Yesterday we started a really intense and cathartic discussion among those of us who originally supported Hillary Clinton, but now find her "scorched earth candidacy" so repulsive that we are struggling with the idea of voting for her should she become the nominee. 

So far there are 71 responses who shared their sad path from Hillary.  Unfortunately it got pushed off the front page and several people who wanted to continue the exchange, including myself, had trouble finding it. 

So I thought I would reintroduce it so it could again briefly stay on the first page and explain how I found it.  You can find all of you comments on the "Your Profile" page.  For newbies like me, it is located at the top of the page on the right side, underneath the search box. 

To read my post about how I went from Clinton supporter to someone who is opposed to her and how 71 others got to that point, as well as share your own experience go to the following link.

I am reaching out to former Clinton supporters who no longer support her and think they might have difficulty voting for her in the general election.   I want to understand how you got to this place of opposing her after being a supporter.   Most of us are not the “Hillary Haters” who have an irrational aversion to her that the Clinton supporters portray us to be.

I believe understanding how the Clintons lost us as supporters, could be the key to understanding them, understanding how to get some of them to see our point of view, and also help them better understand us.  So, I’m posting my story of how they lost me below, and I was hoping some of you could explain why you switched.

 I used to be a big Bill Clinton fan.  When I heard he was being interviewed on TV, I was there. While I didn’t feel warm and fuzzy about Hillary Clinton, I believed in their “vast right wing conspiracy” and felt her critics were being unfair.  The Ken Starr witch hunt made it easy to believe it. I ignorantly glossed through all the scandals and usually came to the conclusion that they all were all witch hunts with no basis in fact.  I did not take time to read and absorb the news stories or research the issues being discussed.   I also overlooked that other than Bush, no other administration had as many scandals, indictments, or convictions.  By 1999, all the controversies, trials, convictions, suicides and accidents of witnesses finally started to get to me, but I felt that all politicians were corrupt and continued to support them. 

 I assumed that when Clinton ran for office, that I would support her.  I thought having a Democrat in the office again would be good, and it would also be nice to have a female leader.  I did not love her, but I did admire her.  When she and other Democrats voted for the war, I was disappointed.  I realized that most voted that way out of fear of loosing their seat.  However, Hilary went further, she regularly promoted her position and aligned herself with other hawks.  She was not a reluctant co-conspirator like most Dems.  She also voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have tied Bush’s hands from acting unilaterally and became hawkish in general.  I understood that she was doing it to overcome potential resistance to her as president because of her gender, but felt she was selling out for her future run for the Presidency.  However, long after the war became unpopular she was still taking hawkish stances with regards to international issues, so I no longer believe she has taken these positions to appear strong, but is actually being true to herself.  I could no longer support her because I thought that once she got in office it would be likely that she would continue with her hawkish positions.

 That change in my perspective changed the way I saw the news about her.  Instead of glossing over stories assuming that they were part of the “conspiracy,” I would actually listen, read and watch with a more open mind, as well as do my own research.  At first, I still defended her, but not as vigorously.  The more I read and investigated, the more disturbed I got.  By the fall, I was at the point preferring all of the democratic candidates to her, but I still would have voted for her, and I still was a Bill Clinton fan.  When my candidate, Edwards dropped out, I went for Obama.  I do not agree with everything he does, but I do find him inspiring and believe he has a record of reaching out to would be foes, which is what our country needs right now.

Then came the plan to make Obama “the Black candidate.”  As a Black woman who had supported the Clinton’s for so many years, this devastated me.  They cravenly rejected their most loyal constituency, risking dividing the party for her to win.  I think she had a good chance of winning without doing that.  I started researching to find out how I could have missed this about them.  Without my “I love the Clintons” lenses on, they began to seem like monsters on corruption, attacking democrats other than Obama, human rights, the environment, telecommunications monopolies, Haliburton, poverty, cheating, manipulation, bold faced lies…. the list goes on.  I think I just chose to dismiss and excuse this stuff in the past. 

At first, I was angry with myself for being so easily fooled, but when I listen to people who still support Clinton, I see that they sound just like I did.  I understand that many of her supporters, see the Clintons as vilified by the press, republicans, independents,  and now democrats.  They do not really read the bad stuff about them with an open mind because they see all these controversies, not as pattern of behavior, but as more attacks by those who oppose them.   That is why I believe Obama supporters should cut them some slack.  We see her as dividing the party, pitting Black against White, women against men, Latino against Black, women against women, Blue collar against white collar, and Democrat against Democrat, all while motivating republicans to vote for her now to inspire their party to come out to vote for her in the general election.  Some of us believe having them back in the White House would not be better than having Mc Cain in office and that they could cost us the congress again..  They see her as David fighting off the mighty Goliath.

So my question to other former Clinton supporters is what event caused you to stop supporting Clinton?  How do you think current supporters see her current scorched earth tactics that appear to be taking the party down?  Do you think these supporters will wake up like we did or is the story they have been telling democrats too compelling?

My husband just sent me this info about the Vote is Texas.  What do you guys think?  Have you heard anything?

Didn't anybody notice this?

It is now 24 hours after the polls closed in Texas.

In 21 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Republican presidential primary.

In 3 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Democratic presidential primary.

In the 21 counties with NO Republican voters, there were
87,919 registered voters, and
36,239 ballots cast,
all of them Democratic.

In the 3 counties with NO Democratic Voters, there were
5,212 registered voters, and
1,865 ballots cast,
all of them Republican.

In Maverick County,
ALL 9,661 ballots cast were Democratic.

In Hansford County,
ALL 1,235 ballots cast were Republican.

ONE-PARTY TEXAS COUNTIES, PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, 2008

            County        Registered  Republican Democratic
                                  Voters          Votes        Votes
Armstrong            1404          369            0
Borden                  432            0          139
Brooks                6385            0        3185
Cottle                  1230            0          471
Crockett              2654            0          1166
Culberson            1959            0          526
Dickens                1410            0          612
Duval                    9331            0        5053
Foard                  1043            0          432
Hall                      2110            0          813
Hansford              3101        1235              0
Hardeman            2969            0        1086
Hudspeth              1557            0          476
Kent                              665              0              250
La Salle                      4071                0            1392
Loving                    116            0            22
Maverick              26224            0          9661
Reeves                  6337            0          2228
Roberts                  707        261              0
Stonewall              1087            0          483
Throckmorton        1175            0          513
Upton                    2139            0            823
Zapata                  7148            0          3190
Zavala                    7877            0          3718


But don't take my word for it.  See for yourself.


http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_race0.htm

http://enr.sos.state.txus/enr/mar04_136_race0.htm

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/ #TX


Election officials in the State of Texas
have some explaining to do.

I have a feeling of deja vu.  The Clinton White House is likely to be again faced with many scandals if Hillary gets in.  Below is a brief description of one.  It involves Hillary and Bill Clintons' long financial relationship Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission and a lawsuit with his company's stockholders over his relationship with the Clintons.

Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton rented out some of her lists to  It is drawing attention because, campaigns usually do not rent out of give access to their donor lists until the campaign is over.  They rented the list for $8,225 however most say it is worth $800,000.  Clinton says the rental was for her Senate campaign and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.  That would mean that the debt went unpaid for at least 11 months, even though Info U.S.A.  settles accounts within 64 days.

Over $900,000 was spent flying the Clintons to various places, which could violate federal campaigning and ethics rules.   Hilary says he has been reimbursed.  Gupta also owns the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN - which in my opinion is very pro-Hillary.

Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons and after they  left the White House he hired Bill Clinton as a consultant.  Clinton has been paid $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock. The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.

As usual, I think that as usually, all parties involved will be prosecuted and that the Clinton will get out of this, but it still sounds like a brewing scandal the nation will have to face if Hillary is in office.  

You can read more at NPR

According to an investigation conducted by the Los Angeles Times, Hillary Clinton received $500 - $2,500 contributions totaling $380,000 from dishwashers, waiters and others with low paying jobs from  some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. Most have occupations that would normally make it difficult for them to donate such high amounts of money.   Some of the addresses and phone numbers of these donors proved to be false or non-existent.  Many are recent immigrants from Fujian province and seem to think that if she becomes president,she will be able to reunite them with their families.  Some lack the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. Most have not registered to vote.  Some speak little or no English. Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders.  Clinton has not returned the funds to any of the contributors who gave illegally.

You can read more about the donations and the investigation at The LA Times.

Has Clinton truly been vetted?

Last week, we heard rumors that Obama had purchased two minute blocks of time in all the major markets in OH and TX to appear today through Tuesday.  We I saw it on MSNBC's First Read and I think what his team put together is great.  It speaks to his experience, his positions and his disinterest in player dirty politics with Clinton.  It is a wonderful, eloquent, closing statement, similar to her closing statement at the Austin debates two weeks ago, but more fleshed out and not the words of Edwards or President Clinton.   You can view it at the following link. He might just take her out in both states.  I hope it plays in Rhode Island as well.

McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that the Texas Democratic Party is warned that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted in response to notification from Clinton aides that their could be an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process.

To find out more go to KansasCity.com
To read the Texas Democratic Party's Letter to the candicates, click here

A few days I posted a diary from the Daily Kos, in which the author sought to uncover the two candidates' intentions in the senate.    You can view it at the following link.  Later a few of you pointed out some flaws in her research.  However, I thought the author's intentions were pure.  I believe getting to the truth was her intention and I learned some things about the candidates as a result.  I seems as if most of you feel the same.

Since then, I've found a few additional materials from a few additional  sources.  You will have to decide for yourself on how truthful or objective the resources are. 

1. The first resource is an article from The National Journal, entitled A Dimes Worth of Difference.  The article attempts to analyze the records of both, primarily based on their votes in the senate.  On the front page they showcase a Graphic called "What votes Clinton and Obama differed on"

2.  The Guardian newspaper, in the UK seeks to presents the article Past Holds The Key to Democratic Future.  They posit that Clinton and Obama's Senate voting records offer clues as to whether they will keep their campaign pledges.

3.  Hilzoy, the author of the blog, Obsidian Wings, the author attempts to analyze both of the senators' records in a series of three posts called, More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Clinton and Obama's Legislative Records Project, by reviewing the bills and amendments that Clinton and Obama have co-sponsored *at the earliest possible date* , which as we all have discovered is likely only a proxy for taking real action to get legislation written and passed... but it at least weeds out symbolic, free-riding cosponsorship.  The first post is titled, Solutions: Addendum.    The second post is called, But Wait. There's More!  The final piece is called All The Rest.

The New York Times also created a graphical breakdown of Obama's work in the Illinois Senate.

In response to the repeated claim by Clinton, the Republicans and and the media that Obama has not done anything, Hilzoy has posted Obama: Actually.

Has anyone found other articles or resources on the web that address Obama's and/or Clinton's record?  Please post them in the comments section.

I found the following over on one of the Daily Kos Dairies.  The author gave her permission for others to distribute it.  It is a summary of the good intentions, successes and failures of both candidates in the senate. While the author now supports Obama, she had been inclined toward Hillary before doing her research. I think it is one of the most well researched, fact based pieces on both their records that I have ever encountered.

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter) by Grassroots Mom Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama.  However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised.  Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.

• Grassroots Mom's diary :: ::
• 
  

I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me:  what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.

Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators.

I started with Sen. Clinton.

I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.

Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.

For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."

Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.

In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.

The difference is in the scope and the approach.

Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.

Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?

How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.

Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).

Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors.  Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.

In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development."  After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.

Four bills on energy including
• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil;
•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.  

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.

On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).

Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:

S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon.
S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes.
S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.

and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.

Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record.  I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty  S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.  

As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.

Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.

In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year.

Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.

It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.

Yes, We Can!

Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.

Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

The Star Telegram in Dallas reported on Wednesday that the Secret Service order the police to stop screen attendees of the Obama rally for guns and other weapons.  Kennedy Deja vu?  What is going on?

Read the full story