Interesting comment (0.00 / 0)

I also think it's a Calvinist and/or midwestern approach - and agree that it's likely to be on a permanent decline as the last couple of generations (X, Y, whatever) haven't picked up the baton from an attitude that has its source in the Puritan work ethic.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

---

by: vernonlee @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 14:24:05 PM CST

Actually Matt Has Some Calculated Falsehoods (0.00 / 0)

in his post.

First of all Clinton has been critical of Bush's judgment. She has been critical of his judgment on handling Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Taxes, NOLA, etc etc.

She has been critical of his experience also as she mentioned last night. So Matt is wrong about the judgment comment. Sorry Matt but the myopia caused by bias is on full display here. It's less than admirable for you to trash the hard work ethic in a misogynic manner by saying "It's the attitude of women her age". Shameful.

Clinton could subtly move into the role of 'fighter', which is a frame that could beat Obama's vague change message.

Well she has always been a fighter. No one can point to the 'quit' in her. Up to now she has tried to take the high road. But after months upon months of attacks and smears by both Obama and Edwards she has said enough. She is now drawing the contrast of their actual records to her own and she wins there. Last night she fought to get her points across while in the last half Obama sat there and took notes and didn't speak unless spoken to. He showed weakness. She showed strength by seizing the floor.

If we are to accomplish the many progressive goals we have we are going to need a fighter in the WH. One that can grab the bully pulpit like Clinton did last night and force the republicans to move our way or face further erosion in 2010.

We need a fighter not a uniter. Clinton has that. She also has a great progressive rating that people here continue  to ignore.

Check out her progressive rating:

http://www.openleft....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:55:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So the younger generation just hopes for change? (0.00 / 0)

I am not a Hillary supporter but she is right that Obama promised not to vote for the patriot act then did, promised not to vote to fund the war but then again did and was actually splitting hairs on his position on health care. His answers on health care were confusing.

  At one time he did say he supported a Single Payer system without the backtracking.  Not mandating for everyone is problematic.  Just as he admits that if children are not covered by a mandate then all children would not be covered so to if not all adults are covered by a mandate not all adults will buy insurance.

  One of the reasons to mandate for everyone is that in order to get the maximum savings there has to be a number of healthy, young people in the pool.  Most young people will not spend the money on healthcare insurance because quite frankly they will not use the benefits.  Of course that is why insurance works at all.  If everyone got more back from their insurance than they paid in the company would go bankrupt.  Basically Obama's plan takes out the youngest and healthiest members of society.  That may work great for them but in the long run it makes the system unsustainable. 

  I do not understand the aversion to hard work nor the lack of be willing to sacrifice for the country.  I am sorry to hear another presidential candidate that is basically saying you can have it all and not put the work behind it.

  Make no mistake JFK and RFK were about change but they were also about service.  We heard it often that to those that much had been given much is expected.  I think that could almost have been the Kennedy motto.  I guess that is not a lesson we passed on to the next generations.

---

by: Spotcat @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 14:54:44 PM CST

Change Not just a word (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps she thinks, as I do that the word change is being used as a code word without meaning - and she was giving it her meaning having nothing to do with Bush and his bad choices. When I hear Obama say we will completely change America and then change the world - I think, well it may work to get him elected but all these star struck people are going to be very disappointed in politics once again very soon  and then Democratic Party will lose them again.

---

by: NYMARJ @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:02:26 PM CST

I was struck by this exchange too. (4.00 / 5)

And what I was thinking was, "We're supposed to elect you president because you work hard?  That's the great big rationale for your candidacy?"

I'm quite sure Hillary does work very hard, but then I'm quite sure a lot of people do.  I know a lot of people in the leadership class around her (a lot of Senators, for example, and a lot of rich people) probably don't work hard, but she is hardly the only person in the Senate or the USA who works hard.  You don't elect someone president of the United States because she works hard.  It's just not nearly enough of a rationale on which to base a compelling argument for why you should be leader.  "Elect me cause I work hard"?

That's a great argument for being promoted to middle management.  It's not an argument that will get you elected leader.  Hillary is running into what George HW Bush called "the vision thing."  Neither one had one.  She has no real narrative for where America is, or where it needs to go, or why she is uniquely qualified to show us the way there.  Without that narrative, she's auditioning for City Manager or National Administrator.

Love it or hate it, Edwards and Obama do each have a story to tell.

Mitt Romney is actually running a very similar campaign in terms of the fundamental argument for Why He Should Lead (he'll do a decent job and won't fuck it up).  He's doing it with even less personal credibility though, and he's losing even bigger and harder than she is, and in a candidate field far far weaker than ours.

Even after eight years of Bush, "I'm a competent administrator" is just not a good enough story to make you president.  That's a little surprising but clearly true.

---

by: texas dem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:19:44 PM CST

That shot of Edwards... (0.00 / 0)

When they did the split-screen while Hillary is having her meltdown, the look of concern on Edwards' face... like: "Should we call an ambulance?"

I wonder what was really going on in his head. That was the most memorable moment of the debate for me. Thanks for reminding me of it.

---

by: RandyH @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:20:57 PM CST

Good post (0.00 / 0)

Ultimately however Clinton is angry because she is losing.  She wants so badly to win.

---

by: Taran @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:23:42 PM CST

She was doing ok... (4.00 / 3)

Until the last two sentences.  With that summation, her message (to me) became this:  The sort of change she and Bill brought about 1993-2007 is all that is possible.  Don't expect anything grander or more progressive, because it can't be done.  How does she know this?  Because she (and Bill) work harder than anyone, the system is what it is and can't be changed, and anyone promising more is wrong because she (and Bill) would have brought about more "change" if it had been possible.  It wasn't their fault.  Our choice is to think small or think false. Example: benefits for 7000 kids and 2700 vets (in a state with pop. of 1.24 million).

And today Obama is criticizing her "false hopes" line of attack.  As well he should.

---

by: benjamins @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:33:33 PM CST

What I want to know (0.00 / 0)

is what has she done? She hasn't done anything more than Obama and Edwards in the Senate as far as I can tell, she failed to get universal healthcare through, so how has she worked for change any harder than them? Seems to me that the top three all have pretty much the same level of accomplishment.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:03:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gee (4.00 / 1)

You might want to look up her lifetime Progressive rating at Progressive Punch or elsewhere. Or you might even want to look at here actually voting record yourself which is readily available. But then again maybe fact don't matter to you or you would have already done those things.

FYI - Here lifetime progressive rating is higher that Obama's!!!

http://www.openleft....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:02:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Go back and look at how may of those votes.... (0.00 / 0)

............were in losing causes. Not The Hill' fault that the ReThugs have and still do own the stupid, incompetent Dem Caucus. If I were her I'd be thinking of doing a Bobbit on 'SellOut' Reid. He's not doing anything with his dick anyway.

I know the guy that runs PP and they are well aware, also, that their algorithm ain't real accurate. Which just means, as always, yah gotta use yer mind.

Both Clinton and Obama are adept at making their voting record look good. That is, when Obama actually votes.

Short Form: They're arguing over the dead carcass of the Dead Loser Caucus and it don't matter because neither of them will win in the GE.

With the amazing number of foot-in-mouth episodes from both campaigns McCain/HuckaBee! will mop the floor with 'em. They've been taking turns screwing up for months.

That's suicide agaiinst the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:11:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

asdf (0.00 / 0)

Both Clinton and Obama are adept at making their voting record look good.

I agree with you on Obama partly. He is a first termer so it is easy to see his 'opportunity' votes'. But to his detriment he has also made some inopportune votes which shoot all kinds of holes in his rhetoric. Self-inflicted wound call them.

As for Clinton she is not a first termer and her "lifelong" progressive rating speaks for itself. She has longed challenged the establishment by pushing progressive causes - a lot of which came before she was even running for the Senate. That tells you who she is inside prior to becoming a politician. And she was championing progressive causes while Edwards was still spending his days getting rich as a lawyer too.

And yeah, McCain/HuckaBee would mop the floor with Obama the untested rookie. But not with Clinton. She is capable of taking them both on as you saw last night.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:06:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)

if the votes were for losing causes. What matters is how they voted.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:09:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Did I say anything about how she votes? (0.00 / 0)

I'm talking about her actually getting things passed in Congress. As far as I can tell, she has done just as much (or as little, depending on how you look at it) as Obama and Edwards. So I want to know how she has worked for change any harder than her two opponents.

Next time, actually read the comment before going into Clinton defense mode.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:12:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yours is a fase argument (0.00 / 0)

With us being first in the minority and then with slim majorities the reality is not many if any democratic bills other than ones snuck into omnibus bills ever saw the light of day. So the truth is not one Democratic Senator has done much of anything by your measure. Given that - you are using a false measuring stick.

If you can't sort them out using one metric then you have to move on to another metric - assuming you really want to measure them - which in your case I rather doubt.

So the next metric would be the bills they did sponsor and co-sponsor which if we did have the required majorities would have passed. Clinton far surpasses both Obama and Edwards in that case. Also you would look at how they voted on bills that did reach the floor. In that case their progressive rating give one the big picture and again Clinton wins hands down as she is rated considerably higher than Obama and Edwards by independent progressive organizations.

You want to rate them by how much water is in the glass when there is no water to be found. That is a false and very 'convenient' argument so you can dodge the available and very real comparisons.

She has been fighting for progressive causes since she was in college at a time Obama was in grade school. That equates to real and heartfelt progressive experience.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:29:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I said that Obama and Edwards also have underwhelming records (0.00 / 0)

and the main reason for that and Clinton's record is obviously the fact that they worked in a Republican majority most of the time. But Clinton is the one claiming here that she has done more than Obama and Edwards. If she wants to make that claim, then she has to back it up. The fact is, most progressive things she has pushed have failed, and while I imagine that Obama and Edwards would have failed as well, there's no reason to believe she was any more effective or hardworking than them.

And while no Democratic Senator may have been able to do much prior to 2006, after the midterm elections I have no doubt that Obama and Clinton could have done something progressive, despite the thin margin. See Dodd on telecom immunity, for example. Neither of them even made an effort, unfortunately.

I highly doubt you actually went through the bills Clinton, Obama, and Edwards sponsored and came up with a magical formula to determine whether it would pass in a Congress that has the "required majorities", whatever that means. If you did, then please, show us. Otherwise, you're just pulling things out of thin air.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 21:05:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm familiar with some of their bills (0.00 / 0)

But I'm smart enough not to take the time to list them for someone who is just going to make more excuses. Besides the progressive organizations I mentioned do that for us. They weigh everything and Clinton's rating is higher. I know you will keep ignoring that fact but that is what you do apparently - ignore inconvenient facts. Like I suggested, you just don't want to measure them by any metric so then you can say what you want to believe - that they are the same. You're not alone, people ignore facts that go against the beliefs all the time. It's not the truth that matters - it is reinforcing their beliefs that matters. A strange bunch I must say.

You say there's no reason to believe she was any more effective or hardworking than them. But the record shows different. The ratings show different. Just because someone works hard and fails due to circumstances does not mean they didn't work hard or harder than others. You probably will not understand that unless you have worked hard yourself and came up short. I would assume that is the case or you wouldn't be saying what you are because you would have an understanding based on your own experiences. That happens a lot on blogs - people can't think or understand beyond their own limitations.

As for Dodd and the telcom situation you say Obama and Clinton did nothing. Well you are showing your lack of knowledge. As you may or may not know Dodd is supporting the  Senate Judiciary Committee telecom bill. So are a number of other Senators:

Washington, DC - As the Senate prepares to consider legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a group of senators is urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the FISA bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) the base bill to be considered on the Senate floor.
...
It enhances judicial oversight of broad new surveillance authorities, contains protections for innocent Americans, and does not provide immunity to telecom companies...
...
The Senators expressing their support for the SJC FISA bill in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid are Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Joe Biden (D-DE), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

So there she is right in step with Dodd by yet you proclaim she is doing nothing. Obama is there too. This is why Clinton has such a high progressive rating. Man what a little knowledge would do instead of just spouting off without doing a bit of research or even just reading the news. I guess if you don't read it on the blogs it just didn't happen.

http://clinton.senat...

"required majorities", whatever that means.

Whatever that means??!!! What are you a total political neophyte? Ever hear of a large enough majority to bust a filibuster?

Anyway have fun in your fantasy land that you seem deeply entrenched in. Where fact that don't support you beliefs don't exist even when showed to you. Where lack of knowledge passes as fact because if you don't know something happened then it didn't happen.

I guess you could try goggling before posting but that would be "work" and you may not find anything which means you didn't put in the "work" at all according to your theory. Then again maybe you don't goggle because you would find information that screwed with what you want to believe and you don't want that. In either case enjoy fantasy land.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:16:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good job entirely missing the point. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to waste my time with an idiot who is unfamiliar with the concept of "burden of proof". Have fun on the sinking S.S. Clinton.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:45:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah right!!! (0.00 / 0)

Typical response on the blogs.

The fact is that you don't have a clue what you were talking about as I pointed out by demonstrating your lack of knowledge about Obama and Clinton on the Telecom bill. How's that for proof? LOL!

And I nailed your personality of delusion and fantasy. But in reality you did all the work for me. I just had to read your garbage.

You're tired response has no effect on me whatsoever. I can read that shit on any given day on any blog from the pretenders.

Good luck to you and when you join the reality community come back and let us know. Oh but that would require reading and reading is 'work'. Never mind.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:58:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't believe she thinks that kind of chiding will work (0.00 / 0)

to counter Obama's raw charisma.
  I'd agree that it seems rooted in american Calvinism; but that it's characteristically american would also suggest she doesn't own the category. For Christ's sake, Obama was ed. of Harvard Law Review; that's just not a prize easily earned.
  Her hubris is really tiresome. She's digging a hole for herself, and I won't miss her.
 

---

by: sb @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:18:35 PM CST

The frame is 'moral accounting' (0.00 / 0)

Clinton expressed a very basic idea:  if you work hard and play by the rules then you deserve to have that effort balanced out by an equal reward.

It was a very clear contrast to Obama's frame which is almost a 'venture trust' logic.  He seems to be saying that if you convince lots of people to invest their trust in your new venture, then you can use that investment to quickly build a winning agenda.

It's like old economy vs. new economy. 

I have to say, I felt old listening to that exchange because what Clinton said made so much sense.  And when she said it, it seemed to let the air out of the room for a minute.

A very telling moment, and one of the first times in my entire life that I have felt the invisible forcefield that surrounds Hillary Clinton drop, if only for an instant.

---

by: Jeffrey Feldman @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:37:14 PM CST

I liked your comment! (4.00 / 1)

This is what the folks I caucus with are concerned, deeply concerned with. You say,

...if you convince lots of people to invest their trust in your new venture, then you can use that investment to quickly build a winning agenda.

You allude to our concern but I'm gonna spell it out. What happens to the 'progressive' movement if Obama fails and cannot deliver any meaningful 'change'. To be clear I think Obama is sincere in his belief that his strategy and tactics can work....well, just say I'll take him at his word.

But if the 'Republicans' code for the conservative movement pursue there avowed strategy of opposing every piece of reform Obama submits to Congress what happens next?

McConnell or his replacement goes on PumpkinHaid's show and sez: 'President Obama means well but his lack of experience is preventing him from getting things done. We'd love to work with him but he's not listening'.

Obama the 'Progressive President' fails to move his agenda an inch.

Rethugs campaign on 'Do-Nothing Dems' in 2010 and beyond.

Not my preferred scenario.

And unlike Edwards frame of 'We are going to have to fight' Obama has nowhere to go.....

But home.

That's truly stupid in my opinion.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:29:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

From the context (0.00 / 0)

of what she said elsewhere in the debate, she wasn't trying to differentiate herself on the basis of how hard she'll work, though I can see how you could play it that way just from the snippet of the debate you quote.

This is the essence of her differentiation:

So you know, words are not actions.

And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that

She was making herself the candidate of action, of doing, as opposed to the candidate of emotion and feeling (Edwards) or of thought and intellect (Obama). She's saying, You can think and feel about these problems as much as you want and it won't bring change. Only action on them will bring change, and I am the one who can act, from Day 1 in the Oval Office.

---

by: Onyx @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:05:43 PM CST

types of work (4.00 / 1)

Stuff like this is interesting to me because of my profession.  In my profession you are either good at it and you will find your work easy or you are bad at it and you simply can't do what others can.

So when people argue "you can't do this" or "you can't do that" my immediate response is to think that they are bad at what they do. 

But I am a younger generation than clinton so I think that a lot of this does show a difference in generations.  The top companies in my field don't like hiring people over the age of 30.

---

by: Astera @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:00:58 PM CST

Out of curiosity.... (0.00 / 0)

.............how does the amount these 30-somethings get paid compare to the value they create for the company.

Cash I mean.

Not promises of future dividends and such.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:17:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd guess at around 1 dollar for every 5 dollars they create (0.00 / 0)

The real pay is always to the initial person or people who put the time and effort and risk into creating something new.

---

by: Astera @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:48:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]