We wanted to take just a few words to make our case – as fellow committed
progressives – for Hillary Clinton. We have fought hard to end the awful war in
Iraq, to promote economic fairness and social justice; and to elect fellow
progressives to public office. We believe that Hillary’s campaign represents an
enormous opportunity for change. And not just because electing the first woman
president would shatter the political glass ceiling in our country once and for
all. But because a President Hillary Clinton would represent a strong
repudiation of the misguided, destructive policies of the Bush Adm inistration.
We are fortunate to have two excellent Democratic candidates running. But
elections are about choices, and we are thrilled with our choice. We hope
you’ll join us.
A message from Jim McGovern and Barney Frank
Please share widely!
heartlanddem says
I said here. You’re awesome too Congressman Frank (except the casino thing…the numbers don’t work).
bean-in-the-burbs says
Will be voting for Obama.
nathanielb says
It’s time for the Democratic Party to put an end to the Clinton era. The couple has effectively been the leaders of the party since 1992.
<
p>Hillary is not that bad, but we need need a rupture, a break from the past. For a lot of reasons, many of them unfair, 40+% of Americans disapprove of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She will not be able to build a lasting Democratic majority. Bill Clinton couldn’t do it either. Triangulation only works in the short term.
<
p>Barack Obama and his strong support for ethics reform, government transparency, ending the Iraq War, affordable health care, and national unity represent the best chance for the Democratic Party in the coming years.
sabutai says
Hillary is against national unity and affordable health care?
centralmassdad says
that he doesn’t like Hillary because the Republicans don’t. Whereas, Republicans might like Obama, which makes him good.
bob-neer says
And thinks Obama is more straightforward than Clinton. Plus, some of that 40%, or whatever, are Democrats.
nomad943 says
<
p>Umm .. and some WERE democrats ..
nathanielb says
No, not at all. I’m saying that Barack Obama is more likely to bring out national unity and ensure affordable health care.
leonpowe says
That Senator Clinton has a big advantage on health care and knows the subject better.
<
p>That said, it was a proud night for our party.
nathanielb says
I like Barack’s approach better: do not take any money from health care industry lobbyists, make health care reform policy discussion live on C-Span, and do not fine those individuals who still cannot afford health insurance after reforms are enacted.
theopensociety says
from taking any money from the health care industry and aren’t the congressional hearings and sessions already televised on C-Span?
nathanielb says
Obama has been strong on passing ethics reform in both the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate. Hillary has taken more money from the health care industry than any presidential candidate. I think Obama would be more likely to break the influence of corporate money from the political process.
<
p>In addition, Hillary wants to claim that her 8 years as the president’s wife is part of her “35 years of experience” in public service. If so, then she can take credit for the deregulation in areas like banking and telecommunications that Bill brought forth in the 1990s. I just do not picture a corporate lawyer like Hillary taking strong stands against the private sector in areas like health care.
<
p>As for the C-Span thing: when Hillary tried to revamp health care in 1993, all the sessions were behind closed doors and the whole process was very secretive. Nothing was televised. What Obama is saying is that he will have representatives from the health care industry explain why they do not want to cover people with pre-existing conditions, etc. on live television. I think this would be good for democracy.
theopensociety says
Under what authority is Obama going to haul people in to appear before live television? What if they refuse? More importantly, does he really think people are going to even watch? In any case, I think we all know why the health care industry does not want to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is called money. It costs them money. They are in the insurance business to make money. What more does anyone need to know? So we either make them cover pre-existing conditions by law or we provide some financial incentive so they will do it on their own.
stephgm says
Could someone in authority please explain to this child that it is not OK to score comments with ‘threes’ and ‘zeros’ simply because he disagrees?
nathanielb says
Hello StephGM – it’s the child here. If it is not proper to designate Zeros and Threes to comments I do not like, then I apologize for doing that. I thought it was allowed to signify whether you agree or disagree with the comments. I certainly do not actually think the comments are “worthless” or “should be deleted.” I comment on here every so often – but am not familiar with all the specific rules.
<
p>If I offended anyone with my comment ratings – then I am honestly sorry. I do not think any of the comments are worthless. I will try to use the comment ratings in a more proper way from now on.
<
p>Ok – gotta go get my diaper changed now.
stephgm says
Here’s your cookie. đŸ˜‰
<
p>I thought that was probably the case — that you just had a different view of the game rules, evident in the funny contrast between your ratings (like kicking someone swiftly in the shins) and verbal responses (generally polite disagreement).
<
p>Further refinement in protocol (though this is just my view; others may differ): I think that it is not generally necessary to rate most posts, and that commenting and replying is generally redundant. No one should mind if you want to grant a standing ovation and also verbalize your praise for someone’s outstanding and eloquent comment (a true six). On the other hand, words should suffice when you disagree or think someone has a wrongheaded view. Reserve the four for when you want to indicate that you think someone wrote something boneheaded but you are too lazy to tell them so in words? Three means that a post is worthy of contempt. A zero indicates that you think a comment is so offensive that it should really be removed.
<
p>Just my take on things.
<
p>
nathanielb says
Thanks for letting me know!
alexwill says
to counter that ridiculous 0, but…
<
p>
<
p>The former is in Obama’s plan, and I presume in Clinton’s also. Were you positing this as a disagreement or just pointing out how it has to be done?
theopensociety says
I was pointing out how it should be done to ensure success, but Hillary Clinton’s plan also requires coverage of pre-existing conditions.
theopensociety says
Because he gives good speeches?
ryepower12 says
Because Barack Obama would never support right-wing positions like the we-need-to-save-Social-Security meme or liquid coal…
<
p>Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the DLC types either. I’ve railed against them for a very long time. It’s just that Obama has shown right from the start, when became buddies with Joe Lieberman, that he’s one of them.
<
p>So, I’ll go with the Devil that I know, because at least Hillary has a tiny amount of relevant experience, something Obama completely lacks.
lasthorseman says
Bill/Bush are great buddies now. Selections are about selecting what corpo media tells dumbed down people to elect.
<
p>End Game, now on Google for free viewing.
http://video.google.com/videop…
2 hours but one thousand stars above Inconvienient Truth.
hlpeary says
Congressman Jim McGovern may not be the longest serving member of the Mass. Congressional delegation, but he sure stands head and shoulders above the rest. I like the others, but McGovern makes you proud to be a Democrat.
michaelbate says
Every time that the so-called “Flag Amendment” has come up (you know, the one that bans flag desecration, whatever that means), Jim McGovern has voted for it.
<
p>This amendment would, for the first time in our history, repeal a portion of the Bill of Rights and put that repeal into our Constitution.
<
p>His votes for this were disgusting. Even Joe Lieberman voted against it.
justice4all says
I’m not a one issue voter. and there are far worse things to worry about that really disgust me. You know – the ones that really take the paint off your fender.
bluetoo says
…these two are what I wish every member of Congress was like. Barney Frank and Jim McGovern make me proud to be from Massachusetts.
lolorb says
both are going to become our future progressive senators from MA someday. Sign me up now for either campaign.
johnk says
That Barney is my Rep!!!! Thanks Jim and Barney.
chriso says
but it seems more appropriate here. Supporters of both Obama and Clinton can go back and forth discussing the changes in various polls, but the poll that says a certain number of voters have said they will never vote for Hillary is frozen in time. How old does a poll have to get before people stop citing it?
mannygoldstein says
First off, in her self-proclaimed 35 years of presidentially-oriented experience, Clinton has not been obviously instrumental in any important change. As far as I can tell, the only time that she did not flee from confrontation with Republicans was HillaryCare – which she lost badly. In order to stay in what she perceived to be the mainstream, she voted to go to war with Iraq: somehow, most Democrats in Congress were able to vote against going to war. Hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars later, she still won’t admit that she made the wrong call – so does this mean that most Democrats in Congress made the wrong decision by voting to not start an insane war?
<
p>Second, her campaign has been using the same old tactics that most campaigns use – copious prevarication, with a side order of thugishness. Nothing new there.
<
p>There is one area in which she may well represent change: if she gets elected, there’s a good chance that Democrats will quickly lose control of Congress as they did under Bill Clinton. The Clinton’s all-consuming triangulation strategy works well for the Clintons, but continually pushes the “middle” rightward, which helps deliver elections into the hands of Republicans.
justice4all says
How does this sentence work? “The Clinton’s all-consuming triangulation strategy works well for the Clintons, but continually pushes the “middle” rightward, which helps deliver elections into the hands of Republicans.”
<
p>Are you really stating that the shift in the country “rightward,” is due to the Clintons and the corresponding implication would be that if your guy is elected…there will be a shift “leftward?”
<
p>Hmmmmmm. Then how do you explain the popularity of Ronald Reagan? Bill wasn’t even on the national stage then. Were Bill and Hillary cooking up some serious national political triangulation from Arkansas? Aren’t you giving them just crazy superhuman powers?
<
p>Come now. Hysterical over-responses aren’t going to help. The majority of this country’s leaning right and/or going centrist for a long time.
<
p>Manny, I’ve been in politics for a long time. I’ve even been an elected municipal official myself (5 terms). I was a VC of my local city committee for years. The thing that keeps coming back to me is that when people have to talk about qualities that should be readily apparent – it usually means just the opposite. For example – as soon as people start blathering about honesty and integrity, I tend to shut down, because those qualities should be apparent without having to trumpet it. I also tend to distrust sermonizing without a whole lot of substance, ie the metrics/plans/data to “git-er-done” because I’ve seen it all before. You know – it’s the states and the cities and towns that have to sweep up (in terms of taxes) when the ivory tower feds don’t get it right, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t get taken in by flowery “speechifying” without seeing the substance. We have fewer hospitals and less care as a result of the BBA of 97. The Leave No Child Behind Act created mandates without a whole lot of cash to support them….and the Medicare Drug Benefit is more of a drug company giveaway than it is a benefit for the middle class. I need to see the tangibles this time around, because I know what happens when we don’t.
<
p>Now – back to work for me!
mannygoldstein says
<
p>When “Democrats” move to the right, the Republicans need to move further to the right AND sermonize about it (e.g., via Rush Limbaugh) in order to differentiate themselves. I do believe that the Clintons helped in our rightward shift.
<
p>I’m not saying that the country would necessarily move leftward if Obama got in office, although I happen to suspect it will – even though Obama has a very-left voting record, a lot of Republicans like him.
<
p>
<
p>In theory, the best thing would be honest candidates with specific plans – as we had with Dukakis and Tsongas. However, they got mauled. Charisma is pretty important.
<
p>In the current instance we have two people who have roughly the same precision in their plans, although one sorta has more experience and is perceived to be more specific. That candidate, however, has a truth problem, so we don’t know if her plans will actually get put into action. And her actual track record of decision making is pretty poor (e.g., attacking Iraq). The other candidate seems to be honest, smart, and is charismatic, and has a pretty good track record of making decisions. I’ll take the latter candidate – if he’s truly honest and smart, he’ll gravitate towards the right implementation. A liar, I think, can never be trusted to do the right thing, even if they speak pretty words.
theopensociety says
(which by the way, was a vote to authorize the president to use force, if necessary, not a vote for going to war with Iraq), would you say she was just following the mainstream with that decision too? She has said if she knew back then what she knows now, i.e., that President Bush would abuse the authority he was given as he did, she would not have voted that way. What more do you want? I think she has shown integrity on this issue.
hrs-kevin says
It thought was pretty obvious that Bush intended to go to war, and that this vote gave him permission. At the time I was deeply disappointed with how Clinton voted, but I also don’t forget that in fact many Democrats voted the same way.
hrs-kevin says
However, Clinton will have a huge obstacle to overcome in that fairly or unfairly she is really hated by Republicans and we can expect to see even worse obstruction from them than we saw in the Bill Clinton years. I am sure Obama will be (or already is) hated by Republicans to some degree, but not to the degree of Clinton.
<
p>
stomv says
had a GOP Senate and a GOP House. 08-12 will [IMO] have a Dem Senate and a Dem House.
<
p>Sure, one can obstruct in the minority, especially in the Senate. It’s far easier to obstruct in the majority though.
<
p>I don’t think that the GOP will be able to obstruct nearly as much in 08-12 as they could in 94-00. Furthermore, I don’t think that the POTUS will mater — Clinton or Obama. They’ll obstruct as much as they can regardless.
sabutai says
Republican Congresscritters are going to hate any Democratic president. Hillary will build that into how she approaches the legislative branch. I’d worry Obama would spend 18 months going in circles before cluing in that they aren’t, simply aren’t going to work with him.
jamaicaplainiac says
Hillary Clinton didn’t strongly repudiate the misguided, destructive policies of the Bush Administration while she was in the Senate. Has she suddenly developed some political courage while I wasn’t looking? Or would she, in the incredibly unlikely event she could defeat McCain, just continue to triangulate?