Skip to main content

View Diary: Hype? Let's talk about "Hype" (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope (4+ / 0-)

    let me explain the difference.  The previous diary noted that Obama had a lot more co-sponsors than Clinton, for legislation that did not pass.  That's not leadership.

    If I can get a whole bunch of people to sit in a room with me and chat, I'm not leading.  I'm having a party. If, on the other hand, after the chat I get up to walk out of the room, and everybody stands up to walk out with me, THAT is leadership.  

    I am sorry you see this as some sort of "elitism," and perhaps I'm just terribly old-school, but I have always operated under the theory that words have meaning.  "Lead," for example, means "To be ahead or at the head of."  Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, REvised Edition, p. 392.  One who leads shows "leadership."  You are not "leading" if you are WITH, rather than "ahead or at the head of."  See how that works?  

    As for your attempt to twist the words from "lead" to "submit," well that is just invalid.  It is your attempt to alter what I said, not to interpret it.

    If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

    by dhonig on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:06:12 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see the contrast (0+ / 0-)

      you're trying to make here.  Are you saying Obama isn't showing "real leadership" because his legislation isn't passing, or because he's got lots of cosponsors?

      Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

      by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:39:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm saying (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy, nonnie9999, cumberland sibyl

        merely having lots of co-sponsors is not indicative of leadership.  Co-sponsorship comes for many reasons- deals cut (you sign mine and I'll sign yours), friendship, partisanship, etc.  I do not mean to demean it, but also refuse to elevate it. The real test of leadership is taking everybody who agrees with you and moving FORWARD to actual achievement.  

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:45:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So is it because his legislation (0+ / 0-)

          isn't passing that you think that Obama's not showing "real leadership?"

          Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

          by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, nonnie9999

            and I really can't tell if I'm explaining poorly or if you are being obtuse.  If it is the former, I apologize.  I will try one more time.  The failure to pass legislation is not necessarily indicative of a failure of leadership.  However, and this is what I am trying to say, the ability to attract co-sponsors in unsuccessful ventures is not necessarily indicative of leadership.

            Additionally, the whole premise is inaccurate.  Clinton proposed 150 bills and amendments in the 110th Congress, to date.  Of those, 42 had no cosponsors, 64 had 1-5 cosponsors, 29 had 6-10 cosponsors, 10 had 11-20 cosponsors, and 5 had 21-50 cosponsors.  Hillary had cosponsors in 72% of her bills.  She had more than 10 cosponsors for 10% of her bills. She had more than 5 cosponsors for 70.67% percent of her bills.

            Obama proposed 113 bills and amendments in the 110th Congress, to date.  Of those, 31 had no cosponsors, 54 had 1-5 cosponsors, 16 had 6-10 cosponsors, 6 had 11-20 cosponsors, and 5 had 20-50 cosponsors.  Obama, too, had consponsors on 72% of his bills.  He had more than 10 cosponsors for 9.7% of his bills.  He only had more than 5 cosponsors for 23.9% of his bills.  

            So, what does this tell you?  Well, if cosponsors are a sign of leadership, they are pretty similar, though Hillary demonstrated a significantly greater ability to attract groups of 6 or more to her bills.

            If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

            by dhonig on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's both, really... (0+ / 0-)

              If you go back to my original comment, I was arguing about what the diarist considered to be "real leadership."  Specifically, I took exception to this statement:

              "Leadership" doesn't come from getting people to join you.  "Leadership" comes from getting people to FOLLOW you, to DO things.

              In a response, you then chimed in with this:

              The previous diary noted that Obama had a lot more co-sponsors than Clinton, for legislation that did not pass.  That's not leadership.

              And we've been going round and round since.  I'm being a little obtuse because I can tell pretty clearly what you DON'T think is leadership.  But what I'm trying to get you to articulate is what you DO think is leadership, as it pertains to this whole dustup about legislation and co-sponsors.  You haven't elaborated on that yet.

              It's not enough to sit around and point out how a certain legislator's actions do NOT demonstrate leadership, because you also have to include a test of what IS leadership in order to judge that legislator.

              Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

              by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site