Obama Girl Tells Hillary to Step Down

 NUFF SAID!

Clinton’s Audacity of Hopelessness

The Long Defeat

March 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Why Won’t Hillary Release Her Tax Returns for the Past 8 Years? Hypocracy

On Clinton’s Tax Returns, a “Frankly Disturbing” Lack of Transparency, and Surrogate-ancholy

Posted March 17, 2008 | 12:33 PM (EST)

It’s hard out there for a surrogate. Especially for a Clinton surrogate being asked why Hillary Clinton has not released the last eight years of her tax returns. As Congresswoman and Clinton surrogate Nita Lowey made clear on Meet The Press yesterday, the reason it’s so hard to give a good answer to “Why hasn’t Clinton released her returns?” is because there is no good answer.

Lowey gave it a shot, but it wasn’t pretty — or particularly intelligible. When Tim Russert asked about the returns, she opened with the main talking point the Clinton campaign has been using for weeks: “It’s my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

And she’s exactly right. There are 20 years worth of returns that have been released. What’s missing are the last 8 years — years in which Bill Clinton has been making money hand over fist, and involving himself in all kinds of interesting financial deals (see Ron Burkle, Yucaipa, and the ruler of Dubai).

If Being First Lady Makes One Experienced Then Barbara Bush Should Run For President

Clinton’s Experience Is Debated
While Not a Foreign Crisis Player, She Carried U.S. Message
By Peter Baker and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2008; A06

On March 22, 1999, Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived at the Itihadiya Palace in Egypt for what her schedule said was a “courtesy call with President Mubarak.” Aides blocked out 9 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. Then she embarked on visits to a mosque, museum, clinic, bazaar, youth center, groundwater project, university and the Temple of Luxor.

Almost exactly nine years later to the day, Clinton’s trip to Egypt offers a case study of her foreign policy role during her husband’s presidency. While traveling across North Africa, she devoted little time to heads of state and negotiated no agreements, but instead met community leaders, explored local issues and culture, hit major tourist sites and gave speeches on women’s rights and other topics important to her.

Whether that has made her “tested and ready” to be president from the first day, as she now claims, is a burning issue on the campaign trail. Clinton’s camp has depicted her as a virtual secretary of state, circling the globe to bring peace to troubled lands and open borders for refugees. Sen. Barack Obama’s camp has presented her as a glorified USO officer, entertaining troops and having tea with crown princesses. More than 11,000 pages of her schedules released this week, along with interviews with former diplomats and administration officials, present a more mixed picture.

Obama’s Greatest Speech and Greatest Political Risk

It was a very good speech, actually historic by American political standards, because it touched on an issue Obama has been trying to avoid, his race, which is much more controversial in America than gender (something Hillary constantly embraces and panders over). He also challenged voters to try and understand a complex issue, which is something American politicians simply do not do. They try to simplify everything to the point of intellectual spoon feeding or avoid the issues for fear they might be misunderstood by too many people or a certain demographic.  Reality is most Americans are not that great at abstract thinking and many who are capable do not have the time.  Intellectually, historically, has been frowned on in this country, so unlike Latin America or France where people give very long nuanced speeches, Americans like to keep it simple.  This speech took real political balls, the size of elephants.

I’m not sure it will help win over blue collar whites in places like Penn or Indiana. Then again maybe it was not meant to, just meant to “keep them thinking or open” so he can hit them with further economic issues.  Then again, maybe who he was really speaking to was the media, elite whites, blacks, and Super Delegates…letting them know he is okay and things will be okay and I can deal with it (in a presidential way and I can fight in my own way and show balls). If he can get the majority of the media back under his spell he can define the day and focus on trying to get some of the white vote back (specifically white males who are not college educated).

In any case, he won’t need to worry about them in the primary, as he has got that, it seems (unless something else stupid happens), but in the general election white males will be the battle ground demographic. If he can win  uneducated blue collar white males  he can win the presidency. If he can’t then he will join the ranks of Kerry and Gore.

As far as black folks. I think most blacks will stick with Obama in very high numbers (85% ) but I think today he might have angered some leftist black radicals, who were obviously spoon fed neo-Maoist revolutionary black nationalism from the time they were in diapers by former Panthers and white Communists; people I like to call, “red doper diaper babies”.  He can worry about dealing with them after he gets in the Oval Office, and he will have to deal with them, a lot of them.

Right now those folks don’t matter. Obama doesn’t need to them to win.  If he can get 40% of white males, get a normal white female count for a Democrat and get blacks and at least 60% of Hispanics he will be the next president of the United States hands down. That is if Hillary will ever bow out and let him start building that coalition before it is so polarized it will be impossible to establish.

Geraldine Ferraro’s Game Exposed

As most of you know Geraldine Ferraro made some very inflammatory statements last week and then tried to claim reverse racism when she got attacked (primarily by white people) for what she said, spending 48 hours after the fact to cry foul on every media outlet known to man. I see this as a Clinton Kamikaze attack. I do not know if Clinton put her up to this, I doubt it, but I do believe that Billary suggested how to play it after the fact so that she could once again play the race card in hopes of swaying rural less educated white voters in central Pennsylvania.

This dried up femi-nazi hater has a history of making inflammatory statements going back to Jesse Jackson in 1988, but not only about race, she proved to be an embarrassment to Mondel’s ticket. She is a proto-type of a affirmative action candidate. She did not even run for president and would not have been so close to Tip O’Neal (then Speaker of the House) if she was not a woman. Even Ferraro admits this (the only to her credit), but for her to call Obama out the way she did was disgusting.

I happened on some earlier statements she made about Obama when she did not feel he was a threat to Hillary, almost polar opposite what she said a few weeks ago. So, let me get this straight…when he is not a threat his “blackness” is a problem, when he is beating the “golden girl” then his blackness is a “stroke of luck”. LOL Get the $*$*# out of here.

Remember this all comes from a woman whose husband and parents were all “mobbed up”. Her parents had been charged with illegal gambling only to be dropped when her father died. Her guido son, John Zaccaro Jr, did some time for procession. This woman is a piece of work, likely from the same type of inner-city trash family that sits around the table calling blacks “moulis” when they act just as ghetto as the stereotype of blacks that the hate.
Hat Tip to “Obama Is Winning“

Here’s Ferraro last week.

When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro’s comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.

“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against,” she said. “For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

And here’s Ferraro a little over a year ago, making the exact opposite claim in a New York Times article about whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had a realistic chance of breaking the mold of white male presidencies.

…for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.

“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

(h/t: Josh Marshall)

———————
BTW, I loved Olbermann’s response. It was a little over the top but all true.

What is the Democratic Nomination Worth Now?

If Hillary keeps up her scorched earth policy (thanks UCBM) it will not be worth much. The headlines are currently “Hillary wins the big states of Ohio and Texas”…most people aren’t going to read for details. It does not matter that Obama won the majority of delegates in Texas. This is interesting, because if this was about the popular vote then their should be no delegate system? Obviously this should be about delegates but the media always plays it. Hillary did not win Nevada, Obama got more delegates but the press says she won. How did she win, if the primaries/caucus are based on delegate count and not popular vote? Why is there are “magic delegate number” if delegates are not more important than popular vote?

The reality is, Obama won Wyoming decisively and will win Mississippi by a landslides and then there are 5 weeks until Pennsylvania. Hillary will likely pick up 2 more states after that, but he will win the rest, probably the only other landslip will be in favor of Obama in North Carolina. Then this will go to the convention. Hillary is already fighting to get Florida and Michigan entered “as is” she does not even want a revote. In the end, when it is all said and done Obama will likely be the nominee based on majority of popular vote and delegates, but he will be the nominee of a divided party. My question is what is that worth? After the convention there will be 8 weeks to run for president. John McCain had 6 months to attack Obama, and for most of that time Hillary will also be attacking him.

Currently Hillary is trying to undermine Obama’s credibility of as commander and chief. She know this will hurt him in the general election and she knows if he is elected she might never become president if he can make it two terms. Clinton’s remarks, about Obama not ready to be commander and chief as much as McCain, were stupid and will be replayed by the Republican National Committee.

The grand goal of both candidates and all the party top dogs should be able to get a Democrat in the White House in 2009. They can argue about anything they want, but what Hillary has done has went against the parties organization goal. It makes it appear that if she feels she can’t win she does not want him to win either so she can run in 2012. She looks hypocritical though floating this joint ticket with her at the top idea. If Obama is not qualified to be president then why would she have him one step from the presidency? If anything happened to her (i.e. cancer) he would be president, that can happen anytime after the enter office. So she is saying she would have someone on her ticket who is not qualified to be president?????

What???

There is a difference between making an “impolite comment” and undermining someone’s ability to win in November when they are in the same party as you. Obama needs to hit her on all this 24/7 through surrogates. Hillary will keep this up and attempt to eviscerate Obama, much like Kennedy – Carter in 1980 or McGovern – Johnson in the 60’s. Obama will be so badly damaged that McCain will just have to push him over. McCain is old and he will likely be a one term president. I’m scared to think of what he might do in that situation. I’m thinking he will bomb Iran and do some other controversial things, but that’s another story.

Lets say Hillary gets the nomination, I’m convinced Hillary Clinton will lose a general election because most men won’t vote for her and add that in with Republican women. At best she is a 51-49% candidate, but the fact is the independents will flock to McCain, and she won’t turn a swing state. Unlike the Democratic primary, the general election is not going to be 60% female. Hillary can’t cry and complain about sexism, media bias, and expect that to fly with men. It won’t. McCain is going to gut her. All McCain has to do is separate himself successful from Bush. Obama at least has a chance at competing with McCain in swing votes, Hillary has not shown any ability to do this and her negative ratings are quite high, even in her own party. She can not win on the strenght of Democratic white women over 40.

This is why I’m starting to think if Obama and party elders can not muster enough force to push her out before June, he might be better to not get the nomination at all. In this type of situation, Obama can run in 2012. In fact I would encourage Obama to go extremely negative and bring up her tax returns, the fact she won’t release her White House files, and remind the nation of all the 8 years of Clinton scandals. He needs to get his surrogates (not him) to remind people of Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Marc Rich, Norman Hsu, the MacDougals, Vince Foster, Travelgate, and Denise Rich’s campaign contributions after her husbands pardon. He needs to run commercials that remind us of the embarrassing impeachment and the things Hillary said about a “right wing conspiracy” and how divisive she was. He needs to give America a preview of what the Republicans are going to do every single night of the week. To make it short, he needs to do what she is currently doing to him but 100X harder. He can easily do that because she has far more garbage on her than she has on him. Hillary should not be able to run on her husband’s records without paying his sins.

Americans don’t have long memories and frankly the electorate (on average) is not very bright. 4 years from now no one will remember, just like they don’t remember Bill Clinton was a scumbag and the political deadlock his administration caused, how he got numerous Democrats ejected from Congress, and the fact Bill Clinton did not cause the IT bubble in the 1990s. Obama need to be remind the voters country was going into recession when Clinton was leaving office. They need to remind people that Clinton did not kill Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance. If Hillary is running on Bill Clinton’s record they need to go after his record and everything she did to support him. This will undoubtedly divided the party, but big deal. As I said, this is scorched earth policy, here. He needs to give the Republicans all the ammo they need against Hillary and then “drop out for the good of the party and throw support behind her. Then run in 2012. Hillary will be like John Kerry is today. A person who lost a race she should have won.”

On a side note, We might have a woman president at any time, but I’m increasingly convinced that the window for a black president is very short. Why? Mexican Americans. No, I did not say Hispanics. I’m speaking specifically about Mexico Americans. I’m convinced they will only vote for a black person when they have no choice (after the primary) they will never vote for a black man given a choice. Any black man. If you want to know why…if you have not been to Latin America it is simple. “White is RIGHT.” If you don’t believe that look at Spanish language TV. Most of the people on those TV show look pure white, like they got off the boat from Spain and those that don’t have dyed hair and enough make-up on to fake it. If you go to Latin America you will notice that most of the rich people are white and the poor people are obviously mixed race (usually the darker more Indian and black looking ones). Things have been this way since colonization and they are not going to change so the more of them that come here the more of their racism and colorism they will bring with them. I don’t care what the media political correct spin is, I know the reality down there and I know the fact that most of the immigrants who come here are also the “darker” ones and that is for a reason. They bring that self-hate with them. So I’m guessing after the next 3 elections there will be enough Mexican Americans here (children of legals and illegals) in this country to the point that a black person can not win a major state in a primary.

A suggestion to the Super Delegates. How does Hillary Clinton win a general election if 15-25% of black stay home because they feel Obama got cheated through backroom dealing?

Illinois - The black vote is about 14% of the total electorate

New Jersey - The black vote is about 13% of the total electorate

New York - The black vote is about 16.5% of the total electorate

Pennsylvania - The black vote is about 9.5% of the total electorate

California - The black vote is about 6.7% of the total electorate

Ohio - The black vote is about 11% of the total electorate

Missouri - black vote is about 12% of the total electorate

All swing states.

Hillary can not win without significant black support. If you throw the race her way when Obama has the majority of delegates, the majority of popular votes, and has won the majority of states black folks are not going to “go along to get along”. Think hard about that. Obama has already said he will not be running as VP.

Hillary Must Drop Out On March 5th

Hillary should get out on March 5 and here is why.

Most people are projecting a split decision, in that Obama will win Texas and Vermont. Hillary will likely win Ohio and Rhode Island.  Obama will come out with a slight delegate lead (lets say 5 delegates).  Lets imagine he loses Texas by 1 or 2 percent and loses Ohio by 5 percent. He will still likely come away with the majority of Texas Delegates, due to the caucus. The anticipated blow out in Vermont will make up for Rhode Island and whatever comes out of Ohio. Hillary will get less than 10 delegates, nowhere close to breaking his 100+ lead, nor his 1 million+ popular vote lead.

Lets look toward the future:

Obama has South Dakota, Montana,  Guam Oregon, North Carolina, Mississippi, Wyoming. Clinton will have the rest, but even (according to the polls at Real Clear Politics) in strong hold states, like Pennsylvania, her poll numbers are dropping and they are not even campaigning there yet.   In fact Obama has offices open and already has a game plan. Hillary does not because of lack of money. Obama is outspending her in all for states going to the polls on Tuesday and he still has money to start spreading elseware.  That is not counting union support.

The only way Hillary can win is due to Super Delegates. The rules don’t matter, as much as the consequences.  Most of the Super Delegates are politicians and they want the person at the top of the ticket who will win, not only in Nov. for the presidency, but also the ticket many of them will be on.   Red State Dems, especially don’t want a divisive Hillary on the ticket.   Black politicians or people with heavy black constituencies will not go against that and risk losing their jobs in the next election.  They are looking at national polls also, all show Hillary significantly behind Obama (Check Real Clear Politics.come for more detail).  They are looking at the fact that Obama is attracting independents, moderate Republicans, more people under 25 than anyone in decades, and increasing the black voter turn out significantly.  Hillary can’t do that.

Hillary has high negatives,  and she is seen as divisive (especially in a lot of Swing States).  Some of this is not her fault, she is paying for Bill’s sins, but that is life.  She can’t run on his record and not get the bad as well.  Obama can put states like Virginia in play (which are trending Democratic lately) Hillary can not. Obama can rally black support like you have never seen in Swing States like Missouri and Ohio. Hillary can not. In 2000, according to Wiki, 18% of blacks voted for Bush. That won’t happen with Obama on the ticket next to McCain.

The vast majority of Super Delegates do not want to go against the popular vote and alienate voters (regardless if they have the right to do so or not) and take a chance these folks will stay home. Obama can win Cali, NJ, NY, etc. Any Democratic can this year, but Hillary can’t put the states in play that he can. Obama might make it a 55-45 contest and not just a 51-49.

For these reasons, Hillary should also drop out because the longer she is in when she can’t win a clean race the more she will attack and weaken Obama, who has to fight her, Bush, and McCain. If this goes on until August you will have 8 weeks to get things going, when McCain has had 6 MONTHS, taking notes on all the infighting, ready to go on Obama.

If Hillary cares about the party, and if she cares about a Democrat who shares 98% of her views getting in the White House she will get out on March 5 and support Obama fully…better him than McWar.  Obama needs to take his financial advantage and the  full Democratic machine to work on McCain now while he is disorganized and poorer. He should not be wasting time with Hillary. Unlike Huckabee, Hillary is hurting Obama by harping on how he is unready to be president, you think McCain is not listening and won’t replay that stuff?

As far as Fl and MI forget it. Howard Dean has said only a reelection is fair,  but due to cost it is likely going to be caucuses. Obama will likely win them anyway, or come in so close it is a draw.  Nancy Pelosi, chair of the convention in August, said that Super Delegates will not decide this and MI and FL will not be seated before a candidate is chosen as the rules were known and all candidates agreed to it and signed the agreements before hand.

I can imagine that a lot of Super Delegates are holding out till March 4th to see what happens out of respect (favors called) for the Clintons, but after that their will be a lot of “sit downs” and press meetings of prominent ones like Sen Durban. Gov. Richardson said today that whoever has the most delegates on March 5 should be the nominee, he basically endorced Obama without having to do it (betray the Clintons). The party is turning on Hillary. Time to call it a day.

——————–

Dragon Horse’s Official Picks for Super Tuesday II:

Texas - Obama 10+

Ohio - Clinton < 4

Rhode Island - Clinton 5-10

Vermont - Obama 12+

Obama and Clinton - Racism and Sexism

There’s a lot of sexism vs racism talk in the current Democratic Election. I’ve heard some people say that it appears sexism is now worse than racism due to what’s happening to Hillary. I for one do not see it as sexism as much as anti-Clinton bias. I’m getting tired of Hillary and her supporters playing the gender card. Every time I see her or her surrogates on television they are talking about how women should vote for her because she is a woman and how it will be a “sea change” in American cultural life. Imagine for a second if Obama pandered like that to people based on his race. I can imagine how fast his polling numbers among whites would drop. In fact Obama has went out of his way (I believe pretty strongly despite criticism from blacks) to not talk about race in this campaign and stand on his own merit. Hillary waves her ovaries around and says look “I ain’t got no penis…vote for me”. I find this disgusting and anti-feminist (Hillary claims to be one).

Lets look at some statistics though to tease this out a bit beyond simple opinion.

If you look at the census, America is 12% black and about 66% white. I will say white women are about 33.5% or that or so (women live longer than men).

That means white women are more than 2.75X more populous as any black American males and females combined.

If you look at Governors, Senators, mayors, etc. you will easily find that there are far more than 2.75X white females in these positions than any blacks.

Obama is the first black Senator elected to congress in almost two decades and only the 2nd since Reconstruction (before the successful implementation of Jim Crow).

Currently we have had over 30 white females Senators in Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate

We have had two black elected governors in America. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts (current) and Douglas Wilders in Virginia back in the early 1990’s.

That’s it.

Compare this to White women governors; we have had over 25 in America’s history. Right now I know we have atleast 5. I know Delaware, Kansas, Nevada, Michigan, Washington State.  If there was parity there should only be 3.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/governors/a/governors.htm

Until very recently in history (last 20 years) it was almost impossible for a black person to win a statewide political race in this country anywhere, so although I recognize sexism as real, I don’t think it compares to the amount of racism out there and statistically speaking it is far better to be a white woman in America in politics than a black man.

Barack Obama’s Experience

I want to look at this in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s “experience”, which is primarily due to nepotism. Meaning, her experience come mostly from jobs her husband gave her. There is no way she would have moved to a state for a few months (NY) and win a U.S. Senate seat if her name was not Clinton. She also never had a strong competitor. In her first race Rudy Giuliani did not run against her because he was diagnosed with cancer. The second race was also unknown. No Democrat ever contested her candidacy in a primary in NY in either election.

Hell, Bill Clinton was not that great a politician. I remember that people raised some of the same questions about Bill Clinton in 1992 that they raise against Obama now. I believe so. Remember, Bill Clinton the “man from Hope [,Arkansas]“. He sound a lot like an idealist to me and was accused of it by George Bush. He only won in 1992, because of Ross Perot taking votes from George Bush. The economy being good in the 1990’s was not due to Clinton and as he was going out of office we were experiencing recession, I remember, some seem not to. People also forget that 8 years of nonstop Clinton Scandals gave the Democrats 8 years of George W Bush and 6 years of a Republican Congress. Bill Clinton polarized the nation. The nation was not like that during George Bush’s father and Reagan’s administrations, although Reagan was not widely liked among Democrats.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years including the following:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov).

Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.

During the first ( eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included the following:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

There are a lot of Americans who do believe America needs “drastic change” if they did not Obama would be back in the Senate right now. Obama does not just say the country needs drastic change, but he believes he can not do it himself…no, he knows he can not. He knows the only way to do it is to get the American people behind him and pressure Congress to act with him. This is how all major movements in America have been done, since the Progressive Movement before World War I; the Roosevelt years of the Great Depression; and the political and social upheaval of the 1960’s. All of these came about by grass roots action and pressuring politicians to act. Obama wants to do this again. That is not demagoguery, that is classic American politics. I believe the first person to do it was Andrew Jackson.