Obama: "I've been in elected office longer..."; criticizes closed nature of Hillary's task force

For Obama, It's Now or Never
Share September 05, 2007 4:24 PM

...

Obama also sought to answer charges from his Democratic rivals that he is too inexperienced to be president, by pointing to his experience in the Illinois state legislature.

"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them --certainly in the state legislative level."

Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate before his 2004 election to the United States Senate. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is in her second term as a United States senator, following eight years she spent in the White House married to former President Bill Clinton. When Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., left the Senate following his 2004 vice presidential run, he had only served one six-year term.

Obama also took aim at Clinton's work on health care, arguing that the "closed" nature of the task force she led undermined the chances for reform.

"What the president can do," said Obama, "is shine the spotlight on the process and mobilize the American people to keep the pressure on. And that's something that didn't happen. And in some ways, in '93 that didn't happen because it was a closed process. And not everybody understood what was taking place, so when the insurance companies and the drug companies starting airing those Harry and Louise ads, you know, nobody really knew what was what. And that's why the American people have to be involved."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/obama-on-dem-ri.html

the press includes hillary's 8 years of waving as experience yet, discount Obama's years as a constitutional scholar and lecturer and his 8 years in the state senate.
the media is acting like it's 2000 and are treating hillary like Bush and Obama and Edwards like they did Gore.

The argument that Obama's time as a community organizer,Professor, & State Senator, as being insufficient to show leadership for the office of President of the US is silly. Think about what Gee Duhbya's experience has bought us. In comparison Bush has NEVER served the public in any office other than a purchased Governorship of a politically corrupt state that caters to "Big Bidness". His first term as President was also purchased and the evidence is overwhelming that his "People" manipulated and bought his election. The second term was won because the Democrats couldn't find anyone truly worth while to run against him. His experience is in being the puppet and clown for the special interests he represents.

Hillary's experience and record are fairly good but that does not always equate with the ability to lead and unify people. In fact, she seems to have the opposite effect in polarizing people, whether on issues or the trivial matters of her grating personality.She seems so subject to opinion polls that it paralyzes her from being truly pro-active in her decisions or positions.

A true leader is not one who bullies or manipulates people and organizations to do his bidding, or whose leadership can be purchased by special interests, or who caters to whatever the polls dictate. A true leader is one who educates himself and staff on the important issues at hand, who weighs the options and outcomes of each decision, who is willing to listen to people that he may not agree with or like and still respect their position. A good leader is able to pull together opposing sides and come to a healthy balanced compromise that benefits the most on both sides. A good leader is one who shows grace under the constant glare of public light. A good leader is one who can motivate, inspire, and show by example the value of action and work toward a common goal. A good leader represents the best in himself/herself, and all of us in the choices to do good, say good things, act upon good instincts, and enact good laws. A good leader creates a setting where many people of diverse cultures, religions, races, and motives can come together to reach balanced treaties. A good leader will show strength of character, conviction, and universal values by his decisions, both in his personal life as well as his public life.

I believe Barack Obama has reflected every one of these traits. It's because of his past record that I believe in his future as the President of OUR United States. He represents the best in all of us and I believe he will represent our nation in the worlds arena with the grace, dignity, strength, and intellect that such a position requires. If anyone can take the bag of broken glass that will be the legacy handed to them in the coming presidency, he can. I believe he has the skills to appoint and direct the right people to help make a beautiful stained glass window of the whole mess. His integrity inspires me and I believe he represents the kind of leader America needs.

and that's the kind of experience we need right now.

I would not equate state treasurer, secretary of state, state auditor, or even lt governor experience rising to the level of governor.

I would give more emphasis to one's experience as a governor than to a US Senator or Representative. But that would also depend on the state and number of years served in that capacity.

as elected officials. Having endured the most experienced and worst Administration in modern times, people are looking for something else anyway.

The top 3 are pretty much on the same level when it comes to relevant political experience.

You also have to take into account that Edwards has a lot of campaigning experience.

Out of the current field I guess Richardson probably has the best resumé.

But for some reason, most people don't find him all that inspiring.

Al Gore is the best-qualified person for the job, but it looks like he won't jump in.

Legislative experience dealing with the big issues deal with people's problems whether in the Senate in DC or the State Senate is equally as valuable.

From what I have been able to find out Illinois generally only meets the first six months of the year.

The number of bills he has sponsored doesn't mean diddley squat. A sponsor in the Illinois Senate is someone that has added their name to a bill that someone else has authored. The author of the bill is referred to as the chief sponsor. Anyone can become a sponsor of a bill. The chief sponsor creates the language or has their staff provide the text needed.

It's easy for someone to pad their resume when the audience doesn't know the facts.

Perhaps you need to read up on your Jefferson.

Illinois state rules:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/95thSenateRules.pdf

Also, the Illinois State Senate is in business all year, not six months where evidently they play poker in the cafetaria according to your view.

Additionally, who is your preferred candidate?

2007

Since July 5, Illinois' Governor has called the General Assembly into 15 special sessions on various issues, including assault weapons, child support fund, sexual assault victim grants, Supportive Living Program, pensions, public transportation and the budget.

Special Sessions occur AFTER the regular sessions have been adjourned and there is unfinished business.

2005

Recessed May 31


Illinois does NOT spend its time year round as Congress does authoring bills, debating and passing bills. Illinois like many states has a specific time frame they must complete their session.

I don't have a disrespect for state legislators. They do not deserve to be on the same level as congressional members.

Thomas Jefferson
1776-1778 Virginia legislator
1779-1781 Governor of Virginia
1789-1793 US Secretary of State
1797-1801 VP
1801-1809 President

Jefferson had more experience than Obama or ANY of the candidates running for office.

My preference? GORE


Apparently, you were stumped on the bill sponsor rebuttal.

You apparently think it's no big deal and is merely "padding the resume" and "do not deserve to be on the same level as congressional members" .... And I never mentioned that Obama had more experience than Jefferson...

Have it your way. State senators are just a buncha losers. You win.

:crazy:

to be a Governor.

There is a big difference in being the chief sponsor (author) of a bill vs being a sponsor or co-sponsor. Credit should be given fully to the person responsible for the bill. Tagalongs deserve some credit but no where near the author that provided the time and effort and steering needed to get the bill passed.

What were the specific situations where Jefferson showed he respected local government?

(and on a whole lot more). I don't think any of the "top three" can really claim to be any more experienced than the rest - Hillary is maybe more experienced in the ways of Washington, but I don't really see that as an asset.

Quite honestly, Obama is the only one I see running at least somewhat on his record. He seems to be the most open and transparent frontrunner, as well. I want a President who knows they are working for the people, and Obama has stressed that in his campaign.

I'm kind of excited about the Gore rumors that have been floating around - I believe he could get us out of the hellhole we're in now. I'd love to see a Gore/Obama ticket. If Gore doesn't jump in, I think the question of experience is really moot. None of them have a lot of it, and Obama is really the only one that makes me a little bit hopeful.

the more Obama brings up his experience as a state legislator as an indecator of his experience... the more he lowers his credentials... really... dems are better than this... be honest...

the first caucus I attended... I was asked if I would like to run for state office... they were more than serious... the pay is crappy... it is difficult to have a real job along with serving...

has anyone arguing this point ever attended a state session? they are boring for the most part... some legislators are not even focused... this is a part time job... they argue about funding things around the state... they do not discuss national security... maybe in NY or Florida or border states... they rewrite state educational standards every four years and create more work for teachers... they give pork to their locals...

Obama is an attractive articulate Black man... if he were White? would he have Oprah supporting him? would he have the following he does? people say this type of thing about Hillary... if she were a "he" if she were not married to "Bill" would she have the same support?

Well I think the woman thing is a plus and minus for Hillary, the same as being Black is a plus and minus for Obama... being attractive is a plus and minus for Edwards... but I think to say that the eight years Hillary was in the White House means nothing is rediculous... I think we all know Hillary was not a "Laura" type of first lady... no more than Bill would be... so does her eight years in the White House count? you damn bet yah... otherwise people would not even debate it...

I like Obama, but he is not experienced enough to be president... I was disappointed he chose to run... he would better serve the party by being in the senate and being a voice of support for the democratic candidates... he is barely old enough to run.... likeability is not the top issue for me...

he should make a point of that as this the key point that is being used against him.

Still on the fence, but definitely voting Blue in the election. When I read comments and threads like this by Obama supporters, it totally drowns out his message and turns me away from him.

If you can't see the problem, then you are the problem.

when I heard Obama speak at the National Convention I thought WOW... give this guy a term or two and he will be a major player in the party... he really energized everyone in the party...

I now feel divisiveness among dems... and I see and hear a lot of Obama people going the negative route... don't like it... wish we could work as a party... decide who we like based on the issues.. who we feel will do the best job... and after the primaries are done rally for the top candidate... not feed the RW with negative sound bites for the general election...

you never get ahead by putting others down...

The comments in the OP are not mine. They are the candidate's, and based on a *real* ABC report. Obama is addressing the conventional talking points (in some circles) that he lacks experience. With these statements, he is defending his record. And I find his emphasis on open government and transparency refreshing. Sadly, however well-intentioned Hillay's plan was in 1993, her "task force" suffered due to perceptions (at least) of secrecy. That's not the way Obama says he would do business.

You are free to dismiss such contrasts as irrelevant smears or blame me for pasting the ABC story here. However, your trumped-up outrage rings rather hollow and, personally, i am a bit suspicious of it.

To think otherwise is to fantasize.


Unlike most of the Obama supporters, I was actually old enough to vote in the last several Presidential elections and can make up my own mind with out any help from cheerleaders, no matter how well-intentioned they may want to be.

Whatever. With that sour attitude, it's no surprise you're not a fan.

Your true colors are now showing... Keep talking.

regarding Obama defending his experience and criticisms of Hillary's task force.

Try again?

a little self-projection maybe?

Only freepers and those in total demogaugery mode get "outrage" when some disagree with their idol.

My point was showing how immature and unappealing some (not all) of the pro-Obama posting are and how they are a real turn off for those of us trying to follow the actual contexts of what each candidate is saying. Some of us actually like to think for ourselves and make our own big-boy decisions here.

I'd like to personally thank you for jumping right in and providing a prime example of what I was complaining about.


Good luck in all of your endeavors.

Still offering nothing of substance, eh?

If you are interested in following the "actual contexts of what each candidate is saying" you would have no problem with my OP. All it is is a snipped blog story on Obama's own comments regarding his experience and Hillary's task force. They were offered here without any commentary. So...why the whining?

Actually, I find your sanctimonious complaints about young, immature Obama supporters while celebrating your own "big-boy" decisions, and ability to think for yourself (:wow:), more humorous than *outrageous*, especially given their misplacement in this particular thread.

Pointing out that Obama is more exprienced than Hillary or Edwards is bashing them?? I'm confused.

said when invited back to the White House after President Clinton had spoke, " I can see now why I lost the election". Bush was not speaking about how handsome Clinton was, or how well dressed he looked, NO! It was Clinton's vast knowledge of any subject matter presented to him. Obama does not have this attribute and it comes across in his answers during debates, and one on one discussions. This time America (I hope ) will not fall like they did in 2000 by saying bush does not have to be the smartest man in the room. Well, for 7 years now we see what not being knowledgeable got us. There are many candidates running on the dem side that has this knowledge and I am afraid Obama does not. Oh sure he can give one hell of a speech and hit the mark just fine when he needs to draw out an emotional response from a crowd, but Americans are this time looking for experience, knowledge and that will be what propels the next person into the Oval Office...Myself, I say HRC....And it will not be someone that you would like to have a beer with or a slice of pizza....
We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Barack Obama is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it.(bill and hillary clinton: "divisive politics" that had demoralized the country even before President Bush took office.) You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character and try to bring down your opponent by charging her with being devisive, and saying this campaign for her is just a game:" that for others, politics seemed to be a game."9-3-07.
People are seeing through Obama and know he is all hat and no cattle.....We do not need a show horse we need a Thoroughbred.One which can sprint to the finish line in the democratic primaries and win and someone which can go the distance and win the presidency. That one person is HRC.

Frankly, Obama is the last person in the world I want working on health care issues. He has a problem (anger) with his parent's generation and people over 50 - among other things he has told the early boomers to get over themselves.

I absolutely do not trust him.

This is how ridiculous Obama supporters can be - just a few nights ago a 26 year old ardent Obama supporter told me the early boomers have drained the medicare and social security funds and they are ruining the country and he added "I hate them". I asked him where he got his information and he said "from the Obama campaign".

I asked him how many early boomers were on medicare and his response "All of them". I asked him how many were drawing social security and his response - "All of them". Then I asked him the age range for boomers - he didn't know.

He told me he is very political and follows the campaigns closely.

"He has a problem (anger) with his parent's generation and people over 50..."

Is that all ya got? Sheesh... and the idiot you talked to about trashing early boomers is not representative of Obama's campaign. The guy was an idiot and if he started talking that shit to me, I'd call him on it.

I hope that its not true and that any candidate would not hold anger against any age group period.

He must of thought he could excite enough younger voters with it that it would propel him into the WH.

At what cost?

Come on. No rational thinking individual would buy into that, especially one whose chance of success is by seeking funding and donations from a wide variety of sources. More baby-boomers contribute to political campaigns than 20 year olds as they have more disposable income.

Are you telling me Barack wants to alienate a hug chunk of his funding source?

I call BS.

His record is there if you care to find it.

and alot of young people, right here at DU, have been pissing about social security for years. They don't understand and it's the fault of the Democratic Party, led by the Clintons, for not making the case.

Bill wants people to believe he balanced the budget see, so he can't tell the truth that the "surplus" was actually FICA money from boomers that should have been put into a plan specifically for social security. Another area where his lack of leadership and triangulating has cost us dearly.

He was ridiculed - but right. Greenspan spoke in favor of the Bush tax cuts, that squandered it. But within a year, before 911, Greenspan was speaking of SS and Medicare being out of balance - and saying that the IOUs should be considered worthless as the money was spent. As he was a key voice in raising the regressive FICA taxes in the 1980s to insure their was money when the babyboom retired, this was disgusting. The increased FICA taxes, in essence allowed the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts that were highly biased to the wealthy. Those tax cuts could not have happened if it were not for the dishonesty of throwing the FICA surplus into the overall budget. This was wrong under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and W.

Read "Dreams of My Father" (like you really will). Any anger that he had dealt with race, not age, and he has long since resolved it in his heart and mind. He's not trying to start a war with any generation.

It is worth looking at because it gives incite into how she ran the development of a legislative package. She has says that she learned from the mistakes. One comment I read was that she learned to take things more incrementally.

I have never heard her say that the secrecy was a problem. Or, that her exclusion of legislators from the process was a problem. These seem to me to be alternative lessons that could be used. Co-opting leading legislators by involving them is likely a good idea - not to mention that many of them had far more experience than either she or Magaziner did.

There is no other program that she developed as first lady and I don't think there is a major Senate piece of legislation that she led on. There have been many NYT articles speaking of how well she works with others in the Senate - but I have never seen an example given that illustrates that. (drinking vodka with McCain is not what I am looking for.) So, at this point - that 1993 project shows how she would have done it then.

You met an Obama SUPPORTER, who dislikes the babyboom and you transfer his idiotic comments to OBAMA. If I find an outrageous Clinton supporter should I assume that anything she/he says reflects Hillary's position? Obama IS a babyboomer - a late babyboomer, but a babyboomer.

I don't think we can win if we don't take this on. :hi:

Anyone with Google could easily ferret out his actual record - if they are interested - and it's been posted here ad nauseum. Detractors are more interested in trying to paint an inaccurate picture of him and repeating it over and over Goebbels' style. It's just a means to an end for some, but it's really just a talking point for them because Obama's actual record speaks for itself.

How working with local people informed his legislation in Chicago, which informed his legislation in DC. The continuum isn't being made so that people see a trajectory that leads straight to the White House.

Hillary is doing that. Obama isn't.

"How working with local people informed his legislation in Chicago, which informed his legislation in DC. The continuum isn't being made so that people see a trajectory that leads straight to the White House"

I've been saying for weeks that he needs to get back to government reform/transparency and make it a centerpiece of his campaign because he freaking owns that issue.

He did just put out his new reform policy and his new TV ad makes it a focus so perhaps he will begin really running with it.