Barack Obama - Our Next President

There is something stomach-turning about the Clintonian strategy for winning the nomination. Underneath that which is so disgusting, however, there are little passion plays playing out — about the state of the nation, and the state of its soul-sick psyche. While there is no overt reason to conclude that they are racists, (if that sentence seems luke-warm, take a look at Hillary’s own concession that Obama is not a Muslim), there is every possible reason to label the Clintons opportunists of the very first order. Bill Clinton was not a racist when he mouthed off in South Carolina; he was a desperate power-monger, flailing. Bob Johnson from BET doesn’t really think Obama is a drug fiend — it was just “an opportunity”. Albeit a rather disgusting one. Howard Wolfson doesn’t really think that Obama is like Ken Starr; it was just the sort of blind ad hominem news-cycle nonsense likely to distract from the actual, the real, the true; in other words — it was opportunism. That is their true, true heartfelt religion. “Campaign” in Florida and then deny it? Fine: It’s all fair game. Or the cynical suggestion by Senator Clinton that Obama would be a fine VP while at the same time declaring how unready he is seems to me precisely the sort of cynical paranoid post-modern solipsism of people who will say anything whatsoever to get what they want and then act stung when called on it. It borders on sociopathy. And like all opportunists, those in Camp Clinton have reached the conclusion that even a scorched earth campaign which devastates the party, vulgarizes the discourse even more than it already is vulgarized, and alienates millions of people who actually have come to hope for real change in this country, is worth the cost of a possible win. Personally, I find it far more likely that the only beneficiary of the Clintonian ugliness will of course be none other than that half-mad proponent of hundred-year wars, John McCain of Arizona, swooping in to the circular firing squad after the smoke and blood have cleared, so as to snatch a victory because the Dems cleverly snatched defeat.

Speaking of half-mad, speaking of snatching defeat — the Clinton surrogacy of Geraldine Ferraro devolved in to an angry whine on the Today Show this morning. Ms Ferraro seems to think that Senator Obama has been the beneficiary of some sort of post-radical-chic “free-ride”, a notion so laughable that it flies in the face of every last bit of information we have about what it means to not be white in America. Every single bit. She doesn’t seem like a racist either, actually; merely an embittered ex-candidate and an old school feminist warrior whose legitimate passion has hardened into blindness and bile. (How did the Obama camp play “the race card” when it was she who launched into a dismissal of Senator Obama as “lucky” to be African-American.) I found myself telling the TV that Obama is where he is today in spite of being African-American. Still, Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems to tap into something very real in this country — the anger that many women carry over the costs incurred in the fight for gender equality for the last forty years.

Every day, one is struck by the (one-sided) viciousness in this fight. Six bloody weeks of it to go? Six weeks of coarsening opportunistic soulless nastiness. And the effect? Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating amongst Obama supporters continues to rise according to the Wall Street Journal/MSNBC poll released tonight. The reverse is not true. And her coalition of white women and white blue-collar workers is unlikely to surge the way that young people and African-Americans are surging towards Obama. Those Americans — the African-Americans who have been turned off by politics as usual and by total exclusion, the young who have been so disgusted by war-mongering and corruption so evident in the smug faces of those in power — finally see in Obama something of the best in themselves, and something to aspire to: Idealism, dignity, hope, matched by strength and stoicism. Matched by a very keen sense of how to work the system.

In the meantime, the country itself needs to be repaired from inside out. Anti-intellectual, increasingly amoral, broke, and self-obsessed, a land of crumbling roads, crumbling dreams, and crumbling visions of how to care for the needy. A nation filled with invective and rudeness. (Have you ever seen how unmannerly the comments on HuffPost can be? If that is a reflection of how people are brought up today, then what is the point?) At the heart of how to repair a nation — there is one essential ingredient to examine; and that, of course, is character. Over the next six weeks until Pennsylvania, we must think about that; the character of our leaders, of our nation. Because as Heraclites stated with total clarity — character IS destiny.

A simple way to support our candidate is to strike up conversations with your coworkers, friends, and families. Ask them if they have heard about the upcoming Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Assuredly they will have and you will have a great way to talk to them about their views. Ask them if they are registered and if they are, if they know who they are voting for. You will encounter several viewpoints - voters who are strongly already set for their candidate, voters who are on the fence, and voters who may not have even planned to vote. You will also encounter people who are not registered to vote.

An important note for dealing with all the above scenarios - BE PREPARED! You need to know without a shadow of a doubt why you are supporting Obama. You do not, however, need to put it in long or extravagent terms - just be sincere and honest. Tell them about the issues and reasons closest to your heart. But always be prepared to back up your views! An uninformed supporter casts a bad light on the Obama campaign.

If you encounter a strong Clinton supporter - There are many talking points you may want to read up on that cover the objections Hillary supporters always seem to raise. But the biggest one and most likely to come up? Experience. They will say they’re voting for Hillary because they want an experienced candidate in the White House. There have been many news reports lately debunking her claims of ‘experience’, especially regarding ‘her’ peace talks in Norhtern Ireland. Have that information on hand in your aresenal. But sometimes, you need to speak to supporters in simple and direct language. Points that will hit home and stay on their mind.

If they say their main reason for supporting Hillary is experience, tell them this: ” Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.” Direct, to the point, and true! - Note: this amusing quote is not of my own creation, but the Obama supporter who thought of it wants to spread it everywhere!

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals — whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband’s serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of “Clinton apologists” — who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let’s face it — Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen — isn’t it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her — that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America’s Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative — personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama’s message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried “shame on you, Barack Obama” for his campaign tactics, while (if we’re to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he “reject” the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous “3am” attack ad — which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama’s perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol’ Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband’s patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we’re at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

It’s clear that Hillary’s back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there’s no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she’s accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she’ll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:

Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol’ fashioned “knife fight?”

And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?

However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she’ll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama’s experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she’ll have become Mr. McCain’s second running mate.

She’s proven that she cares more about “Hillary” than “unity.” More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She’s become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits — as long as she takes everyone else with her.

On Friday, one of Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton “a monster” during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me — who’ve watched Hillary’s descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.

Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?

I don’t know.

All I know is…I’m through apologizing.

Published in The Huffington Post

Who’s Winning?

Consider the top 9 “big” states that have voted so far:
State . . . . . . . Obama . . . . . . . . ..Clinton
California . .  .2,126,000 . . . . . . .2,553,000
Texas . . . . .  1,358,000 . . . . . . .1,459,000
New York. . . .  698,000 . . . . . . .1,003,000
Illinois. . . .     1,302,000 . . . . . . . . 662,000
Ohio  . . . . . .    982,000. . . . . . . 1,212,000
Georgia . . . . .  704,000 . . . . . . . .330,000
New Jersey. . . 492,000 . . . . . . . .603,000
Virginia  . . . .    627,000 . . . . . . . .350,000
Washington  . . 354,000 . . . . . . . .316,000

Total Votes . . 8,643,000 . . . . . . 8,487,000

Obama                 Clinton
California . .  .    167 . . . . . . . . . .   203
Texas . . . . .  . . . 99 . . . .  . . . . . . . .94
New York. . . . . . 93 . . . . . . . . . .   139
Illinois. . . .  . . . .104 . . .  . . . . . . . .  49
Ohio  . . . . . .  . . .66. . .  . . . . . . . . . 75
Georgia . . . . .  . .60 . . .  . . . . . . . . .27
New Jersey. . . .  48 . . . .  . . . . . . . .59
Virginia  . . . .  . . .54 . . . .  . . . . . . . .29
Washington  . . .  53 . . .  . . . . . . . . .25

Total Del. . . . . 744 . . .  . . . . . . . . 700

The first thing is that Hillary’s experience argument is a myth. Barack has served for more years in elected office (8 years in the Illinois senate before being elected to the US Senate in 2004), and nearly all of his other work experience is in public service — either community organizing or civil rights law (he did spend one year after graduating from Columbia University — with a major in International Relations — working for a marketing firm in New York while he figured out what he really wanted). Then he went to work for a few years for a church-based organization helping to organize a devastated community on the south side of Chicago before entering Harvard Law School. Barack was the President of the Harvard Law Review — the most prestigious credential of any law school in the world — and could have gone on to his choice of megabucks positions (as Hillary did in her law career), but he chose to serve people. One of his professors, a pretty famous guy named Laurence Tribe, has taught countless students at Harvard Law — including dozens of world leaders, judges, heads of corporations, etc. — and says that of all of them, Barack Obama was (in addition to being an outstanding scholar) extraordinarily able to bring diverse groups and interests together to forge win-win solutions. That’s the opposite of Hillary, who is well known to cause polarization, and prefers gridlock to compromise.

After law school, and while serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, as a “senior lecturer.” The University wanted to make him a professor, but he refused because he wanted to work in public service. If you search the web about this, you’ll find interviews with many of his students — all of them are so encouraging about the man.

Basically, if Hillary’s experience argument were true, it would mean that Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush are as qualified as she is to be president. (Both Ronald Reagan and George Bush were governors as well as presidents, just like Bill Clinton).

In the foreign policy arena Barack lived in Indonesia, as a child, for a few years, and otherwise was raised in Hawaii — really different cultures than that of the mainland US. In Hawaii diversity is the status quo, which it wasn’t on the mainland (and still isn’t in many places). This is a huge asset in our “global village.” This and his cool head, unflappable demeanor, and demonstrated judgment make him ready to “answer that 3 am phone call.” Barack has demonstrated an ability to bring conflicting factions together to hammer out mutually beneficial solutions — including bipartisan achievements in the Senate — and this is clearly a valuable trait to bring to the international relations arena (not to mention his undergraduate education). Additionally, Americans abroad overwhelmingly have voted for Barack, because it is clear that the rest of the world hopes that he is elected. America’s image abroad is tarnished, to say the least, and Barack will restore America’s credibility internationally when he’s elected. Of course, he’ll have to maintain that instant boost that America will receive.

In terms of health care, it would be optimal if everyone could be insured. But Hillary’s plan leaves people out as well. Massachusetts citizens, who have a mandated health insurance system, have found that, when self-insured, their rates have gone up as much as 30%. Many have been forced to opt out because they can no longer afford it, and then they are fined for non-compliance. Barack’s plan will lower costs, because of a very different implementation strategy that will save an average family $2500 per year. With Hillary’s plan, insurance costs for average Americans will increase, including costs for employers. Additionally, there are tens of thousand of Americans who choose alternative health care, or whose religion or culture prohibits conventional western health care, or requires a different approach than western medicine offers. Hillary’s plan does not allow these Americans to opt out without penalty, if at all.

From DailyKos on Clinton and Obama’s Senate Bills:

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”.

If you are interested in doing your own research, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look it up. There are too many bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama in the Illinois Senate to list here. Links to these bills:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?GA=93&MemberID=747
and http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Here are the links that speak to who Barack Obama is and his experience and beliefs that have prepared him to be the President of the United States:

1. Introductory video developed for the Iowa campaign:
http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/content/iowagettoknow

2. The many bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama in the Illinois Senate:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?GA=93&MemberID=747
and http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

3. This video of Barack’s Call to Renewal speech is 38 minutes long — and a bit dry. It’s not a stump speech, rather it’s a reasoned discussion of Barack’s views about politics and religion. If you are familiar with the Bible — you’ll be impressed. Even more impressive is his thinking about the relationship of (and separation of) church and state: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

4. This video shows a relaxed, informal Barack:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2007/05%20Other/Obama/?action=view&current=Obama-Diner-CNNFF.flv

5. Meet Derrick, and learn his opinions (Derrick is a random young supporter on the street outside of the California debates, quite possibly chosen because he has very dark skin, and the reporter assumed he wouldn’t know very much): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

6. Here’s the most fun — hip hop music and companion video (listen to the words): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVe0kMzqN0U

7. Bill Clinton’s Fear vs. Hope video supports the basis Barack Obama’s campaign in the oppositions own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo