Updated: Clinton Know-How Wows Scientists (Really!)

I live in a town north of DC, and there are plenty of political wonks around who’ve settled down here.  A couple months ago a group of Clinton supporters met to map out how we can help build support for her in our county, and I’ve had the pleasure to meet and talk with a lot of folks who’ve known the Clintons for years – many who’ve worked with Hillary in the White House.

And to a person, they’ve shared stories about how detail-oriented and just flat out brilliant she is.

I just saw an article in the San Francisco Gate on Hillary’s recent tour of a green building, and the folks involved with the construction were bowled over (shell-shocked even) by her detailed knowledge of how important the development, construction and use of greener buildings is in the 21st century.  Make the jump to see how informed she is when it comes to this important issue...

The tour started out as what the guides figured was another political dog-&-pony show where they and their remarkable building were to be used in a photo op while Hillary picked up the endorsement of Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Then they realized the lady knew what she was talking about...

Did growing plants on a roof instead of nailing down shingles sound goofy to her? Nope - she understood the "urban heat island" effect, which means that the soil-and-plant roof will be 40 percent cooler than a typical top.

And how hippie-silly is using shredded blue jeans to insulate the walls? Not at all, she said - aside from the recycling benefit, it snuffs the danger of glass-like fibers breaking down and polluting the air.

"It's exciting to tour someone who is so aware of the issues of sustainability, of green buildings and even the challenges of creating green buildings," said a shell-shocked-looking Chris Andrews, who as the academy's associate director led Clinton and Newsom through the $484 million structure. "I frankly did not expect that.

"I've led a lot of tours like this with a lot of officials, and believe me, this was pretty unusual to have someone understand what I was talking about."

She also took the opportunity to go after Junior for the way he’s led a flat-out attack on science and knowledge, by taking information off of government web-sites, muzzling scientists regarding what’s happing on the global warming front, challenging or even denying the whole idea of evolution, and fighting tooth an nail against those trying to find cures through stem cell research.

She went on to point out the importance of electing a president who actually supports science, and projects like that green building that she was visiting that day.

The article goes on to say...

The rest of the academy is equally green, with solar panels and other materials aimed at cutting energy usage to 30 percent below federal standards. All of the steel used in the building was recycled.

Clinton pointed to the building as an example of how going green, a concept laughed at in mainstream America not so many years ago, can make sense in everyday life.

"You think about recycling jeans for insulation, or having gardens on roofs - this is not pie-in-the-sky stuff," she said. "This can be done."

Clinton touted her proposed $1 billion "green building" fund for states looking to improve energy efficiency, and said she would like to create a $50 billion fund to develop new energy technologies. In addition to making America less dependent on foreign oil, such research could create thousands of new "green-collar" jobs, she said - "good jobs that can't be outsourced."

I can vouch for that bit about making "going green" more mainstream.  People used to laugh at the idea of putting plants up on the roof of a building, but our local Fox affiliate (of all people!) are actually doing regular segments on how we can go green at home etc.

At any rate, Newsome sure did sound impressed with Hillary’s depth of knowledge on this and other issues...

Later, after Clinton's handlers had hustled her away to her next engagement, Newsom talked animatedly about how the senator understands the issues he cares about - environment, homelessness, how to get federal money into his city - even better than her husband, former President Bill Clinton. And certainly better than the other Democratic candidates for president, he added.

Newsom doesn't even mind that Clinton splits with him by not supporting only civil unions and not same-sex marriage.

"I like Barack (Obama) and admire him ... and (John) Edwards as well ... but I never was able to have a discussion of the issues with the same depth, the same understanding, that I have had with Hillary Clinton," he said.

For more information on what Hillary’s got to say about global warming, you can check out her issue page HERE (with a video you can click on) and for her overall strategy re energy and the environment, click HERE.

Hillary's Voting Record

Hillary's Rating by Various Interest Groups

Hillary's Bio - Project Vote Smart

Update: Title

UPDATE 2

Hat-tip to MassLib for reminding us of Hillary's bill regarding greener federal buildings.

S. 1059 - To amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to improve Federal building energy efficiency standards.

Hillary introduced this in March of this year.

•  The Lady Knows Her Stuff

  Gotta admit - she's brilliant!

  Nice departure from the eejit in the WH now.

  by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:35:42 PM PDT

  •  Another great diary!

    At first, when I saw the title, I thought it was snark central.

    Regarding our previous conversation, THIS is how you sell her to me.  Bringing science funding back to 1950's levels will go a long way toward giving this country a future.

    by polecat on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:05:39 PM PDT

    •  Glad to Hear it Polecat

      Like a lot of us, I've started paying more attention to how we can help reduce our carbon footprint in our lives.  We've got kids after all and I want to leave them a liveable planet some day.

      I can't imagine anyone with kids NOT paying attention to the importance of science and stemming the global warming in this world.

      I'm so glad to hear Hillary's tuned in to this important issue, and is smart enough to get her head around the details.

      by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:14:03 PM PDT

    •  Maybe I Should Add "(Really!)" to the Title

      of this diary ;o)

      by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:14:42 PM PDT

    •  scientific funding

      Part of Hillary's platform is to double funding to the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health for scientific research.

      by markw on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:21:10 PM PDT

      •  thank god!

        it's been awful to get funding.

        by coigue on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:12:01 PM PDT

  •  Have we not hade enought of stage...

    . mananged press events?

    by back2basics on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:28:44 PM PDT

    •  You Forgot to Throw In "Triangulate"

      Didn't you get the memo?

      by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:47:12 PM PDT

      •  It doesn't matter how smart she is.

        What matters is, who owns her, and I suspect that she is owned by the NAFTA crowd.

        by gopher747 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:35:12 PM PDT

        •  Really? I diary was posted the other day. It

          pointed out that Clinton's record on free trade votes wasn't that much worse then Edwards'. You can do a search for it. I'll look myself.

          by tigercourse on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:39:10 PM PDT

        •  There's a NAFTA crowd?

          And you suspect that, do you? Don't you just mean that it's just something you made up? You know, just making things up is actually not ethical. Did you learn nothing from the Bush administration?

          by Batfish on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:41:35 PM PDT

          •  The NAFTA crowd would be

            the corporatist rogues in the famous NAFTA photo that Bill Clinton posed with.

            by gopher747 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:08:46 AM PDT

            •  It's not famous to me

              You seem rather cathected on this issue. Well, I guess everyone has their pet.

              by Batfish on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

        •  Here you gom

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          As you can see, Clinton and Edwards aren't that far apart. And Kucinich is far better then Edwards.

          by tigercourse on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:42:54 PM PDT

    •  Or bad spelling?

      That's what the Preview is for.

      by Batfish on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

  •  no question Hillary is a smart cookie n/t

    by dlcox1958 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:02:14 PM PDT

•  No surprise that she's done her homework. n/t

  by oldpro on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

  •  She's Known For That

    At a recent meeting of volunteers in our area, a man spoke of a meeting he hed with her in her senate office.  He and a collegue sent her a 20 page briefing booklet (on veterans issues) in the lead-up to the meeting, and then sat down with her face to face to go over their concerns.

    He was astounded to hear how detailed her questions were after they's given her their pitch.  She went through the booklet page by page (without looking at it) with follow-up questions or requests for clarification.  It was clear she's read their booklet and had committed it to memory.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:49:35 PM PDT

    •  Isn't it interesting how veterans' issues seem

      to be of more concern to the women in congress than the men?  Patty Murray in my state has taken on these issues, bigtime.  Veterans' issues have been a scandel for years...ignored by the Republicans while they romped off to war...actually, while they sent other people's kids off to war.  It appears the gender gap also has something to do with being a mom...so the polls indicate, anyway.

      by oldpro on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:30:11 PM PDT

•  But NOBODY posts any positive reason to

  support Hillary. That's a meta-rule on DK---at least, I thought so, since I read the complaint so many times.

  You know what gets me? The anti-Hillary mouth breathers on here who are always hinting about dark conspiracies, or bringing up old, discredited trash. There's quite a few like that here.
  I contrast that to those who are very unhappy with Hillary's politics and her voting record. Nothig wrong with that kind of criticism.

  by BoringDem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:52:43 PM PDT

  •  If They're Unhappy w/ Her Voting Record Then I

    would submit that they haven't bothered to actually LOOK at her record.

    It's one of the most progressive among those running - more progressive than Edwards and if you look at the above links you'll see that she's even edged out Obama in the rankings.

    I've tried really hard to keep my diaries positive about Hillary.  I'm so sick of the attack diaries posted by the supporters of some of the other candidates (there've been loads of flare-ups between Obama & Edwards supporters here) - they only serve to tear down our party and our wonderful field of candidates, and the Goopers will latch on to the crap that's been posted with relish.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:58:45 PM PDT

    •  Sure. But at least you can move

      from that kind of criticism to an area of better understanding. The mouth breathers should just be shunned.

      by BoringDem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:01:12 PM PDT

      •  Hey!

        My nose is stuffed up!

        by coigue on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:50:03 PM PDT

•  Nice diary, Alegre.

  I was going to write something about this myself.  Now I won't have to!  It will be nice to have a science friendly president in the White House.

  by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:56:50 PM PDT

  •  Best the Brightest

    People were impressed with Bill's intellect, but from what I've seen and heard - she's even smarter than he is.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:59:53 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      I think this woman is brilliant, if you really want substance and capability in President - If you want something more than the same old same old tired politician - this is the choice.

      by kitsapdem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:07:01 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Great Alegre

    I saw something related on Hillaryhub....this woman's so f'n brilliant, there's not much she can't talk intelligently to, and that includes Global Warming and the details on redeployment in Iraq, like how many brigades per month are safe to redeploy to reduce casualities of Iraquis and US - What this woman doesn't know she'll learn in a day...

    Bottomline...if you want someone who can only recite soundbites about topics and has little substance beyond that ....DO NOT VOTE For Hillary!

    by kitsapdem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:04:41 PM PDT

•  Vote for Hillary in DKos Straw Poll

  here

  This is a daily DKos straw poll that seems to last for about 24-hours, so mark it on your hotlists and vote for Hillary everyday.

  by Norwegian Chef on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:59:31 PM PDT

  •  Will do. Thanks. nt

    by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:01:26 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the Heads-Up re the Poll

    Voted - and I would encourage all of Hillary's supporters here to do likewise.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

•  Detail is nice

  ... but it can also be distracting. I don't need a president with opinions about where the rivets should go in a certain bridge. I need one with an intelligent vision for transportation strategy in the 21st century.

  This is not a knock on Hillary. Being aware of some details does not preclude having a strategic vision. But neither does it guarantee that such a vision is present.

  The thing about Hillary is that if she has an authentic vision, she keeps it to herself. I can't tell what she really thinks, and she has declared pretty much outright that in certain situations she would not say what she really intends to do. IMHO that is not necessarily a bad thing in a leader, but of course it is not necessarily a good thing either. Kind of depends on the leader. In Bush, this same quality is disastrous.

  On a much smaller scale, in a corporate setting, I myself have been a leader. I definitely did not share everything I was thinking with the junior members of my staff. It would have been crazy to do so. So I understand when she doesn't reveal herself fully. But I still don't know what kind of president she would be.

  by DBunn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:02:03 PM PDT

  •  Take a Look at The Above Links

    Specifically - her voting record.

    If you don't get a sense of where she wants to take us by looking at what she's supported or opposed in the past, I don't know what will.

    For a look at the legislation she's proposed in this Congress, Click HERE and search Hillary's bills by choosing her in the Senate drop-down menue.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:09:03 PM PDT

    •  OK, I went there

      I clicked on her name, and a list of 100 bills came up. Apparently, she supported something honoring the NAACP (I would certainly hope so). After that my eyes glazed over. Rivets in the bridge.

      What is her strategic vision for the 21st century? This matters to me.

      by DBunn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:16:46 PM PDT

      •  It's More Than Rivets

        Check out her voting record (see my sig line for a link).

        Look at her rankings from some of the issue groups out there.  If the opinion of groups like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU or NOW don't count then I'm not sure what to tell you.

        by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:24:15 PM PDT

        •  I hope it's getting through

          ... that I'm not trying to dis HRC here. This part of the thread has gotten kind of long, and this word "rivets" which I thought was kind of a neat metaphor when I first used it has come to take on a life of its own.

          I do acknowledge her progressive voting record, as well as the support she receives from many excellent organizations. Plus, she has the support of some non-bloggers I know personally and respect a great deal.

          by DBunn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:06:26 AM PDT

          •  Fair Play To Ya DBunn ;o)

            by Alegre on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:18:53 AM PDT

      •  What is YOUR candidates strategic vision?

        And it's a ggod question for every candidate: How do you see the America of the future, and what will you do to LEAD us there?

        I concur Hillary is very smart, as are our other candidates.

        by sd4david on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:27:49 PM PDT

        •  Edwards

          ... gives me the best sense of what he thinks is really going on, and what needs to be done.

          His "One America" theme, stated willingness to tax the rich, and concentration on poverty all go directly to wealth and income disparity. This is not just about plucking heartstrings. IMHO, we will not be able to make good decisions as a nation unless we all experience life in a somewhat similar way. When the wealthiest (and most influential) 1% have no clue of the real issues that affect the bottom 90%, we have a big problem.

          That indicates a systemic understanding on Edwards' part that I completely agree with. He's going after the the fundamental condition that underlies and will greatly influence all the other choices that we will have to make in this new century.

          by DBunn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:08:17 PM PDT

          •  Good, because he is my choice, too.

            But Hillary has earned my respect and admiration lately (overall).

            by sd4david on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:09:39 PM PDT

            •  My respect too

              I thought she handled herself well at the YK forum for instance.

              by DBunn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:56:07 AM PDT

  •  This is not rivets ...

    but the sort of basic knowledge that should be the standard for judging every single candidate.

    If a candidate, to me, doesn't have a clue that a green roof provides energy and water runoff and urban cooling benefits then ... Well, this is not 'minutia' but an understanding that there are both major and small things to do to change the energy situation.

    Now, this does improve my feel for Hillary but does not "wow" me.  Distressing that the type of information provided was enough to wow the scientists (suggesting level of knowledge (ignorance) or previous visitors).

    Now, when one listens to her energy messages (see, for example, via Grist's environmental page), there is discussion of clean coal, promotion of ethanol, etc ...

    I want to be clear, if elected, Hillary Clinton will make a strong President and greatly improve the situation re energy and science. This story and diary helps point to that.

    But, I remain unwowed on this front.

    by A Siegel on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:12:47 PM PDT

    •  She also has a plan for green federal buildings,

      and she's into wind and solar power.

      by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:15:21 PM PDT

    •  S. 1059

      http://thomas.loc.gov/...

      I'd forgotten about that.  Think it's time for an update to the diary.

      by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:17:54 PM PDT

      •  And that is a good bill ...

        which I wholeheartedly support.  This is very much in line with Architecture 2030.

        It would be tremendous step forward ... and should be not mandate for federal buildings, but a federal mandate for all buildings.

        And, in addition, we should be seeking to go carbon negative in infrastructure, which is possible.

        by A Siegel on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:24:55 PM PDT

    •  More about rivets

      It is definitely a good thing when a candidate demonstrates genuine comprehension of an issue beyond whatever empty talking points s/he hopes will result in getting elected.

      For you, A Siegel, with your interests, I would think she kind of hit a home run on this particular issue :) For me too, actually.

      However, wonkishness is not my litmus test for presidential candidates. If it leads to micromanagement, it is a detriment in my opinion. Strategic vision, integrity, political skill, and administrative capability are what I'm looking for.

      My question for Hillary is what her strategic vision really is. I'm guessing that if she has one, she won't tell us what it is. Which just leaves me guessing.

      by DBunn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:31:58 PM PDT

      •  Disagree ... and agree ...

        Perhaps, I do not want someone who (on every issue) will demonstrate the knowledge of a graduate-level student.

        On the other hand, 'green roofing' is sort of basic -- my real shock is that Hillary knew but it sounds like others didn't.

        But, yes, strategic vision matters, the vision in which that competent knowledge and ability to judge specific proposals fits.

        Now, I decided that -- due to EA2020 and other reasons -- that I would not come out for a candidate in the primaries and work to get any/all candidates to be as strong as possible on energy/global warming issues.  Which, to me, is a 'grand vision' issue.

        by A Siegel on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:49:49 PM PDT

    •  I like rivets

      Anyone can spout big principles, but it is understanding of the nitty-gritty that is key to being a good Prez. But I would hope that the one thing that any President would have is a very good eye for talent, and largeness of spirit to hire the very best to run each and every department of the Federal Government. Bill Clinton did that, from Rubin at Treasury, Reich at Labor, Witt at FEMA, Shalala at HHS. The list is staggering. And it gave us very good government. The bottom line is that first-rate people hire first-rate people. Second-rate people hire third-raters, and third-rate people hire morons. Guess where GWB comes in on that scale? I am very happy that we have a bunch of first-rate candidates, and I would be very happy to see any of the top half-dozen nominated. That doesn't happen too ooften. So, whatever the outcome of the primaries, I hope the winner will use the talents of the others to create the greatest, most talented administration in history.

      by Batfish on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:52:06 PM PDT

  •  Sort of along those lines...

    I find her knowledge of this issue unsurprising, but it makes her plan to deal w/global warming that much more disappointing to me.  

    She knows better, but her plan isn't aggressive enough for my liking.

    by Sinister Rae on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:18:17 PM PDT

  •  details are nice.

    like whether Sweden has an army or not.

    by campskunk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:18:44 PM PDT

    •  Well

      We can expect any next president to have a better grasp of basic facts than wee George.

      by DBunn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:36:23 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        I remember reading in the 5th grade on how President Teddy Roosevelt would find out the hobbies or interests of whatever guest he had coming to the White House and the evening before he would research those topics (I pictured him reading the encyclopedia and studying an atlas). The next day, TR steered the conversation to the guest's interests and they'd always be astonished how widely read and knowledgeable President Roosevelt was.

        I thought that was so clever, I've always used the idea whenever I can.  So far as I've seen, most politicians do the same. Its an unusual that a politician doesn't know the buzzwords or lingo of any group or person they're speaking to-- it may impress the audience but for politicians, its as expected as an airline pilot showing up for work sober.

        The trick is, and I think I knew this by the 5th grade as well, talk is cheap, its actions that count.

        by Beowulf on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:40:10 PM PDT

•  The more I learn about Clinton

  the more impressed I am.

  by coral on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:07:00 PM PDT

  •  Same Here

    When I first started posting these diaries 2 or 3 months ago I figured I'd get my head handed to me for siding with Clinton, which wasn't the case.  So I posted more and more info about her background.

    But as the weeks went on and people started to see what she's all about, we've gotten some great discussions going here.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:10:59 PM PDT

•  Can we who are DKos Hillary supporters

  form some sort of a support group for writing good diaries about her and defending her in diaries where she is being wrongly trashed.  There seems to be a good core group of supporters here that could make a nice team to help her out and support her.

  by Norwegian Chef on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:11:38 PM PDT

  •  NC, that's so funny. I emailed DC Dem

    about that very thing.  I've his email address and lorellynn's.  Let's get this thing together.

    by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:13:44 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely!!! n/t

      by Norwegian Chef on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:15:05 PM PDT

      •  Ok, I have to figure out how to get everyone's

        email address.  I'm not that comfortable posting mine online.

        by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:24:23 PM PDT

        •  My email is on my profile so count me in n/t

          by Norwegian Chef on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:26:02 PM PDT

          •  Cool. nt

            by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:26:43 PM PDT

  •  Great Idea

    There are a good number of us here now and I really like the fact that we all try to keep things positive (unlike a lot of other folks on this site).

    I and others have posted some links to some awesome info.  I'm not sure if we need a support group, but if we can compile the information we've put up thus far in to a single diary and then we all add that to our hot-lists, we'll have the info at our finger tips and can fire off rebuttals or informative diaries on a moment's notice.

    Things like

    Her voting record
    Links to sites ranking her progressive record
    Her floor speech in the lead up to the vote on that Iraq war resolution

    I've gotten a start in this diary toward the end.  Might make sense to try something early next week at a set time so we can all add to the discussion - then one of us can take up the job of compiling things in to a single diary later.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:34:58 PM PDT

    •  It would be good to get an email when

      a pro-Hillary diary or anti-Hillary diary needed attention or when a poll was put up so we could all know and respond respectfully.  I am in Australia and active in Democrats Abroad and can handle the night shift.  The Edwards people here have a great support operation like this, and I tip my hat to them.

      I absolutely agree about being positive and being respectful to other candidates. It is about building Hillary up not tearing the others down. That is very important.  All 3 front runners are really great.

      A support group might be fun as DKos is all about community, and it would be good to e-meet and e-hangout with all the other Hillary supporters.

      by Norwegian Chef on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:43:46 PM PDT

      •  I agree. I am going to keep collecting emails.

        I'll send something out tomorrow.

        by masslib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:56:08 PM PDT

        •  I Don't Have My Email Posted But

          if you post yours in your profile, I'll send mine to you.

          by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:04:00 PM PDT

        •  Let me know if it didn't get through

          by leaving a comment here.

          Otherwise - we should be good to go ;o)

          by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:17:11 PM PDT

      •  Take it from someone who hasn't

        decided their primary favorite...

        I absolutely agree about being positive and being respectful to other candidates. It is about building Hillary up not tearing the others down. That is very important.  All 3 front runners are really great.

        That's the important thing to me.  I just want to hear what their plans are, and how they plan to implement them.  I don't want to read diaries that state "my candidate is so great because your candidate sucks."

        by Heiuan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:46:08 AM PDT

•  I'm an Obama supporter

  But I do admire her intellect. Always have.

  by greenboy on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:16:16 PM PDT

  •  I feel the same greenboy

    I'm a huge Obama fan, but I was at the debate this week at Soldier Field in Chicago.  And Hillary really impressed me.  And I don't mean with just savvy.

    I'll back anyone who sees the larger picture on conservation.  THAT is more important than a single candidate.

    by CupofTea on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:47:25 PM PDT

•  I am confident she will excel in this area

  I think the one area the Clintons are string is in using the government to stimulate scientific research that leads to job creation.  Bill Clinton was great at that and it's why during his 8 years real wages increased.  I am confident Hillary will do well in this area.

  This is NOT an endorsement of Hillary by yours trily.  On balance I still like Edwards.  However, in this area Hillary will do well.

  by noofsh on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:17:53 PM PDT

  •  Liking Edwards is an understandable thing. :)

    by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:20:48 PM PDT

•  Next week Hillary will....

  .. be explaining to C# programers why they should be migrating to .NET.

  The follwing week Hillary will be holding a lecture with D0 scientists at Fermi lab. She will be explaing to the how the finding of the sterile neutrino may prove or disprove the existance of branes and string theory.

  After that she will be taking on Iron Chef Mario Batali, demonstrating her skill with a knife and making beef ice cream.

  And then, to round of a hectic week, some quality time with Bill, who said "This is a team effort, but Hillary is twice the man i was".

  by back2basics on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:24:26 PM PDT

  •  I get the "big picture" dig.....

    but shouldn't a candidate understand what the problems are, to come up with a plan to fix them?

    For example, I have no ide how "mine safety" works. To come up with a way to reduce recent tragedies, one must understand the root problems, to come up with a workable solution.

    And the "big picture" would be protecting American workers from profit hungry employers.

    by sd4david on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:32:32 PM PDT

    •  Yes they should...

      but when it's s clearly stage managed, how on earth can you know she does understand?

      by back2basics on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

      •  How Was This Stage-Managed?

        She toured that building and offered up some comments that showed she knew her stuff.

        I really do think that's an unfair portrayal of who she is.  With a lot of folks around here - Hillary's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

        by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:37:55 PM PDT

        •  Now, now.

          You just "know", like all the other good folks here "know" that anything Hillary does is "staged", while anything done by any other candidate is an absolute unexpected stroke of shear spontaneity and genius.

          by emsprater on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:17:29 PM PDT

          •  Bush couldn't have "staged" it

            he's to dumb.

            by sd4david on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:08:12 PM PDT

  •  And after she has done ....

    all this there will still be some folks who just don't want her for POTUS because they just can't stand her.

    by emsprater on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:15:25 PM PDT

•  Hillary/Murdoch/DLC '08 !! nt

  by ronlib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:31:17 PM PDT

  •  You Forgot to Include "Triangulate", the DLC

    and vichy dem in your post!

    Didn't you get the memo?

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:38:41 PM PDT

    •  Don't forget! She took money from Abramoff

      and supports the sweatshops in the Marianas.

      by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:43:44 PM PDT

      •  Ummmm - Gotta Link?

        by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:49:08 PM PDT

      •  Oh Wait - Snark?

        by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:50:14 PM PDT

        •  Dengre.

          Dengre posted an entire fictional news story about how Hillary took money from Abramoff. It's bizarre in the extreme.

          by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:18:43 PM PDT

      •  The subject is Murdoch. nt

        by ronlib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:17:29 PM PDT

        •  No - It's Not

          The subject is Hillary and her knowledge of green buildings.

          You were thread-jacking and we were being nice in NOT troll-rating you.

          by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:22:58 PM PDT

        •  You are really obnoxious, if you don't mind

          my saying so.

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:14:28 PM PDT

  •  You must be an ...

    Edwards supporter.  You know, the kind of folks who troll rate with ease if such a smear is made against their candidate.

    by emsprater on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:19:35 PM PDT

•  In the old days of women's lib

  we had a saying, "A woman must work twice as hard as a man to be thought half as good.  Fortunately, this is not difficult." Hillary came of age in the time of this saying, and I think she has lived it. So I'm not surprised that she knows more than the guys.

  I'm not for her yet, but I'm getting there.

  by Tenn Wisc Dem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:32:25 PM PDT

  •  Stay Tuned - She'll Convince You Yet ;o)

    I remember that saying - I think I used to have a button along those lines!

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:39:35 PM PDT

•  Great...she plays in San Francisco....

  ....lets see if she can show how dumb and just folks she is in the millions of places in America where she may need to show just that. God speed, as she walks this very difficult line.

  by Bensdad on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:33:23 PM PDT

•  We were talking about this article over dinner...

  and agreed that Hillary is an intelligent, well informed person.  Then the topic turned to "wish she'd get out in front of some issues and really take a leadership role".  (She's not the only candidate we said that about.)  During that conversation, it struck me that at least some of that is probably a hold-over from First Lady days.  

  She had eight years of being forced to stay in the background.  When she took a leadership role early on, she was batted down ferociously.  From that, she no doubt learned to wield influence from the background rather than leading the charge.  After that, she was in the Senate and they don't seem to take too kindly to newcomers barging to the front, either (I think this is a problem facing Obama as well).

  by lineatus on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:34:09 PM PDT

  •  Ya Know That's A Really Great Point

    She must have really felt smacked down over that initial run at an issue she was passionate about when they first went to the White House.

    by Alegre on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:41:51 PM PDT

    •  And there was no template for dealing with it

      Though FLs have long had causes they championed (and may I just say thank you again to Lady Bird for being an early enviro), none of them had taken on anything quite so contentious, with such entrenched big-money instrests in opposition.  Presidents have a number of tools for dealing with opponents, but other First Ladies had never even needed a toolbox.

      by lineatus on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:16:32 PM PDT

•  Bet the Fortune 500 has lots of CEO's as

  smart as Hill. And they're also great at globalization
  and keeping wages low. While John Edwards is just a dumbass bleeding heart that wants to raise wages.
   

  by ronlib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:37:56 PM PDT

  •  Hillary sponsored the Employee Free Choice bill

    and votes with AFL-CIO 93% of the time. She walks picket lines and has union endorsements already. What exactly is your beef here?

    by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:50:24 PM PDT

    •  Beef is she can't TRULY support the

      common man AND globalization / corporatization. There is class warfare going on here, and I'm not sure which side she is on - but strongly suspect the wrong one.
      I KNOW where Edwards is. He says so straight on. Yes, he WAS too conservative in the senate. He's swung hard left now.
      Btw, Bill C was too conservative too, for me. You? Maybe that's where the divide is. I'm a Bernie Sanders
      Liberal - not a Democrat. Are you a Yellow Dog? Then we have no common ground.  

      by ronlib on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:27:56 PM PDT

      •  sorry but

        if Edwards gets in office, he will be eaten alive.

        That is my current impression. Feel free to disabuse me.

        (hint: I am not impressed by anti-Hillary comments sans substance, or by pie-in-the-sky promises that magically erase everything that Bushco built during the last 8 years)

        by coigue on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:57:28 PM PDT

      •  She wouldn't be carrying union legislation if

        she wasn't on the side of unions. She opposed CAFTA as well.

        by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:13:08 PM PDT

        •  News flash:

          She isn't.

          Or did you miss the boos from the AFL-CIO?

          by Corwin Weber on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:03:32 PM PDT

          •  She votes with 93% of the time. They certainly

            weren't booing her record. Nor do they boo when she shows up to walk their picket line with them. Nor do they boo when she carries legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act for them.

            by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:59:17 PM PDT

            •  Yes, they were booing her record....

              ...of sending jobs to Mexico, India or China.  They were booing her record of supporting importing cheap foreign labor to undercut union wages.  They were booing her support of NAFTA.

              When will you Hillary supporters get it through your pod people heads that chanting 'voting record voting record voting record' like some kind of mantra isn't going to convince anyone?

              by Corwin Weber on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:02:53 PM PDT

              •  Well, if her voting record isn't that much

                different then, say "working man's champion" John Edwards, doesn't that matter a little?

                by tigercourse on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:05:46 PM PDT

                •  Again......

                  ....have I said I was supporting Edwards?

                  by Corwin Weber on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:10:40 PM PDT

              •  How can she vote with the union 93% of the time

                then? You do get that your post doesn't make a lick of sense, right? If she's voting with them that often, then her record is good. Unless. you're under the impression that the union doesn't take issue with those things......

                go ahead - I'd like to you square her voting record with your claim that she has a lousy record of shipping jobs overseas and importing cheap labor.

                by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:29:34 PM PDT

                •  Again. NAFTA.

                  Again.  H1B expansion.

                  Again.  GATT.

                  You all seem to keep studiously ignoring these points.

                  Voting with labor 93% of the time doesn't mean a fucking thing if the other 7% totally screws workers.

                  by Corwin Weber on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:44:48 PM PDT

                  •  Give me some bills, in particular.

                    LOL

                    So how often to do you have to vote with the union to be considered pro-union?

                    You aren't even thinking about what you're saying here. You have an impression and you're determined to not let reality derail your fantasy.

                    by lorelynn on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:49:16 PM PDT

                    •  Ask, and ye shall recieve.....

                      Expanding H1B visas.

                      Won't repeal NAFTA either.....

                      by Corwin Weber on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:30:01 AM PDT

                    •  And in answer to your second question....

                      ...it isn't a question of how many times you vote with the Union that matters.  It's how many times you don't vote against them.

                      All the petty 'throw them a bone' votes in the world don't matter if you screw them when it really counts.

                      by Corwin Weber on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:40:11 AM PDT

                      •  Clearly, the AFL-CIO doesn't see it that way.

                        Here take a look on her voting record on the issues that they say matter.
                        http://www.aflcio.org/...

                        by lorelynn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:52:14 AM PDT

                        •  NAFTA hasn't come up for a vote.

                          Neither has GATT.  You're also still ignoring her stated position on the H1B program.

                          You can dodge this issue all you want, but don't think that people here aren't smart enough to see that that's what you're doing.

                          by Corwin Weber on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:28:42 AM PDT

                          •  You're the one dodging her voting record.

                            You cannot bring yourself to admit that she has a strong pro-union record and there is no getting around it. She didn't vote on NAFTA and only offers qualified remarks on it. She voted against CAFTA - something you haven't acknowledged as well as some other trade negotiations. You don't like her positions on two issues and you ignore the other issues that effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers.

                            by lorelynn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

                            •  I'm not avoiding anything.

                              CAFTA I'll give her.  NAFTA she's never voted on.  GATT she's never voted on.  Some of us would argue that this is deliberate.  As someone who has watched his industry be absolutely devastated by the H1B program, I'd say that these 'two issues,' (which are hardly my only problems with Clinton by the way) are just a bit relevant to me and plenty of other people.

                              You all keep harping on her voting record as if it told the entire story.  Hillary Clinton 'votes liberal.'  When she's dragged kicking and screaming into doing so.  She also then proceeds to stab longterm, loyal democratic voters in the back.  

                              When Joe Lieberman does the same thing he gets crucified on this site.... and rightly so.  When Hillary Clinton does it, she gets a crowd of supporters telling us to sit down and shut up so that you can win.

                              Not this time.

                              by Corwin Weber on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:31:20 PM PDT

                              •  What on earth do you think you're talking about?

                                Dragged to vote liberal? The second day she was in the Senate she was supporting an increase in the minimum wage. She votes with the unio