8 Comments - k - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 9:51 am: Apparently I’m one of the few who thinks the “present” vote explanation is less than defensible. I spent considerable time on the IL house floor myself and the only reason to vote present is if there is a direct conflict of interest (or if you were, say, in the restroom during the debate and have no idea what is being voted on). Otherwise, voice your concerns if you have them and then vote yes or no. Anyone can pick a proposal apart. There’s always some way something could be improved. And don’t think you are the only one out there who has noticed issues or possible flaws. You are not the ONLY person thinking about how you vote, Senator. But someone has to put the idea out there. If you care so much about your concerns then put up your own version of “the perfect bill” and vote no on the objectionable one. I realize I am in the minority on this… - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 9:53 am: The complaint about state’s with tougher-than-fed emission standards is that auto makers would have to design different cars for different states. That’s BS, just design for the strictest state (usually CA). It puts the company ahead of the curve since CA has typically been a bellwether on env. standards. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 9:56 am: ===the only reason to vote present is if there is a direct conflict of interest === That’s wrong. If you did spend time at the Statehouse (and I’m not doubting you), you’d have heard many reasons for P votes. - Thutmose - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 10:10 am: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_confronts_Hillary_with_slum_lord_0125.html NBC confronts Hillary with ’slum lord’ photo Michael Roston and David Edwards Published: Friday January 25, 2008 This just broke: On Friday morning’s episode of the Today Show on NBC, host Matt Lauer discussed Monday night’s testy debate between presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL). In particular, he focused on her allegation that Obama had represented Tony Rezko, the indicted Chicago businessman whom she referred to as a “slum lord.” Lauer then presented Clinton with a photo of Rezko posing between Sen. Clinton as first lady and her husband during his presidency. He asked if she remembered meeting Rezko. Clinton said she did not, and parried, “I don’t have a 17-year relationship with him.” The senator also argued that it wasn’t unfair for her to bring up Rezko during the debate. “I try not to attack first,” Clinton said, “but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch.” Clinton then argued that the debate between the two candidates should focus on their position on important issues, and implied that she was the most viable candidate to defeat Senator John McCain if he was the Republican candidate. “Let’s focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the Republicans,” she argued. “Senator McCain has said it would be fine with him if we were [in Iraq] 100 years. It’s not fine with me.” A clip of the exchange is presented below. This video is from NBC’s Today Show, broadcast January 25, 2008. Transcript via closed captions :: It is perfectly legitimate to draw comparisons and contrasts. And I think both senator obama and I have made it clear that we do want to focus on what we each would do for our country. It has been obviously an incredibly intense campaign. I think it’s cause for celebration that we have an african-american, a woman running for the highest position in our country, the toughest job in the world. :: Right, but – :: But I do want to make it clear that our campaigns have to stay focused on what, you know, the legitimate differences are, so we can give voters information that will enable them to make the right decision. :: On monday night in south carolina, it didn’t always stay focused on that, senator. I want to run a clip. This is where you were attacking senator obama in particular about his work connected to what was called the so-called slum lord in chicago, a guy named tony rezko. Take a look at the clip. :: I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor rezko in his slum landlord business in inner city chicago. :: That was monday night, senator. I know you don’t have video, you can’t see what i’m about to put up on the screen right now. But i’m going to put up a picture right now that we’ve received. This is a picture of you and your husband, bill clinton, posing with that same man, tony rezko. It’s undated, i’m going to ro-tel you right now. We know it’s him. We don’t know when it was taken. We think it was during your husband’s presidency. I’m curious, do you know anything about the picture? do you know when it was taken? do you remember meeting this man? :: No, I don’t. You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. But of course, matt, you didn’t show what preceded what I said, which was a direct attack, one of several that was leveled against me by senator obama. :: I understand. It was a counter punch, I understand that. :: It was a counter punch. I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch. No, I don’t know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17-year relationship with him. But I think with a we ought to be looking at is how we go forward talking about the issues. I do think, however, that this is a campaign, it’s a contest. It’s something that is very important to each of us running, to our supporters, to those who believe in us. And I took a lot of incoming fire for many, many months and I was happy to absorb it because obviously I felt that that was part of my responsibility. :: I guess what i’m saying, though – :: As it gets toward the end of the campaign, you’ve got to set the record straight as I tried to. :: Right. But does it make sense to use someone like this, tony rezko, against senator obama, when there’s really no such thing as political purt anymore? I know you stand at events and stood as first lady along with your president and they fired 200 people by you a night – :: A thousand people. :: This man, he made a contribution to the dnc back in march of 2000. If there’s no such thing as being able to fully vette who you come in contact with, is it appropriate to make this attack on your opponent? :: I think you have to look at the facts. There’s a big difference standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don’t know and haven’t seen since and having a relationship that the newspapers in chic chicago have been exploring. Let’s focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the republicans. I think you saw that again in their debate. They’re sticking with the failed policies of president bush, more in iraq. Senator mccain has said it would be fine with him if we were there 100 years. It’s not fine with me. Yes – :: Real quickly, the latest poll – :: So you have to — right, you have to draw those comparisons and I think that’s fair. - Vole - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 10:55 am: PJStar: “Schock also wants to increase the speed of getting grains to market and costs associated with transportation and delivery to allow farmers to better compete with foreign producers who have lower transportation costs. If elected, he said he would work in a bipartisan way to ensure funding is appropriated to implement the Water Resource Development Act, which authorized river improvement and rebuilding of the locks and dams on rivers to facilitate economical river transportation of agricultural commodities.” Let’s see: We use enough corn to jack up ethanol blends to 20%. Will there be enough corn after ethanol left to export? So, why the need for both a big ethanol and a big transportation subsidy? You journalists need to ask Young Mr. Smart what happens the next time we have a serious down turn in corn production that we have escaped since ramping up ethanol production? Is Mr. Schock going to have the government step in and ration corn among the corn processors, the livestock feeders, the ethanol plants and the export market? - k - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 10:58 am: Oh I’ve definitely heard many reasons..just never any I thought were strong enough other than a conflict of interest. - anon - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:31 am: You failed to post the link to today’s Sun Times endorsing Jerry Bennett over Dan Lipinski. http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/index.html The Lipinski camp must be concerned. Little Lips chief of staff/employee of Bill Lipinski’s political consulting firm, is calling Bennett supports and questioning them. It has the appearance of a veiled threat if you ask me. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:42 am: Lipinski’s camp isn’t concerned about losing to Bennett. They’re probably concerned about a long term loss of local support, so they’re using him to “get the troops into line,” as it were. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.