Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
FactCheck.org On A Pro-Obama E-mail
I'm on a bit of a factcheck.org binge today. I'm sure many of you have either seen posted on a blog here or sent via e-mail a list comparing Obama's and Clinton's Senate record. You know, the one that compares Obama's introduced legislation to Clinton's passed legislation and concludes that Obama's is much more substantial.
FactCheck.org concludes this:
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.
Here is what they come up with:
To read it in full, click here.
Advertisement
Comments (11)
Their graphic didn't post. Sorry.
Obama Clinton
Years in Senate 3 7
Bills Sponsored 129 358
Bills Passed by Senate 7 32
Bills Signed Into Law 2 19
Sponsored, Per Year 43 51.1
Passed by Senate, Per Year 2.3 4.6
Signed Into Law, Per Year 0.7 2.7
April 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid this is as slanted as the original email referred to (which never came from the Obama camp, by the way).
I read the article and I find it slanted. It's easy to be "logical" if you eliminate important points. In this analysis, Obama gets no credit for the Lugar/Obama Non-Proliferation Bill, which was a major piece of national security legislation, and an immense feat getting through the Republican Congress.
As soon as I saw that particular bill did not make this list, I knew the article was suspect.
April 2, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me what is "suspect" about an article that explicitly states it's reason for the omission:
"We counted only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the sole, original sponsor. The e-mail inflates Obama's numbers by counting his cosponsored bills, but Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often "cosponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources – let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place." Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is "a better metric of a senator's agenda, efforts and interests."
April 2, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not always true. Cosponsorship can take up a lot of time, energy and political capital. I will agree that some cosponsored bills require nothing more than one's name to be applied for it; howeverit isn't always the case. It would take a lot of research to make the comparisons and in the end it might be true that between these two the cosponsored bills required no effort, but I think it's a mistake to make such a generalized statement. No offense to Ms Binder, but I think she's wrong.
April 2, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean I shouldn't believe every email I receive, even those from anonymous correspondents? Including the one telling me that Obama's a Muslim?
Damn.
April 2, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah crap. I was really hoping that those millions from Nigeria were soon to arrive in my bank account. I was going to use that money to make my penis bigger via another email offer.
Just can't win some days.
April 2, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is comparing legistlative accomplishments apples and broccoli?
Obama has held ELECTED
April 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has held ELECTED office LONGER than Clinton.
Obama has served as an Illinois Senator AND a US Senator.
Therefore, if you want to compare the candidates accumlative legislative achievements, it is totally within the realm to look at the whole picture.
The email in no way purports to say that the achievements listed for Obama were for the US senate only. Nor is it fair to discount his achievements in the IL senate simply because Clinton has never held a state office in order to compare.
April 2, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It states very clearly why it's like apples and broccoli. Maybe you should re-read it.:
"We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:
* It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.
* It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.
* It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.
* It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge."
April 2, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, if you're comparing legislative records, it would only be valid to compare records while in the same legislative body. What's to say Clinton wouldn't have outdone Obama if she was in the Illinois legislature? The per year metrics tell you what you need to know about their performance while in the Senate. (It might be even more beneficial to know what the averages of their peers were too, was that included?) It would be a political mistake and disingenuous to denigrate Clinton's Senate record. She's a damn good Senator for her state.
April 2, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would think from the thoughtful commentary on display here at TPM, most of the readers here would be EASILY able to recognize that email as propaganda upon first read. I remember seeing it months ago and the sheer disparity of comparing all the Obama sponsored legislation to Clinton's legislation that had been passed into law was so profound to be absurd.
Apples and Broccoli.
April 2, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment