It really isn't much of a knock on Obama that Kirk Watson was unable to name legislative accomplishments. Obama spent 4 years in the Senate, a Senate that was crippled by Bush. But more importantly, a Senate that empowered Bush beginning with the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution. Clinton was part of the Senate that helped create the monster that is the Bush administration, Obama filibustered the Patriot Act renewal when it was not given the amendments it needed. He also came out against the Iraq resolution before he was in the Senate. Besides, what major legislation has Clinton managed that is worth mentioning? Last time I check our health care system was still the laughing stock of the modern world. I like Hillary, but I am not sure this push to talk about legislative accomplishments helps her at all, she should have done more to lead the push against the neocon agenda, not just sit idly by until it was too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FINALLY!!!!! A news personality actually asks a simple and and substantive question about Obama that is knowingly unasnwerable. Make no mistake about it: this is not a deficiency or lack of preparedness on Sen Watson's part. Obama really has no significant accomplishments. I've said this before. I would like ANYONE to ask this of Obama himself. How about at tomorrow's debate? Olbermann is there in the end to take the conversation back to weak, unsubstantive american journalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know if you want to take a jab at Obama bring up something that has substance. It's not like the election system is fair anyway. We need to overhaul the whole election system and put the power back into We the Peoples Hands once and for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw what happened on msnbc, when Chris Mathews was rude to a state senator from Texas who couldn't list Obama's legislative record...big surprise. I had just read something on opednews.com compairing their records, and, if true, Mathews owes Watson an apology, and his viewing public at least enough journalistic work to confirm the following:

"Let's take a close look at who's really qualified and/or who's really working for the good of all of us while serving in the Senate.
Obama or Clinton?"
Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision. In her first six years Hillary managed to author and pass into law 20 pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress.

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 University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11- Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12- Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13- Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14- Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15- Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
16- Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17- Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18- Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19- Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20- Designate part of the National Forest System in
Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the Hillary legislative facts straight from the Senate records.
The following is a list of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments, but the list is so substantive they are categorized, rather than listed individually. Besides, there's simply too many of them.
During his first eight years in the Illinois legislature, Obama sponsored more than 820 bills.
* 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
* Many more miscellaneous bills

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427.
These include:
* Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - enacted.
* Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act - enacted.
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate.
* 2007 Government Ethics Bill, enacted.
* Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, in committee.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1,096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
Now it's up to you to decide who's the doer and who's the talker."

I shortened the article a bit to cut to the legislative info.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't name more than a couple, and I watch/read the alternative news sources regularly. Has the man really done anything significant to give us HOPE for CHANGE? I'm with Webster Tarpley on the subject: I think BO's a Manchurian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whether or not the Senator knew what Obama's record is...who wants to be badgered that way? If I'd been there...he'd have had a glass of h2o in his face. He's a bully, a misogynist and he loves manly men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First there's Brzezinski, foreign policy chief and arch anti-Soviet fanatic neocon, who basically chose Obama, not the other way around. (Check Webster Tarpley's discussion of this). Now I'm listening to Flashpoints on KPFA.org (it will be archived, for today Wed. 2/20) about Penny Pritzger, of the Pritzger family, who has been behind the S&L scandal, the sub-prime mortgage lending calamity, and much else. And you still don't have any concerns about this empty candidate??? Check it out; think for yourself; and get back to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...which is unfortunate, but the fact of the matter is that Obama has had serious legislative accomplishments. The Coburn-Obama Act and the Lugar-Obama Act are significant pieces of legislation that seem to be consistent with the values of the left. Coburn-Obama provides more sunshine on how our tax money is being spent and Lugar-Obama expands on the types of weapons that are being done away with or put out of use. He had an honorable tenure as a state senator as well, being involved with legislation to minimize racial-profiling and a bill to put safeguards on homicide interrogations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the new "talking point" now. "What has he done?" Aside from what he's done, more importantly what has he NOT done - irresponsibly deploying our military, enacting dangerous legislation weakening habeus corpus, etc. This is not Anybody But Bush all over again; Senator Clinton still has not addressed her vote for the war in Iraq. She is coming across as Republican-lite, but unlike her husband, it is not working for her. Clinton is desperate and is now resorting to dirty tricks.

Hillary is almost done, people. She better start looking to the progressive side of the table if she wants this nomination. Obama is already there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All Tubbs said was that Clinton had a whole bunch of accomplishments. She didn't list any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think it will make a great difference which of the Democratic candidates wina, given that the enormous donations they have received were doubtless meant to buy something. However, I am constantly amazed by the self-delusion shown by those that just want rid of the neocons.

Some years ago the UK was desperate to expel the Tories (our right party) from power, as was I. So the media and his supporters touted Tony Blair as the candidate of hope, a new start, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and he was relatively young and handsome. He was elected and domestically proved to be little different from the Tories; and in the foreign sphere proved to be both a war-monger and a war criminal. I could have predicted the first from his voting record and speeches (mostly verb-free but full of words like "hope, change, new.....". I didn't predict the second.

You are luckier than us - Obama (and Clinton) has already made bellicose statements about Iran and sees the Middle East as some sort of US military playground. But you still got suckered by the media bulldozer and eliminated the one candidate that promised real change and didn't load his/her team with corporate lobbyist.

We really do get the politics we deserve - unfortunate that the whole world pays the price in the case of the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't name any, either.


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sen. Obama has worked on important legislation, according to his own statements. That legislation includes Ethics reform and the recently unsuccessful comprehensive immigration reform. That's my recollection from Obama's statements. But, the fact that Sen. Kirk Watson of Texas is not prepared with substantive facts on a nation-wide broadcast is shameful and at least slightly damaging to Sen. Obama. Obama is young and he does not have a laundry list of successes. Yet, he has done a few things and his surrogates should receive a talking points memo to ensure that Obama is not misrepresented. This is a small blunder overall, but Sen. Watson should make another appearance to clear the air once he is up to speed on Sen. Obama's record in the Illinois Senate and the United States Senate. There's clearly more that can be said than what Sen. Watson provided. The fault lies more with the Obama campaign for not making sure their surrogates are up to speed...

The disturbing aspect of this campaign is that neither Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton offer extensive experience, executive, business, or legislative. Without her husband, Sen. Clinton wouldn't be competitive for the Presidency. Her own accomplishments are clearly not compelling enough voters to support her candidacy. If experience and a proven record was driving voters' choices, Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd, or Gov. Richardson might be the Democratic frontrunner. Instead, this nomination has boiled down to likability, to personality, and to choosing a leader who can lift this country's psyche following the depressing episodes of the Bush II years (politicized intelligence, unjust war, tax breaks for the rich, Guantanamo, etc). Obama is winning people's hearts, he is more uplifting. Though he is weak on winning people's minds by providing the right solutions, Sen. Clinton is not good enough in this area to offset Obama's overall appeal. However nebulous that may be, it is clearly important to Americans to feel inspired and positive following the depressing tenure of Bush II.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here it is

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He is typical of Obama supporters. If cornered about why they're supporting him, They Don't Know!! You get past the 'Hope for What'? And 'What kind of Change?'. You shoot down the fact that Obama's never said any of that! They're lost!!

His supporters are Projecting onto to him WHAT THEY WANT HIM to stand FOR!! He's never said, has no position papers that say any of it!!

Obama's healthcare: Is NOT Universal! It will use Tax Dollars to subsidize INSURANCE for children up to 25 yr. olds. The same Insurance that routinely deny coverage, of life-saving procedures, while the CEO's rake in Billions! Look at what he did to healthcare in Illinios! He 'sold' the people out for the INSUR.CORPS!

Have you read about his; 'Private Retiremnet Accts.', on his web-site! What he doesn't say, and researching his economic adviser (Liebman) will tell you, is that the money is coming out of Social Security!! (yup! Just like Bush)
He will increase the retiremnet age, and cut thru accounting procedures the benefits, by 45%!! On his web page he doesn't connect the two, but Mr. Jeffrey Liebman does!

Obama 'claims' to have been an outsider, because of his mixed race! In Hawiaii that is the NORM. Poor, and middle-class don't retire to Hawaii, as his grandparents did! His 'poor single mother' was a college ed. anthropolagist! His father, a Harvard grad! He was educated at TWO IVY LEAGUE Universities!
Worked on Wall Street, did this supposed organizing thru a Church Group, while working for a BIG law firm!

So many, half-truths, deceptions, It's never going to 'fly' in a General Election!!

Go To the Green Party web-site! Demand an Edwards ticket, with a Gore endorsement!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's 'Three Chief Economic Advisers'The Nation mag. 'Subprime Obama, by Max Fraser:
Cutler,David;Harvard, 'high health costs good'
Jeff Liebman, " , 'Privatise Social Security'
Goolsbee, A., U. of Chicago, critic of 'Sicko'

The comparisons here, are ONLY between, Clinton and Obama, there are third parties!
Go to the Green Party's web site, read their agenda, then see if we can't the BEST candidate back in the race, EDWARDS!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, that exchange was classic. The clueless representative of an entire pack of duped clueless supporters.

With the way the MSM has been tongue kissing Obama up to this point, it's good to finally see the gloves come off and the real ruckus begin. Now that it looks like he's won the nomination, the real swiftboating will begin, and don't for a single second discount the crack pipe and gay blow job Obama on the down-low story either; that one isn't going away, and will be one of many that will hand McCain the Presidency on a silver platter should the Democrat superdelegates be forced to hand the nomination to Obama.

And you thought racism was going to be the O-man's only problem...

No, you won't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "fact" that a Democrat, especially one from Texas, couldn't elaborate on Obama's accomplishments has a distinctly fishy aroma to it. One might even say it has a ROVIAN aspect to it. Ol' Turdblossom is a past master at this kind of convoluted deception and this probably represents the opening volley of Swiftboat-type smearing that will continue unabated until election day. It also reveals the fact that the rethugs have concluded that Obama will get the democratic nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

with a friggin brain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...I wonder why some of you are so quick to claim this as "proof" of Obama being an emperor without clothing. It's not the job of surrogates like Kirk Watson to be able to name even one of Obama's accomplishments. The smallest amount of research disproves the idea that Obama is all talk and no action. Some of you seem to have missed Watson's perfectly valid explanation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is

Not being John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being able to fool Democrats that don't particularly hate Hillary into believing that HE doesn't personally hate her and Bill Clinton with a obvious passion.

That's a HUGE accomplishment, because anyone who likes Hillary can see it, because it's been all too blatantly obvious. In fact, until I saw it I didn't really have any opinion about Obama one way or the other. But that derision and disgust and palpable hatred in those first debates, that went well beyond merely fighting a primary campaign, gave me his number and told me who and what he really is far better than any oratorical words out of his mouth.

And really, being able to keep a lid on that obvious and deep hatred is a tremendous accomplishment, because once that hatred is exposed and seen for what it is, the only possible realization that can follow is that Obama must be GOP. No matter what he says or how he voted on the Iraq war (his vote wasn't a dealbreaker, and it set up his entire candidacy to follow. Whenever his vote WOULD result in a dealbreaker AGAINST the GOP, the man voted "Present".) Obama is GOP, no matter what he says, as George Bush is and always was a Nazi, no matter what HE said.

And at the same time, that Hillary hatred itself acts as a poison to all Democrats that fall into the Obama cult so the man's candidacy does double damage; first into tricking America that he could possibly win against all odds and the history of racism in this country which still incalculably exists, and secondly by demonizing Hillary and Bill Clinton. Obama and his cultheads will blame Obama's inevitable and undeniable failure on the Clintons, not on America's systemic and endemic racism.

Maybe the lovefest with ALL the GOP pundits comes because they recognize the very self-same Hillary hatred that exists in them, and they gravitate to Obama because of this, but I'm by nature a very suspicious cynical person, and I think the relationship goes a lot deeper than that, with much more at stake and with much more Machiavellian design and designs.

Say anything you want about Karl Rove; the man is and always will be an evil genius. If Obama hadn't already existed, Rove would have had to dream him up out of thin air.

Maybe he did. I certainly wouldn't put it past him, given his record, for a single second. Anyone that does is being woefully naive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]