![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Kirk Watson FTL
Feb. 20th, 2008 03:54 pmSo Chris Matthews finally did something vaguely journalistic and actually pro-Clinton last night after the elections. He had a Clinton supporter/"surrogate" (US Rep from Ohio Stephanie Tubbs-Jones) and an Obama supporter/"surrogate" (Texas State Senator Kirk Watson) on his show last night, and asked Kirk Watson to name just one of Obama's legislative accomplishments. Watson froze like a monkey on Xanax and looked like a damn fool.
I was personally amused that Olbermann ribbed Matthews (and the Senate itself) and asked if HE could name even one accomplishment of the whole Senate in the last seven years. That cracked up the whole newsroom. But yes, that was super pathetic. And of course, now it's coming up in Hillary's speeches.
Now, I'm not denying that Watson screwed up. He did, and Barack should pull him off the press trail tout de suite. But Clinton is now making it seem like just because Watson is a moron, that means Obama doesn't actually HAVE any legislative accomplishments. Not the case. There's the Lugar-Obama bill, which expanded on the Nunn-Lugar bill to help secure weapons of mass destruction. He also was the primary sponsor of a Congo relief bill. He's worked on campaign finance reform and tried to add an amendment to SCHIP that would help the families of disabled soldiers. He has been a great advocate for veterans in general. In Illinois he was a leader on ethics reform and death penalty reform. He also managed to get homicide interrogations taped and addressed the "driving while black" issue -- which, if you've ever lived in Chicago, you know is a big problem. (The Chicago police are kinda infamous for having a bit of a race...thing.)
If you look at the two candidates during the time they've been in the Senate together, saying that Clinton has accomplished things while Obama hasn't would be a serious stretch. And Clinton's first term? She voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Hrm. I wouldn't personally be touting those particular accomplishments, but that's just me. And anyway, past presidential history has not borne out the idea that being a Senator makes you a good executive. Among the remaining candidates, only Huckabee has executive experience. Vote President Huckabee 2008! (Yikes.) Honestly, if the Democrats honestly wanted someone who had the appropriate experience for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Richardson so completely. (But then we wouldn't have gotten to see his post-election beard, which I personally think looks REALLY GOOD.)
Hillary -- serving on Wal-Mart boards, fucking up health care plans, destroying your civil liberties, authorizing pointless wars, and mismanaging campaigns for 35 years!
I was personally amused that Olbermann ribbed Matthews (and the Senate itself) and asked if HE could name even one accomplishment of the whole Senate in the last seven years. That cracked up the whole newsroom. But yes, that was super pathetic. And of course, now it's coming up in Hillary's speeches.
Now, I'm not denying that Watson screwed up. He did, and Barack should pull him off the press trail tout de suite. But Clinton is now making it seem like just because Watson is a moron, that means Obama doesn't actually HAVE any legislative accomplishments. Not the case. There's the Lugar-Obama bill, which expanded on the Nunn-Lugar bill to help secure weapons of mass destruction. He also was the primary sponsor of a Congo relief bill. He's worked on campaign finance reform and tried to add an amendment to SCHIP that would help the families of disabled soldiers. He has been a great advocate for veterans in general. In Illinois he was a leader on ethics reform and death penalty reform. He also managed to get homicide interrogations taped and addressed the "driving while black" issue -- which, if you've ever lived in Chicago, you know is a big problem. (The Chicago police are kinda infamous for having a bit of a race...thing.)
If you look at the two candidates during the time they've been in the Senate together, saying that Clinton has accomplished things while Obama hasn't would be a serious stretch. And Clinton's first term? She voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Hrm. I wouldn't personally be touting those particular accomplishments, but that's just me. And anyway, past presidential history has not borne out the idea that being a Senator makes you a good executive. Among the remaining candidates, only Huckabee has executive experience. Vote President Huckabee 2008! (Yikes.) Honestly, if the Democrats honestly wanted someone who had the appropriate experience for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Richardson so completely. (But then we wouldn't have gotten to see his post-election beard, which I personally think looks REALLY GOOD.)
Hillary -- serving on Wal-Mart boards, fucking up health care plans, destroying your civil liberties, authorizing pointless wars, and mismanaging campaigns for 35 years!
