import or national impact has Hillary brought about?

Posted at January 22, 2008 8:57 AM in response to Clinton, Obama, MLK: Leadership for Change?

speech - King is talking about going beyond militarism, beyond endless overseas wars, beyond economic inequality and exploitation, beyond mindless materialism.

Yes, this requires a fundamental change in our politics. It requires that the people of this country come together around common goals and interests. There is only one candidate pushing for these type of transformative changes for America to achieve what is best and that is Obama. This is what Obama identified as Reagans greatness. Reagan ushered in an era of conservatism where he transformed this country because he built a coalition and working majority and suceeded in pushing those ideas through congress and across the nation as our vision of what America should be.

Obama recognizes that and points out that he wants to usher in an era of progressiveness. He wants to change the vision of what America could be and he too will need a coalition among the masses that supports that mandate. Obama knows that fundamental change comes from the electorate. Yet when he shares that vision and brillant strategy he is attacked as talking right wing talking points or praising Reagan. Even though, Obama's political track record, the legislation he has sponsored and issues he has taken stands on is the antithesis of Reagans ideas. Obama simply wants to build a coalition like Reagan had in order to bring the needed changes to America. Obama wants to do with progressive ideas what Reagan did for conservative ideas, change America based on progressive ideas. Regan suceeded because he shared that vision with America and convinced Americans that is where America need to go. Obama's words are just as important in sharing his vision and convincing Americans that is where we can go now. Or what he calls  our  defining moment and the fierce urgency of now.

Hopefully, the American voters will not be blinded by the distortions of Bill and Hillary Clinton who lacked the vision and leadership to bring about a majority in order to push through progressive policies. Instead Bill Clinton was left to triangulate and concede ground to the Reagan ideas, thus we had things like welfare reform, NAFTA, draconian drug sentencing laws and a GOP majority in Congress for 15 years. Bill Clinton wound up legislating Reagans ideas because he had no coalitin or majority for liberal issues and policies.

 Obama wants to change that and do what King set out to do, transform America on the basis of our common humanity and the needs we all have for a better future for ourselves, our children and the future of America.

Posted at January 22, 2008 8:30 AM in response to Beyond King

. In actuality, King would be criticizing those who did not specifically address the issues faced by Blacks (poor ,middle and upper-class), women, homosexuals, and all impoverished people. He would be astonished that more progress had not been made. King's idea was an even playing field that transcended race and class.

I agree. King would have framed the argument on the issues and the morality that imbues those issues with justice for all Americans. He would have talked about healthcare, education and the economy in the ways that it impacts us as citizens and how it is the responsbility of the nation to do what is right and in the best interest of those citizens who have the least. He would have worked to come up with solutions that would benefit all Americans without a need to divide them by class race or gender.  His approach would be the very one that we hear Barack Obama talk about on the campaign trail, when he says we have an empathy deficit in this country. That we need to care about one another and help each other rather than fight each other. Only Obama talks about how we have to work together as one people.. That we are one America, black, white,asian, hispanic, gay and straight, who must come together and work on solutions for all Americans. Not just those in the red states or blue states but for the United States of America.

Posted at January 22, 2008 8:12 AM in response to Beyond King

Yes, I too find this bothersome. White politicians have historically campaigned in black churchs. Now, that Barack adheres to this campaign tradition he is characterized as a 'preacher' and being preachy. Whereas, when Carter, Bush, and Clinton go into black churches they are deemed as campaigning. The double standard is glaringly obvious.

Posted at January 22, 2008 8:01 AM in response to Beyond King

Prove it.

Posted at January 20, 2008 2:31 AM in response to Why Race Matters in South Carolina

It has been really rather sickening to see the party faithful in Michigan tiptoeing around the fact that Obama and Edwards would not even let their names stay on the ballot.

 Are you aware of how this issue developed?

The candidates removed their names in support of party rules. The state of Michigan was violating the rules. Those candidates who left their names on the ballot were not supportive of the rules the DNC set at the DNC convention. Hillary was the one who did not uphold the rules. As usual she does what benefits her politically without regard for the rules, as she beleived she was the 'inevitable candidate anyway.

Obama, Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson removed their names from the ballot in October, saying they were fulfilling a pledge not to compete in Michigan as punishment for the state's breaking primary scheduling rules. Democratic Party rules ban all but four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from holding contests before Feb. 5. Biden dropped out of the race Thursday night, as did Chris Dodd, who had remained on the Michigan ballot; that leaves Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich as the only active Democratic candidates on the Jan. 15 ballot.

Posted at January 17, 2008 2:57 PM in response to Let the People Vote

What politicians do day day out is to me what they stand for. The grandstanding plays they make after they decide to run don't count so much. So Obama voting present on choice issues when he didn't expect later scrutiny is much more telling than fundraising for South Dakota when he did.

Does it  matter to you that the present votes counted as no votes or that it was part of a strategy with Planned Parenthood.

Why do you think Hillary and Emily's List did nothing to repeal the abortion ban in S. Dakota when it was being scrutinized? Do you consider their actions to be supportive.

Posted at January 17, 2008 2:50 PM in response to Let the People Vote