Day One, March 25

For my first day's post of outside content, I present an entry from another blog, the Daily Kos (I told you it wouldn't take long to do this). The title of this entry is 'I Refuse To Buy into the Obama Hype'. Posted on February 20, the entry is written by a poster nicknamed 'Grassroots Mom', and is meant as her personal investigation into figuring out which Democratic candidate is up to snuff, and which one is better left to eating dust. Its content is basically a condensed summary on proposed legislature made by Clinton and Obama in the Senate in 2007, as an examination of the candidate's values as well as their ability to get things accomplished in congress. I strongly recommend you to read this insightful glance into who's really getting bills passed in the Senate.

Some of the enlightening facts uncovered by the blog include...

• Senator Obama has authored ten bills in health care last year, and one of them passed. Senator Clinton has authored many more bills aimed at improving health care, but none of them have passed.
  
• A link to an Obama-authored bill, S.453, the proposed 'Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007'. This bill addresses several specific instances of boldfaced voter deception or intimidation in recent American history, and aims to prevent it from occuring in the future. Click here to read S.453.
• In 2007, Obama introduced in regards to cleaning up air and supporting alternative forms of energy. This is not a platform that Obama is rarely heard boasting about, but he obviously supports legislation to protect environment and our resources.
• More than once, the author points out how Clinton has proposed bills that are without a single co-sponsor in the Senate. Her entry wraps up by mentioning how Senator Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and even Republicans are willing to co-sponsor on Obama's many bills. This is a testament to Obama's ability as both a leader in getting legislation passed, as well as the 'uniter, not a divider' angle that you've heard so much about.
  

Although it provides some modest fuel for Obama's fire, and some handy credit for his experience and successes in his term as Senator, the real reason I posted this is because it as an example of one mother's examination of the leading candidates to find out which one is right for her. It is surprisingly unbiased, and focuses on the candidate's effectiveness in their Senatorial work. Practically any time I turned on the news this month, I couldn't help but feel one of the few platforms the Clinton campaign still has going for them is the advantage of political experience. But then again, as Grassroots Mom points out, if Senator Clinton was really kicking ass on Capitol Hill, wouldn't she be able to get more support from her fellow Senators to co-sponsor a bill or two? Or manage to get a single one of her well-meaning, well-written health care initiatives passed? Obama has a lot more Senatorial clout than most folks realize, which will help make him a worthy president, not to mention the type of leader that can recruit members of the opposite party behind his causes. At ajuncture where the opposing campaign is grasping at straws to try and swat down the success Obama has had in his career in Washington, this sort of examination of experience couldn't come at a better time.