Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Senate Record Comparison: Obama vs. Clinton
I found the following over on one of the Daily Kos Dairies. The author gave her permission for others to distribute it. It is a summary of the good intentions, successes and failures of both candidates in the senate. While the author now supports Obama, she had been inclined toward Hillary before doing her research. I think it is one of the most well researched, fact based pieces on both their records that I have ever encountered.
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter) by Grassroots Mom
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST
The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on
that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of
accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own,
not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all
supporters' diaries, like this one.
I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.
- Grassroots Mom's diary :: ::
-
I
looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they
both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and
is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes
one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of
the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and
introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their
priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors
showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others.
Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of
how effective each would be at getting things done.
Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply. She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are both completely competent senators.
I started with Sen. Clinton.
I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War on Drugs.
Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.
I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.
For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."
Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.
In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.
The difference is in the scope and the approach.
Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.
Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?
How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.
Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.
A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes, for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).
Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : "A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.
In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." After looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.
Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.
Four bills on energy including
• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to
accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen
dependence on oil;
•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and
gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and
stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the
dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative
fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.
Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes.
Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.
On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).
Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama did:
S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic
neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still
suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks
in New York City and at the Pentagon.
S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational
Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational
diabetes, and for other purposes.
S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment
outreach teams, and for other purposes.
S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of
traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed
Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs
of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and for other purposes.
S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the
Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended
pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other
purposes.
S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.
and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors. Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.
Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither were adopted.
Now let's look more closely at Obama.
I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've
already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he
had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming,
campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear
proliferation, and education.
On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution
clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any
resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections
Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't
believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.
On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;
On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)
On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.
As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.
Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.
In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year.
Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.
It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.
Yes, We Can!
Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".













Comments (36)
Wow - thanks for an invaluable service & much kudos to the original info gatherer - will def go check out whole piece for myself.
I think this illustrates a larger point in that the MSM has gotten quite lazy about doing this level of detailed analysis. Consequently, we hear them repeat campaigns' mantras wholesale (i.e., experience, substance v. lack thereof) w/out any close examination of those claims. Repeated until they're just accepted as foregone conclusions.
From my own examination, I had a notion and some evidence that Obama's record was weightier than he was being credited for - but this tome knocks it out of the park. And there had been a few allusions to the fact that much of Clinton's legislation was about 'naming things' rather than anything very deep.
Since so many of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle touted her 'head-down' ethic it seemed true enough. But now one has to wonder if that overwhelming (and now it appears a tad exaggerated) aura could be chalked up to the Senate's notorious collegiality. Not only will they not speak ill of one another - but were loathe to question her narrative - as powerful as she was and w/ the then seeming inevitability as the Dem nominee - as well as the fear that drawing scrutiny to a colleague's actual record might backfire as heightened scrutiny of one's own.
Great post!
February 24, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
continued @
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/legislative_records.php
P.S. I should probably note for those not familiar with his blog that Matthew Yglesias is an Obama supporter.
February 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Luck with that.
February 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I actually looked on that .gov site, reviewed the records, and now, I have a better perspective from which to judge
who would make a stronger leader. Obama.
In one of the comments above, Ezra Klein suggests it may, in some ways, reach an unfair conclusion regarding Hillary's record.
I recognize that. But my decision to vote for Obama is based on "a balance of evidence". That's what Al Gore uses to make his case about the Climate Crisis. He says critics can come up with singular events, like a warming of Greenland thousands of years ago, and then a cooling to dismiss outright the notion of Global warming. But that's a micro view of a macro phenomenon.
Obama's ability to inspire, to gather support, not just from the American people, but from Republicans in the Senate, on a broader variety of issues, not just health care, his grace and ability to wage a far more diplomatic campaign than Hillary, yet not waver from the truth when he's criticized for putting out what some consider misleading mailers, well to me, the balance of evidence favors him.
I think Obama's potential is as compelling as what he's managed to accomplish already.
February 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading the both the Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein articles, I have a better understanding of how things work in the senate. (a little better). However, I did not post the article to put her down, but to address her claims and those of the press that Obama has no experience. I see now that cosponsoring legislation is not a true measure of intent or ability. However, I do not think the author knew that either. She just wanted to see what these two candidates had done in the Senate, which is difficult, since not much gets done there.
I found the following on the comments section of Igleias' article, for those who want to drill down further information on their bills and admendments. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a series of 3 posts listing the substantive bills and amendments that Clinton and Obama have co-sponsored *at the earliest possible date* (which, admittedly, is only a proxy for taking real action to get legislation written and passed... but it at least weeds out symbolic, free-riding cosponsorship). Here's the URLs for these 3 posts:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/but-wait-theres.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html
"The following comments to Klein's commentary shed even more insight into Obama's past work. See below:
You're right. It's not a fair comparison, not least because it omits almost ALL of Obama's legislation. He was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and has more than TEN years of legislation to his credit. You may claim that Illinois and Chicago are the minor leagues, but I say minor league, major league, it's still one game. And make no mistake, he's got game. He doesn't waste time like the DLC playing defense. He introduced more than 800 aggressive, straight-up liberal bills--including more than 200 reforming health care--and drove a startling number of them past hordes of lobbyists and special interests straight to the hoop. Boom. Even Republicans were wowed. Don't believe me? Here's a primer:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html
So when pundits insist that this funny new black guy is some kind of johnny-come-lately they're really saying more about themselves--and their inability to take off their beltway blinders--than about him. He's the frickin' Michael Jordan of progressive legislation, with the stats to prove it. Post-inauguration you doubters will be pleasantly surprised. And schooled.
I'd apologize for the easy and theoretically racist basketball analogies but I'm writing this from Obama's home court, the South Side, where he's been winning, and making my--and everyone's--life better, for more than two decades.
Speaking of sane--your quibble about Clinton's bill pulling funding for the Iraq war is straight from Penn's playbook. No legislator spoke out against the war like Obama. But once the troops were, alas, committed and on the ground, Obama voted to provide them with better armor and equipment.
You're a smart guy, Ezra, and you can wonk better than this. Put down the cookbooks and spend some time researching Obama's record.
February 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you VERY much for this. As already noted, it's the kind of thing the MSM should get off their lazy asses and do.
Is it "unfair" to Hillary? Well, no analysis is going to get every nuance right. But it certainly debunks the notation that there is some huge gap in legislative effectiveness and leadership between Hillary and Obama.
February 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the thing is, is it doesn't debunk anything.
February 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee:
Actually, the thing is, it debunks the idea that Obama is all rhetoric and no substance.
Does it say that "Obama has superior experience" or "a superior voting record" to Hillary? No. That's a subjective judgement. What it DOES say is that he has plenty of experience participating in government and actually doing well at it.
That you can't even give him THAT MUCH speaks volumes about your objectivity.
February 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are somewhat objective, although they do lean towards Obama and say so.
You, however, are not and have no business lecturing others.
February 24, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I could respond to that by escalating your obvious baiting, but I won't.
Instead, I'll merely point out that I'm not lecturing, simply giving this blog post its due. It's a fair assessment, even if it isn't exhaustively complete.
I'm more curious as to why you need to feel that this post is trash.
February 24, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Escalate what? You were rude, I responded in kind.
You are rather touchy. You remind me of the occasional freeper that makes it's way into a progressive site to cause havoc.
Presenting only partial facts is dishonest. There are many ways of lying, one way is by omission. This obviously qualifies.
February 25, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll note that you were rude first: "Actually, the thing is, it doesn't debunk anything." No explanation, no discussion, simply a shot across the bow.
I simply responded in kind.
I'm touchy? You're the one who who's creeped out by being the pot calling the kettle black and who seems to be taking it personally that anyone dares actually respond to you. If you can't have a conversation about the subject matter on this website, which isn't always going to remain civil, maybe you shouldn't be here. This place seems to require a rather thick skin.
With respect to what I remind you of, I wonder why you would bother to say such a thing. How do you expect me to interpret it? How would you expect me to respond? Do you think it's unreasonable to see it as baiting? That's the sort of statement that strikes ME as touchy.
How does the saying go... "Never attribute to malice what can reasonably be attributed to ignorance."
In other words, the original poster made what seems like a good faith effort to compare the two legislative records. That it doesn't hit all the points you'd find relevant doesn't mean she explicitly set out to make your candidate look bad.
February 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing rude about obsevring that the diary debunked nothing.
I would suggest, that if you really think so, that that is clear evidence of my second observation:
You're touchy.
Secondly, if a poor bit of amateur research is slanted to tell a story that isn't close to being true, then yeah, it fails the test of being relevant or "opening peoples eyes."
Any responsible person reading that could tell it was useless, and in fact, likely to ultimately make Obama look bad. As for the rest of your argument, sure, it was really "sweet" of the Diarist to put time into that effort. That isn't any reason to vote for someone.
Look, you want to invest in as hominem arguments, go right ahead. I would suggest it's the only one ya got, and it doesn't bother me.
It's shallow, like your shallow posts that communicate nothing but your own pique.
February 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot, meet kettle.
February 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was in response to this:
I thought the dumbass insulting our hosts here was deplorable, apparantly you thought it was a "good" thing as this is the second time you've tried to pass this off as a response to a poster that "disagreed" with me.
It wasn't and obsessive stalkers creep me out.
February 25, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I have been saying all along about experience HRC vs. Obama. Creating the perception that Hillary has an overwhelming mountain of experience when the bulk of her career was as a lawyer-advocate is patently unfair to voters when the media does not perform this kind of analysis of the public record. The same thing should be reviewed vis. Obama's state senate record.
February 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you have to work a lot harder than this to make a meaningful evaluation of the respecitive records of Clinton and Obama. I don't mean to denigrate the efforts here, but they just aren't nearly enough.
The lead paint comments alone demonstrate a lack of depth. Lead paint continues to be an extremely serious problem, especially for poor children. It would take much more research and study than demonstrated here to compare the cost benefit of Clinton's bill vs Obamas. The author's feeling about this could easily be very wrong.
And what kind of nut would, at the beginning of her comments, say that Clinton compares more to Lady Bird than Elenor? What an ignorant comment.
Not sure this analysis would be impressive beyond an introductory political science course.
February 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't comment on that, but it's more than the MSM has done. So, she's doing SOMETHING right.
February 24, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So misinformation is preferable to none.
I'm not sure I agree.
February 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it misinformation? All of the information she's used to develop her position is pulled straight from government records. Her conclusion is her own, and if that's what you take issue with, fine. That's your prerogative. I'm not sure what your problem is with the information presented.
February 24, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That it's incomplete, that it slants things unfairly towards Obama, and that will turn a lot of people off. They'll ask why you feel the need to use incomplete and misleading information to make your candidate look good.
Why do you? Isn't the whole truth good enough?
February 25, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then please, fill in the gaps, instead of complaining about the information provided. It would take an incredible amount of time an effort to make an exhaustive comparison of their work, and the original poster seems to have at least tried to make a fair comparison.
Again, those are conclusions, not premises. You're entitled to think it slants things unfairly towards Obama and that it will turn alot of people off, but those aren't reasons why the information provided is misinformation.
February 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's nonsensical.
It misinforms by OMISSION.
Look it up. The Catholics even think it's a sin, a specific form of LYING
What color is the sky in your world?
February 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
*** tdemorsella
Thank You for this information.
Obama's record proves far better when considering all the elements including substantive legislation and the way he has run his campaign.
Obama's organizational skills speak volumes. It does not take a rocket scientist to know lofty speeches do not win elections alone. Without a strategy, a ground team in place, money and a host of other things winning is impossible.
Millions believe in Obama. The number of small contributors exceed 500,000 -- there are rumours that number may be edging closer to one million. Pretty amazing.
You may have heard Obama tell the story about the woman who sent his campaign $3.01 as that was all she could afford. Every time I think about that it warms my heart.
Other rumours are floating around under the radar that February's total donations may reach anywhere from $36 million to $50 million dollars -- that is for this month alone.
Hillary's campaign, in contrast, became disorganized. Believing she would be the nominee after the Super Tuesday Primaries Hillary did not have a Plan B. The staff was not aware of Texas' quirky primary election system until last week.
Having decided not to campaign in some states Hillary thought she could ignore red states and small states was a miscalculation on her part. From firing staff members to taking out a loan from her personal account in tandem to the aforementioned belie her claims of being "ready day 1."
Even now after all of the mistakes Hillary keeps her loyalists -- who are paid millions of dollars -- rather than hire competent advisors. (Remind you of anyone?)
Through out the campaign time and again Hillary has shown poor judgment which does little to inspire confidence in her leadership skills.
February 25, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't support her candidate, so therefore it must be wrong. The information is right there, there records are both very impressive. However HRC claims that he has no experience, that he is all talk and no work. That is blatantly false.
False = Lie
Lie = misinformation
So you have just said you don't prefer your candidates tactics.
February 25, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a logical fallacy. Nothing here worth responding to really, but you might want to look them up.
Anything that comes from DailyKos is slanted at this point. It's a pity, they've become what they set out to protest.
February 25, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was to WorkerBee by the way.
February 25, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...Interesting...Haven't had a chance myself to check the records yet, but...at first blush, seems to me that BA tends to search for and address a problem/issue further up the line - he seems (in my view, anyway) to see the forest as well as the trees. HRC's legislation looks more like nibbling at the edges. It does seem to drive a stake in HRC's 'experience' argument.
I like HRC, but am honestly getting the feeling that BA is just better and a lot smarter and more canny as a candidate and legislator than his competitor (or anyone really) ever gave him credit for.
February 25, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee:
Perhaps you could post why you think Hillary's legislative record is superior than Obama's?
February 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
typo: superior "to" Obama's?
February 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what is more important to you, as Ezra Klein pointed out far better than I could.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=clinton_and_obamas_legislative#104609
As to their actual records showing here they'll go and their priorities, I prefer Clintons on some and Obama's on the other.
Neither is far enough left fpor me, I'm afraid, but I'll vote fore whomever gets the nod,.
I prefer to do so with my eyes wide open. What do you do, ma'am?
February 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow--i am surprised at some of the back and forth on this. one would think the real lesson here is that before you denigrate a candidate or someone else's opinion you should really do your research. i think it's wonderful that the author of the article took some time to look at the record. we each come to the facts with our own context, and place varying degrees of value on certain actions and candidate positions; i would expect that some people feel the record supports obama and others clinton. but if you disagree with the conclusions people draw from the record, well you have that record as a nice basis for your argument, don't you?
February 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be under the presumption that it's trying to INFORM at all. It's a diary of one person's investigation into the candidate's issues. She did the research she thought was complete enough to make a decision. That you disagree that it's complete enough merely indicates that there is information upon which you place more emphasis that you feel wasn't included.
Again, that doesn't mean it was intentional.
Only if done on purpose (and what do the Catholics have to do with anything?). You'll have to prove to me she's intentionally trying to misrepresent either one's position, or the comparison between them. That requires interpreting her intentions, which I challenge you to do with any accuracy.
The rather amusing part about this whole thing is that the evaluation of the data presented is a wholly and entirely subjective judgement, yet you're sitting here arguing as though she's made some heinous mistake because the information she's examined doesn't fit the view you think it should.
You're getting yourself rather twisted up over the fact that someone GOD FORBID actually did some research and came to a different conclusion than you.
And the fact that you belabor the point tells me you take the whole thing just a little too personally.
Frankly, I couldn't care less which view her data ends up supporting. I do my own research, I make my own conclusions. You seem to have a problem with other people doing the same and sharing their results.
February 25, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
I don't need to make a case that the Diarist was intentionally distorting the facts to point out that her presentation is one-sided. That is an observation that others have made and links have been posted addressing that.
Why you feel the need to build this strawman probably has to do with the fact that having answered all of your OT questions, you still want to "win" this argument.
You can't. There isn't one.
My objection to the diary had to do with the reaction of commentators that it was somehow a definitive debunking of anything. It is not that and no amount of spin, ad hominems, or strawmen will make it that.
I have no problem with people sharing information, but reserve the right to point out its slant and/or inaccuracies.
Like I said elsewhere, I prefer to vote for someone with my eyes open, what do you do?
February 26, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee, I hear you but wouldn't you admit that there is really no way to be truly objective? And that namely anything that follows whether it be a paragraph or a policy paper is going to be laced with some sort of subjective experience?
So if that is the case obviously we need to all have our eyes open but at some point we are going to have to except the fact that in the reality based world that we can not know everything and therefore at some point will have to take a subjective view. Right!
February 26, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want compare the US-senate records between H. Clinton & B. Obama, I can strongly recommend this one:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
April 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment