So Clinton asks "wheres the beef?"...who does she sound like more...

[george_maniakes]

Mondale or the old lady in the commercial. Must be another effect of the writers strike, the're going back 20 years for material.

"Of Obama, she said, voters are beginning to ask, "Wait a minute, what is the substance here? Where is -- as famously was said years ago -- where's the beef?" (And there's the quote we've all been waiting for.)"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/Story?id=3105288&page=2

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. maybe she can hop in her Delorian and help Marty McFly's parents too!

as long as she's traveling back to 1984.

[AndyA]

6. I'm asking you to believe...

What a hypocrite Barack is. Does he really think people are going to buy that bringing about real change stuff from him? Well, I guess a few have, but he's up to his armpits in donations from lobbyist friends.

How the hell is he going to bring about real change? He's indebted to the same people Bush is/was indebted to. They will not let him take their profits away from them. He has compromised his ability to bring about any meaningful change, because he owes everybody now.

What a load of crap.

Can someone please explain to me how Barack is going to bring about change, when it's going to impact his rich corporate donors the most?

[george_maniakes]

8. That would have been a good question on saturday night to them all...

How do expect people not to be cynical when you accept large amounts of money from people with certain interests that arent necessarily in the interests of the country. With that one, i agree with edwards 100%.

[AndyA]

12. I really would like an answer. No one seems to know.

I've asked his campaign through their website. I've asked local supporters. And I've asked here at DU, and no one seems to have an answer.

If people really, truly, want change, they need to know how he is planning to bring about this meaningful change. Otherwise, it's just pandering, which means nothing except more of the same in Washington.

[stillcool]

23. i think that argument..

about being indebted is dis-ingenuous. No one gets to play the game without serious backing. I like John Edwards, but every time someone tries to point to Obama as being somehow more of a corporatist than the other two...it just drives me nuts. How did John Edwards get elected to the Senate? How did he finance his 2004 campaign? What was said on his trips to the Bilderberg Group? What speeches has he made to AIPAC? The tit for tat shit never ends. The only difference I see is that one has a better ability to be 'heard'.

Quintilian (95 CE)
I cannot imagine how the founders of cities would have made a homeless multitude come together to form a people, had they not moved them by their skilful speech, or how legislators would have succeeded in restraining mankind in the servitude of the law had they not had the highest gifts of oratory. The very guiding principles of life, however intrinsically honourable they are, nevertheless possess more power to shape men’s minds when the brilliance of eloquence illumines the beauty of the subject. And so, although the weapons of eloquence are powerful for good or ill, it is unfair to count as evil something which it is possible to use for good.
Source: Quintilian, The Orator’s Education. Ed. and trans. Donald A. Russell. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001. II.xvi.9-10

[sunonmars]

2. and the problem is

Hilary has been under such scrutiny, why shouldnt anyone else running for this nomination have the same scrutiny. I think its pathetic when people say she's attacking when she has every right to ask for the details of his plans. He has the same right to ask of her and Edwards. Lets be fair if we are to have a fair contest with full evaluation of why they should be President. How would you feel if a candidate gets the nomination and then falls flat on their faces because none of us had the brains to ask where is the full details. Who can you blame then?

I don't care if its a black man, a white woman or a withe southerner but lets be truthful, they must explain themselves to us. FULLY!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. This is why I don't like Hillary. She's got no substance.

She's nothing but platitudes and cheesy 80's one-liners.

[bellasgrams]

14. She has more brains, knowledge, experience, skill than any

e running now. And Richardson is right up there with her. I can't understand the Obama, and Edwards support. They have accomplished nothing for the country. Obama even voted for the Patriot Act, which should have never become law. It's just turned into a popularity contest. No substance.

[george_maniakes]

16. Just to be clear, did hillary vote for the patriot act also?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Yes, of course. Twice.

Originally in 2001, again to renew in 2006.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Sorry, no.

Clinton's been in public office for eight years. Obama's held public office for ten.

Don't believe the lies.

[karynnj]

25. Obama voted for the second version of the Patriot Act - as did HRC

This was in 2006 and after a filibuster to insure that some of the worst provisions were removed or fixed. HRC herself voted for it - as she had the original bill that was worse (all but Feingold did). This was a sleazy attempt to make what was a reasonable vote seem a flip flop. Many Senators, including the Presidential nominee, took the position Obama took in 2004 - that the Patriot Act had problems and needed to be changed.

The Democrats had won many improvements in the Patriot Act. They passed this version because the alternative was that the old Patriot Act would stay in place. It was never a possiblity that there would be no Patriot Act. They thought they had gotten as much as they could at that point in time. A few days later, a group of Senators concerned with the new enacted Patriot Act, including Obama but not HRC,, signed onto an amendment that would fix remaining problems and sunset parts of the bill again. The idea was when there was sufficient support - it would be brought to the floor.

Here's the 2006 roll call:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 3199 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 29 Vote Date: March 2, 2006, 03:01 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 3199
Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 89
NAYs 10
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea

Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Here is the amendment from the Senate record:

"S.2369
Title: A bill to require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen (introduced 3/6/2006) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 3/6/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/6/2006--Introduced.

Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) reduce from 30 to seven days after the issuance of a warrant the period in which notice must be given to the subject of the warrant that it was issued to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense; and (2) repeal provisions treating as conclusive the certification of the Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that certain disclosures of information endanger national security.

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to: (1) authorize judicial review of nondisclosure orders (orders prohibiting persons from disclosing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has sought information); (2) repeal the requirement prohibiting judicial review of production or nondisclosure orders until one year after such order.

Requires a production order (an order from the FBI Director to produce any tangible thing, such a book, document, or record) to either: (1) pertain to a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; or (2) be relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of the authorized investigation.

Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to sunset, as of December 31, 2009, the national security letter authority provisions added to the federal criminal code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and the National Security Act of 1947.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

ALL ACTIONS:

3/6/2006:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1791-1792)
3/6/2006:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1792-1793)

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Cantwell, Maria - 3/9/2006
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/6/2006
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/6/2006
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 3/6/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/6/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck - 3/6/2006
Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/6/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 5/15/2006
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/6/2006
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 3/6/2006
Sen Obama, Barack - 3/6/2006
Sen Salazar, Ken - 3/6/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. - 3/6/2006

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
Senate Judiciary Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE*** "

[george_maniakes]

26. Seems like obama did some good there in reducing the harsh effects of the patriot act.

So what exactly is hillarys problem with obama on this issue?

[karynnj]

30. i think she was trying to lable both Edwards and Obama as flip flopping

By criticizing (in detail ;) ) Obama's talk of Edwards' changes. Then she weht after the Patriot Act - this made no sense as they voted the same way. (I have no problem with HRC's first vote - a large part of what was in the Patriot Act was neeeded and only Feingold voted against it). I don't remember Obama being a huge player in the filibuster in late 2005, Feingold led it - but I do think that the changes they won were for the good. Feingold did not vote for the new version - but it was a protest vote.

[george_maniakes]

33. so would i be right in saying hillary was being misleading in describing obama's stance...

on the patriot act and his vote on it?

[karynnj]

37. Yes

He said he didn't think it was good - and he voted for a changed bill, that many still don't like parts of. But it was not the one he criticized.

[TahitiNut]

4. It's actually the Achilles Heel of the Obama campaign.

He has been maddeningly generic and ephemeral, imho. Where he's sketched out positions, they're too "kiss y9our sister" for my taste. Yes, he has charisma. Yes, he's an orator. Yes, that personal style definitely energizes folks and that's important. At the same time, I'm not interested in someone who'll go where the wind blows ... with style.

The Obama campaign has gone through Phase I (identify WHO he is) and Phase II (here are values - for the values voters) but I'm still unimpressed with the policy positions.

[dailykoff]

13. People have been posting links to his legislation 24/7.

Where have you been?

[sandnsea]

29. Here

"What's most overwhelming about urban poverty is that it's so difficult to escape - it's isolating and it's everywhere. If you are an African-American child unlucky enough to be born into one of these neighborhoods, you are most likely to start life hungry or malnourished. You are less likely to start with a father in your household, and if he is there, there's a fifty-fifty chance that he never finished high school and the same chance he doesn't have a job. Your school isn't likely to have the right books or the best teachers. You're more likely to encounter gang-activities than after-school activities. And if you can't find a job because the most successful businessman in your neighborhood is a drug dealer, you're more likely to join that gang yourself. Opportunity is scarce, role models are few, and there is little contact with the normalcy of life outside those streets."

Overflowing with solutions, because he knows the right questions.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_19.php

[TahitiNut]

32. You really don't seem to know the difference, then.

Yes, that's an apt DESCRIPTION of the various aspects of inner city poverty and the impact on children. Hell, I could describe the same things. That wouldn't make me a Presidential candidate. The questions have to do with where to begin ... what STRUCTURAL changes (in the systems) need to be made and what programs and iniiitiatives then need to be enacted.

What's the APPROACH to dealing with such entrenched, SYSTEMIC problems??

:eyes:

While it's necessary to show me the water before teaching me to swim, it's a waste of fucking time while I'm DROWNING!


FWIW, if you want to see an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at Kucinich's proposal (close to the NSP proposal) for getting out of Iraq. It achieves the needed specificiity - it let's me know how he'd go about DOING it.

[sandnsea]

35. Did you read the damn speech?

No. Because it's full of proposals on how to deal with poverty and economic opportunity.

You want to know what Obama would do about Iraq? Go to his web site and read his proposals and speeches.

You want to know his foreign policy philosophy? Read what he said when the bulk of the Democratic Party was marching off to war.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

You want to argue the merits of his beliefs and plans, fine. Learn what they are so you can disagree with them.

I get so sick of DUers who break their arms patting themselves on the back about how smart they are, then repeat campaign or teevee talking points because they won't take 1 hour to go learn something on their own.

And goddammit stop eating those fatty steaks!!! :)

[TahitiNut]

36. I've read Barack Obama's 2002 Iraq Speech a few times (once while eating steak).

While it speaks (generally) to his opposition to the Iraq War, it does NOT address the issue of how this nation should have responded to the 9/11 attack nor does it speak to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Indeed, it doesn't even get specific ENOUGH on why people SHOULD be opposed to invading Iraq. (Yes, what it DOES say are things i CAN agree with ... but that ain't enough.)

For comparison, read Ron Paul's Iraq Speech. Before there's any misunderstanding, I'm NOT inclined to EVER vote for Ron Paul. (I find far too many of his positions - and his world view - reprehensible.) That does not, however, mean I disagree with him wholesale. (I don't do that with ANYONE.) But his speech is candid and informative - not just a rallying cry for those already in agreement with his conclusions.

By both profession and inclination, I'm obsessively analytical. While I, more than almost anyone, am fully aware of the fact that 90% of solving problems is knowing what the problem is, I'm not inclined to be impressed with rhetoric that's designed SOLELY to win the hearts already won. I'm inclined to seek reasoning, analysis, and a portrayal of the person's approach to actually dealing with such issues ... either superficially or foundationally.

I can't tell from either Obama's site or all the second hand sources HOW he regards the deep=seated corruption and the many ways in which the system has been contorted and twisted to give advantage to the advantaged, wealth to the wealthy, and power to the powerful. Where's his stance on putting teeth back into the FCPA??? (It's been de-fanged by a whole series of corporate dental operations.)

Kucinich doesn't leave me guessing. Even Edwards seems to have had a "come to Jesus" moment and describes approaches (some of which I profoundly disagree with) with sufficient specificity.

One of the weaknesses I see with Barack is that he's not lived in the "belly of the corporate beast" and fails to appreciate the degree to which corruption has become BANAL in the executive offices and board rooms of global corporations. Edwards has. Say what you want about trial lawyers, they're analytical and most of the really good ones can DEVOUR vast quantities of information more rapidly than Smirk could snort coke. Obama's grounding in Constitutional law is a hopeful indicator - but his absence of experience in trial law and client advocacy is a negative, imho. (Hillary was establishment/corporate law ... the worst, imho.)

Enough. It turned into a rant.

Suffice it to say that most longer-term DUers should (I hope!) be familiar enough with me to know I do my homework - and I really get a bit frustrated with the "this is a football" kinds of responses. I've done my homework. My expression of frustration is based on that. I DON'T EXPECT OTHERS TO HAVE THE SAME DEGREE OF DEMAND FOR SUCH SPECIFICITY AS I. At the same time, I think my misgivings are well-founded and worth respecting - even if not agreed with.

(sigh) :hi: :banghead:

[sandnsea]

38. I supposed you should read it again

Because it certainly does address 9/11, Afghanistan and the broader terms of the middle east along with oil and oil money. It's not a policy paper, or a Congressional floor speech, it's a campaign speech. Obviously it isn't going to delve into details. You want those details, they're on his web site whether you want to believe it or not.

As to the rest of your post, with all respect and affection, it strikes me as bloviation about nothing and an awful lot of misinformation. Lack of client advocacy? I guess you forgot he was a civil rights lawyer for several years.

I'll repeat, it continues to sound as if you have listened to what others have said about Obama more than you have done the work to get your questions answered yourself.

[Sulawesi]

5. That's right, From 1984 we have Hillary Clinton, the next Walter Mondale!

[Hart2008]

24. No more 49 state losers please! n/t

[smalll]

7. I think it's STILL a good line -

I had been hoping she was going to use it in the debate on Saturday.

[george_maniakes]

9. Yes, instead of something original, borrow a line from a guy 20 years ago....

who then got crushed in the general election.

[Skip Intro]

10. Very telling - many would rather attack the question rather than attempt to answer it.

Why is that?

[george_maniakes]

15. Its not a question. Its a poor excuse at trying to label obama as too young.

If she wants to ask obama about more details about his plans for change, you ask him "hey obama, whats the plan exactly?. I want details please." She had plenty of time in the debate to ask him specifics, instead shes going back 20 years to win the "I remember mondale" sweepstakes.

[dailykoff]

11. It wasn't Mondale it was Reagan.

Figures.

[Quixote1818]

20. Mondale said it to Gary Hart. nt

[thevoiceofreason]

21. Not exactly -- RR may have co-opted it.

It was Mondale vs. Hart.

I like Obama's style. The position statements will come out in due time. Right now, feel the glow. JE's got some glow points too, but not as many as Obama.

[Sulawesi]

27. It was mondale

[dailykoff]

28. okay.

I liked Mondale so that's why I didn't answer before. Ferraro too!

[Sulawesi]

34. sorry, didn't notice others has responded

[Renew Deal]

17. Hillary is so 80's

lol

[Quixote1818]

22. She must have read my post yesterday? This is exactly what I posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3973642&mesg_id=3973917

[jgraz]

31. Eh...she's just trying to find out where Bill's sleeping tonight.

:hide: