Clinton takes lead (in missed Senate votes)
Many readers saw the comment/thesis of a reader named "fleaflicker" in the thread about the latest debate. He was responding to Obama's admission that as Chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over NATO, he has yet to hold a substantive meeting because he's been too busy campaigning.
For those who missed or only skimmed the comment, I can sum it up in eight words: Obama's attendance record has been poor while campaigning. After going on a 2300+ word rant, outlining each of Obama's missed votes and committee meetings, fleaflicker then tells readers that only Hillary is actually doing her job. Ipso facto: she's the one to vote for.
Well, tell it to Reuters, fleaflicker. Reuters reports that in the Senate: "Clinton missed 18 of 21 votes while Obama missed 10 of 21 roll calls so far this year." (The article also says that McCain has missed the same number as Obama: 10. This despite the fact that he's had the nomination locked up for three full weeks).
Now, I'm not excusing Obama (or anyone else's) missed votes or participation while campaigning. I share a bit of fleaflicker's base anger towards politicians putting election over governance. But the idea that this is a reason to favor Hillary over Obama is absurd.
I would also say that Obama started without the name-recognition and having pledged not to take money from lobbyists and PACs. He also did not get a flood of max donations for corporate Dems (60% of Hillary's money is from max $2300 donors). So Obama's had considerably more pressure on him to spend his time meeting Americans and raising donations in $15 and $20 increments (Obama now has over ONE MILLION individual donars!).
His constant campaigning is the only reason that he's been able to stand toe-to-toe with the Billary juggernaut. I'm not completely excusing him for missing votes and meetings, but I understand that with so many disadvantages as an insurgent candidate, that he had to spend every moment on the road talking with the American people if he ever hoped to see his brand of change become a reality.
I would love to know what fleaflicker's excuse is for Hillary missing 85% of her Senate votes this year? He's probably long gone though, cutting-and-pasting that same misleading piece into threads all the way to the blogsphere horizon.
For those who missed or only skimmed the comment, I can sum it up in eight words: Obama's attendance record has been poor while campaigning. After going on a 2300+ word rant, outlining each of Obama's missed votes and committee meetings, fleaflicker then tells readers that only Hillary is actually doing her job. Ipso facto: she's the one to vote for.
Well, tell it to Reuters, fleaflicker. Reuters reports that in the Senate: "Clinton missed 18 of 21 votes while Obama missed 10 of 21 roll calls so far this year." (The article also says that McCain has missed the same number as Obama: 10. This despite the fact that he's had the nomination locked up for three full weeks).
Now, I'm not excusing Obama (or anyone else's) missed votes or participation while campaigning. I share a bit of fleaflicker's base anger towards politicians putting election over governance. But the idea that this is a reason to favor Hillary over Obama is absurd.
I would also say that Obama started without the name-recognition and having pledged not to take money from lobbyists and PACs. He also did not get a flood of max donations for corporate Dems (60% of Hillary's money is from max $2300 donors). So Obama's had considerably more pressure on him to spend his time meeting Americans and raising donations in $15 and $20 increments (Obama now has over ONE MILLION individual donars!).
His constant campaigning is the only reason that he's been able to stand toe-to-toe with the Billary juggernaut. I'm not completely excusing him for missing votes and meetings, but I understand that with so many disadvantages as an insurgent candidate, that he had to spend every moment on the road talking with the American people if he ever hoped to see his brand of change become a reality.
I would love to know what fleaflicker's excuse is for Hillary missing 85% of her Senate votes this year? He's probably long gone though, cutting-and-pasting that same misleading piece into threads all the way to the blogsphere horizon.
By Robert - 2/28/2008
3 Comments:
I'd like also to address fleaflicker's underlining point. The thread was about the debate. His criticism was about Obama's answer that he'd been too busy campaigning to hold a meeting.
Personally, I found this answer refreshing. Look, when Hillary was attacked for losing instead of creating job in up-state NY what did she say? Not her fault. Gore lost the general.
When she was attacked for not releasing her taxes she blamed some invisible paper-handlers who were dragging their feet.
By comparison, Obama's answer demonstrated that he was capable of answering frankly and willing to take responsibility not just finger point.
both guilty.
but good point that she is silly to claim high ground in the debate.
Robert - not a big deal, but as Ben pointed out before, Obama's campaign accounts for "individual donors" differently the the other top tier candidates, artificially inflating the number. Whatever, he has a ton of support and now looks to win the nomination so it doesn't matter, but I still think it is a point worth mentioning.
Post a Comment
<< Home