« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
NAACP Scorecard-- Clinton Better Than Obama
After checking out the colorofchange.org (which is a moveon front to pressure CBC members to switch their support to Obama) and seeing implied support from Julian Bond (who hasn't officially endorsed but seems to favor Clinton and is calling for FL and MI delegates to be counted) I decided to see if the NAACP was taking any sort of unofficial stand.
So....... I know the NAACP cannot endorse but they do give Senators a scorecard. Since this is such a heated election, the NAACP has decided to give both candidates an "Incomplete." They do list the legislation that was scored for the other 98 Senators. Naturally, I thought to check the roll call and see how they voted and what score they would get if the NAACP were to score them.
They scored 15 pieces of legislation, a couple of votes were missed by both of them because they were busy with debates that day so those votes are a wash, leaving us with 12 to score. The drumroll please.....
Vote # 272 Making College Affordable Act, which increases Pell Grants and adds a category for the poorest of Americans to afford college, something I have heard both candidates speak a great deal of lately. The NAACP strongly supported this Act. Clinton voted "yes" and Obama did not vote.
Vote # 257 An amendment to the education bill that would have removed student loan forgiveness for certain public sector workers such as Americorps/Peacecorps and teachers in inner city schools. The NAACP strongly opposed this amendment. Clinton voted "No" and Obama did not vote.
Vote # 184 Requiring a government-issued photo ID for anyone attempting to vote in an election. This was an amendment to the immigration reform bill. The NAACP strongly opposed this amendment. Clinton voted "No" and Obama did not vote.
Both Clinton and Obama were present and voted with the NAACP on the remaining 9 votes.
Both candidates as well as their supporters have TALKED a great deal about these issues and have made them conerstones of the campaign, but only Clinton cared enough to vote on these important bills in the Senate and do her job!!!
The way I see it: out of 12 votes, Clinton scores 100% with the NAACP and Obama scores a 75%.
I know most people agree that both candidates have their hearts in the right place on these issues and that both of them offer up verbal support, but if you don't act on those words what is the point?
Comments (17)
These ratings are irrelevant if they're assembled in the midst of a presidential campaign. Unless Obama's vote or lack thereof somehow prevented a piece of legislation from being passed, it's a complete nonissue except for those who will desperately manipulate these ratings to try to portray Obama as somehow opposed to the actions of the NAACP or, as in your case, somehow unwilling to "act" (as if running for president and publicly advocating a platform wasn't just as significant).
People are tired of this kind of spam. If you want to convince someone with your strawman arguments, go down to your community center or canvas for your candidate.
March 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
And for the record, anyone who uses the terms 'logical,' 'truth,' or 'reason' in their online handle immediately loses any claim to those terms. It's the online equivalent of a flag pin.
March 2, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ratings are always irrelevent when they show the true character of Barack Obama. He is always about words, not action. You think you can decide in what circumstance your candidate's actions and votes are relevent. Sorry, we all get to weigh in on that and he fails!
And as soon as I am done here, I will go canvass for my candidate. I am warming up the car as we speak.
March 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't include any links. Google on the NAACP site doesn't turn up anything like what you're saying here.
Google does turn up a reference to a "Making College Affordable Act". It was passed in June 2001. Obama joined the Senate in 2005. Would that perhaps explain why he didn't vote on that one?
March 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
FURTHERMORE, on checking a little further it turns out that the NAACP does have scorecards posted. Here:
http://www.naacp.org/pdfs/109th_final_report_card3.pdf
Let me try to make that a clickable link:
http://www.naacp.org/pdfs/109th_final_report_card3.pdf
Obama's rating? 100%
Clinton's rating? 96%
March 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
FURTHERMORE, on checking a little further it turns out that the NAACP does have scorecards posted. Here:
http://www.naacp.org/pdfs/109th_final_report_card3.pdf
Obama's rating? 100%
Clinton's rating? 96%
March 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAH!
Why does this not surprise me?
March 2, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Why or how is CoC a MoveOn front? Because of James? He doesn't even work at MoveOn any more from my understanding and hasn't since '05 or 06.
2. Exactly what scorecard did you look for? The NAACP has scorecards on different subjects. Since it's only March '08, I don't even think we'll get a scorecard until the end of the year.
3. rabbitsmorgasbord referenced one of the NAACP scorecards, which proves you wrong. You need to clarify exactly which scorecard you're basing your math on.
March 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can reference the votes at www.senate.gov and compare the NAACP scorecard for the first session of the 110th session (http://www.naacp.org/get-involved/activism/alerts/110thaa-2008-01-18/110th_Congress_First_Session.pdf). Since you are either 1. Too lazy to look it up; 2. Don't care about the facts; or 3. Blinded by your own naivete--you now have the links to find the truth. Ask yourselves why were all other senators scored but Clinton and Obama given "incompletes"? Because Obama's score whould embarrass anyone who thinks he walks any kind of walk--he's all talk. If Clinton could make the votes and vote in favor of the NAACP position, so should Obama.
March 2, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in their evaluation of the 109th Congress, Obama outscored Clinton.
In their evaluation of the 110th Congress, first session, both Obama and Clinton were given "incompletes".
And it's not true that "all other senators" were scored. I count nine incomplete in all in the list of senators. That includes Senators who didn't complete the session, plus all of the presidential candidates.
You conveniently pick the votes that Clinton made and Obama missed, but Clinton missed three votes herself. Obama missed six, Dodd missed five, Biden missed four.
So let's summarize. Obama missed more votes while campaigning than the other candidates. He scored higher than Clinton in the previous year, but only because Clinton missed a vote that year. Both Clinton and Obama voted in line with NAACP preferences every time they voted.
That's your case against Obama. Good luck with it.
March 2, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't pick the votes to score, NAACP did... you really should read and learn. This is their system, not mine. But it still begs the question: Why not score the presidential candidates? Who does it hurt/help more?
March 2, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't pick the votes to score, NAACP did... you really should read and learn. This is their system, not mine. But it still begs the question: Why not score the presidential candidates? Who does it hurt/help more?
I guess by your reasoning it helps McCain more than either Obama or Clinton. They didn't score him, either. So the NAACP is secretly backing McCain! Either that, or you're trying to construct an argument where there really isn't one.
Yet another data point in support of Stroszek's Rule: "And for the record, anyone who uses the terms 'logical,' 'truth,' or 'reason' in their online handle immediately loses any claim to those terms. It's the online equivalent of a flag pin."
March 2, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I guess by your reasoning it helps McCain more than either Obama or Clinton. They didn't score him, either. So the NAACP is secretly backing McCain! Either that, or you're trying to construct an argument where there really isn't one."
If you took the time to check McCain's score you could answer the question yourself, but you clearly are more experienced in ad hominem attacks that facts.
Fact: Clinton outscores Obama in the NAACP 110th Congress, First session scorecard--just by showing up and voting.
March 3, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, what exactly do you think the point of this is? Clearly there is a presidential campaign going on. It's easy enough for you to say that he coulda shoulda been there anyway, but the NAACP is an issues based organization. They've rated him at 100% on the issues they care about previousl. Do you honestly think that the people (because it's about people at the end of the day and not organizations and ratings) who care about these issues, of which the NAACP is comprised, really care about the fact that he got an incomplete rating because he was busy with a presidential campaign that will get him into the White House? Don't you think that matters to them more than his incomplete rating during the 110th Congress?
If you don't, maybe you should check the election results again. The people are speaking.
March 3, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I miss the point of your post other than its intent to say that I am a Clinton supporter and I wish to cast dispersion on Obama. I think after numerous debates and the voters getting a close look at the Obama and Clinton, it appears that the majority of Democrats are casting their lots with Obama. In the event that Hillary loses one or both of the big states on Tuesday, I hope that she comes to grips with the reality that she fought a good fight and subsequently lost. She still has a good future in the Senate.
March 2, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only scorecard that matters is the one that African American's are posting at the polls. So far it is no contest.
March 3, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain would have an even lower score, so by your "logic" the NAACP is helping him the most by giving him an incomplete.
Fact: Clinton outscores Obama in the NAACP 110th Congress, First session scorecard--just by showing up and voting.
Fact: Obama outscored Clinton in the 109th Congress, for just the same reason.
Fact: Both Obama and Clinton have NAACP-friendly positions. You yourself admit that it's not a problem with the positions either candidate takes, just a matter of missing votes while campaigning for the Democratic nomination.
Fact: As ovcatto points out, your concerns are apparently not shared by black voters, who are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.
Fact: Your desperation is clouding your thinking.
March 3, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment