Reply
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:50 am
Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- And a 'Miracle' Hillary Even Has a Chance to Win Iowa
By Greg Mitchell
Published: December 14, 2007
In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not even close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.
Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.
Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling you." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there.
He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.
Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama.
Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is not as important as substance."
He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."
One more dig at Obama? He said that Edwards had first run for president after just a few years in the Senate, but then completed his term and went out and conducted a serious study of poverty.
"I guess I'm old fashioned," he said, in wanting a president who had actually done things for people. He said some people could "risk" taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose.
When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that people would be "rolling the dice" if they picked Obama, the former president replied: "It's less predictable, isn't it?"
If a call had gone out from his wife's campaign to pull back any critiques of Obama, her husband clearly did not get the memo. Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com writes today that Clinton's people were in the control room at the Rose show urging him to cut the interview short.
Clinton attributed his wife's decline in Iowa to the press overplaying her poor answer to one debate question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens. He did say that he gets "tickled" watching Obama because of his attractiveness and political skills. "I like all these people," he said. "I have nothing bad to say about him or anyone else."
I wonder what Michelle Obama has to say about that.
Oh my goodness...!
(Yeah, Obama didn't do anything for people in his years as a community organizer or as a state senator...)
The loose cannon Bill is becoming more of an issue, something I've wondered about since that long NY'er article I've referred to a few times (forget the author).
I am once again going to point out the fact that Obama is a Chicago Daily political machine graduate. One of the crookedest machines in the U.S. He owes his career to them. Remember when Bush was running he was going to be a uniter. Obama is saying the same thing.
" the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate. "
8 Years Illinois State Senator, one term US Senator. Clinton still can not tell the truth!!
Hillary....slept a few times with a President, 2 Term Carpet Bag Senator from NY. Where is all this experience they say she has? With all the so called experience, why has she never sponsored a bill that actually became law?
And as for having no experience, thats the same thing that was said about Bill when he decided to run for President.
He won anyway, so I guess being inexperienced is a good thing.
Hillary Clinton's latest legislative sponsorship
I'm impressed with how much legislative activity and voting Senator Clinton has been able to do while running for president. Those who repeatedly say that Senator Clinton has done nothing legislative makes ignorant fools of themselves. Wise up! ---BBB
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.2, a bill to increased the minimum wage.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.5, a bill to permit federal funding to be used for research on lines of stem cells taken from a handful of blastocysts.
Senator cosponsored S. 1249, a bill that gives George W. Bush one year to close the Guantanamo.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S. 21, a bill to expand access to preventative health care for women, including distribution of contraception, teen pregnancy prevention programs and rape prevention education.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.215, a bill to prohibit corporations from abusing the public Internet infrastructure and charging extra for fast carriage of content.
Senator Clinton co-sponsored S. 309, a bill to set standards for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, and to enable governmental and nongovernmental sectors to meet those standards.
Senator Clinton's voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Re: Hillary Clinton's latest legislative sponsorship
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm impressed with how much legislative activity and voting Senator Clinton has been able to do while running for president. Those who repeatedly say that Senator Clinton has done nothing legislative makes ignorant fools of themselves. Wise up! ---BBB
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.2, a bill to increased the minimum wage.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.5, a bill to permit federal funding to be used for research on lines of stem cells taken from a handful of blastocysts.
Senator cosponsored S. 1249, a bill that gives George W. Bush one year to close the Guantanamo.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S. 21, a bill to expand access to preventative health care for women, including distribution of contraception, teen pregnancy prevention programs and rape prevention education.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.215, a bill to prohibit corporations from abusing the public Internet infrastructure and charging extra for fast carriage of content.
Senator Clinton co-sponsored S. 309, a bill to set standards for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, and to enable governmental and nongovernmental sectors to meet those standards.
Senator Clinton's voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
How many of those bills have been made law?
How many bills has she written and been the original sponsor of?
By your own list, she has been a cosponsor, meaning she put her name on someone elses bill.
How many bills has she been the originator of?
MM
MM, since you are the only one who cares, why don't you do the research?
BBB
Re: MM
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:MM, since you are the only one who cares, why don't you do the research?
BBB
If I was the only one that cares about her experience, this thread would not have started, and you would not have responded to it.
Re: MM
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:MM, since you are the only one who cares, why don't you do the research?
BBB
Ok, lets look at some of her votes.
She voted NO on a bill that would have helped low income people with home energy bills.
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3659&can_id=55463
Since 09/07/2007 she has 17 not voting out of 22 senate votes.
And on one bill to show support for the military she voted no...
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=15927&can_id=55463
But remember, she supports the troops.
She voted NO on a bill that would have required imported drug to be certified safe...
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12756&can_id=55463
I thought she wanted safer, cheaper, drugs available.
I guess not.
She voted no on the prescription drug bill...
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3276&can_id=55463
She voted NO on a bill to increase the minimum wage...
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3854&can_id=55463
She voted NO on a bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman.
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3376&can_id=55463
I thought she cared about the children
She voted NO on a bill that would have cut off funding for "cluster bombs".
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3897&can_id=55463
There is a long list of either not voting or NO votes on things she claims to care about.
BBB, ALL of these votes came from your original link.
Re: MM
That was a vote on an amendment to the bill, sponsored by Republicans. The bill itself was passed, and Clinton supported it.
That was the "sense of the senate" resolution condemning attacks made on Gen. Petraeus by, among others, Moveon.org. It had little if anything to do with "supporting the troops."
That amendment added language that required the sec. of health and human services to certify that the implementation of the act would not pose a danger to the public and would result in a significant reduction of costs to the consumer. Given the record of the Bush administration regarding drug costs, I'm not surprised that Sen. Clinton and 39 other senators opposed giving the executive branch this kind of gatekeeper function.
And that's a bad thing?
That was a vote on an amendment to the bill, sponsored by Republicans. The bill itself was passed, and Clinton supported it.
I am as opposed as anyone to fetuses carrying out violent crimes on pregnant women, but someone's got to draw a line somewhere.
That was to an amendment to the bill. The bill itself passed unanimously in the senate.
Joe
Thanks, Joe, for showing what a fool MM continues to be. I usually ignore him.
BBB
Re: Joe
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Thanks, Joe, for showing what a fool MM continues to be. I usually ignore him.
BBB
A wise policy, but I was concerned that some unsuspecting reader might have thought that, with all of those links,
mysteryman had accidentally stumbled upon some facts.
Re: Hillary Clinton's latest legislative sponsorship
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm impressed with how much legislative activity and voting Senator Clinton has been able to do while running for president. Those who repeatedly say that Senator Clinton has done nothing legislative makes ignorant fools of themselves. Wise up! ---BBB
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.2, a bill to increased the minimum wage.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.5, a bill to permit federal funding to be used for research on lines of stem cells taken from a handful of blastocysts.
Senator cosponsored S. 1249, a bill that gives George W. Bush one year to close the Guantanamo.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S. 21, a bill to expand access to preventative health care for women, including distribution of contraception, teen pregnancy prevention programs and rape prevention education.
Senator Clinton cosponsored S.215, a bill to prohibit corporations from abusing the public Internet infrastructure and charging extra for fast carriage of content.
Senator Clinton co-sponsored S. 309, a bill to set standards for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, and to enable governmental and nongovernmental sectors to meet those standards.
Senator Clinton's voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
The question was not about her voting record. The question was concerning bills the sponsored that actually became law.
I went here to find some information but it looks like there are no bill that became law that she sponsored (or co-sponsored).
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/sponsortrack/?id=10902
Re: Joe
joefromchicago wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Thanks, Joe, for showing what a fool MM continues to be. I usually ignore him.
BBB
A wise policy, but I was concerned that some unsuspecting reader might have thought that, with all of those links,
mysteryman had accidentally stumbled upon some facts.
OK, then show all of us exactly what was in my post that was not a FACT!!!
Since everything in my post came from her voting record, how was any of the information wrong or untrue??
Come on, show us, if you can!!!
Re: Joe
mysteryman wrote:OK, then show all of us exactly what was in my post that was not a FACT!!!
Since everything in my post came from her voting record, how was any of the information wrong or untrue??
Come on, show us, if you can!!!
I'll just take one example. I hope that satisfies you.
You said "She voted NO on a bill to increase the minimum wage." But your link went to a vote on an amendment (S. Amdt. 4376) to the minimum wage bill proposed by Sen. Enzi of Wyoming. It read, in relevant part:
(a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--
``(A) $5.70 an hour, beginning 6 months after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007; and
``(B) $6.25 an hour, beginning 18 months after such date of enactment;''.
Clinton voted against that amendment, but only because she supported an amendment (S. Amdt. 4322) proposed by Sen. Kennedy. That amendment differed from Enzi's proposal by calling for larger increases and a quicker starting date:
(a) Federal Minimum Wage.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--
``(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007;
``(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
``(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;''.
Sen. Clinton voted
in favor of that amendment, and that amendment received a majority of votes, but not enough to overcome the senate's three-fifths cloture rule. As you can see, not only is it false that Clinton voted against adopting a higher minimum wage, she voted in favor of a
larger minimum wage hike than the one proposed by Enzi.
Re: Joe
joefromchicago wrote:mysteryman wrote:OK, then show all of us exactly what was in my post that was not a FACT!!!
Since everything in my post came from her voting record, how was any of the information wrong or untrue??
Come on, show us, if you can!!!
I'll just take one example. I hope that satisfies you.
You said "She voted NO on a bill to increase the minimum wage." But your link went to a vote on an amendment (S. Amdt. 4376) to the minimum wage bill proposed by Sen. Enzi of Wyoming. It read, in relevant part:
(a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--
``(A) $5.70 an hour, beginning 6 months after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007; and
``(B) $6.25 an hour, beginning 18 months after such date of enactment;''.
Clinton voted against that amendment, but only because she supported an amendment (S. Amdt. 4322) proposed by Sen. Kennedy. That amendment differed from Enzi's proposal by calling for larger increases and a quicker starting date:
(a) Federal Minimum Wage.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--
``(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007;
``(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
``(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;''.
Sen. Clinton voted
in favor of that amendment, and that amendment received a majority of votes, but not enough to overcome the senate's three-fifths cloture rule. As you can see, not only is it false that Clinton voted against adopting a higher minimum wage, she voted in favor of a
larger minimum wage hike than the one proposed by Enzi.
Did she or didnt she vote NO to the amendment listed in the link?
I admit I should have used "amendment" instead of "bill", that was my error.
But, how does that change the information?
She voted NO, and I posted a link to the site that proved that.
So again, exactly what part of the info from her votes is wrong?
What part wasnt a fact?
playing cya MM? How Rovian of you....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace