Thread to compare the head-to-head voting records of Clinton and Obama from 2005-present

[Progress And Change]

Let's cut all the crap about perceptions, myths, and sleights of hands that elevate only votes prior to 2005 to major status and compare their voting records--not the rhetoric--their actual actions at their job while they were both in Congress together.

Here is an example.

Reid-Feingold: Clinton yes, Obama yes.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Are we at the point now...

...where a straight up request for objective comparative data regarding the voting records of two Democrats competing in a primary gets greated by "Shut the Fuck Up"? The person who wrote this OP may be highly partisan, but I don't read a single biased word in that short OP.

What the fuck is wrong with comparing voting records?

[Progress And Change]

4. obviously they have something to hide...

The reason for the OP is that if we look past the BS (peddled usually by the camp that poster belongs to) and at their actual records we would find Obama and Clinton are basically the same. Edwards' record is also similar but we can't easily compare him to Obama via a head-to-head comparision since he never served in Congress with Obama. The funny thing is you would think those who profess to desire a "new politics" would be the first to point out the similarities between the Democratic candidates...

[ClarkUSA]

6. Go do an archive search of the OP poster and you'll understand the sentiment

Although this OP is the least offensive of the lot.

[mtnsnake]

8. An active search show the OPer sticks to facts, which is damn refreshing

[Progress And Change]

11. thanks. this is why my fellow posters consistently send my threads to the greatest page

I try to introduce facts and views that go against the conventional wisdom. This is a place to discuss politics, right?

[mtnsnake]

16. Don't get too carried away now. No need to brag

Keep up the good work, though.

:thumbsup:

[BootinUp]

18. I would guess thats true from memory

and the person you responded to really has no standing on the issue anyways lol.

[mtnsnake]

25. Yup

Always good to see you around, Jim.

:toast:

[ClarkUSA]

36. How Hillaryous. More Clintonian BS -- from a prime practioner of it.

How predictable y'all stick up for one another.

[Progress And Change]

38. what i notice is no Obamabot is posting about Obama/Hill's records but Hillary supporters are...

So obviously it isn't the Hillary camp that has something to hide...

[ClarkUSA]

46. Hillary's pro-war votes are all that I need to disqualify her from consideration.

Now go and spam more Obama threads, dmc.

[Progress And Change]

49. their war votes are the same. see below. i think cuke killed that myth

[cuke]

51. Obama voted to fund the war, everytime. Just like Clinton

and Obama was all in favor of designating the IRG a terrorist organization and is still a co-sponsor of S.970, that designates the IRG a terrorist organization

[mtnsnake]

40. Aww, wassa matter, wah-wah, you dont like it that you got proven wrong AGAIN? lol

[SIMPLYB1980]

121. LoL!

[Progress And Change]

9. 99% of my threads make it to the greatest page, one had 38 recs...

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Progress And Change]

17. that is relevant

When threads are being criticized it certainly is relevant that fellow DUers think they are worth discussing. Some, though, want to have only threads that subscribe to their myths to be allowed.

"You're back on my former-disruptor-returned-under-new-name list."

Another baseless smear. That may be how they practice politics in Chicago but that is hardly a "new politics."

[BeyondGeography]

21. What did you think about that D-Punjab memo?

[Progress And Change]

27. it was par for the course given obama's campaign

There was nothing that makes it especially significant, though. There have been numerous attacks from the Obama camp toward Clinton.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

24. You all seem pretty sure

you know this, why not share some proof of some kind.

[cuke]

30. For the same reason they don't defend Obama - they have no facts

They'll say anything, regardless of the evidence

[Progress And Change]

33. notice how sychrnonized the ObamaNation posters' messages are?

Down right to the sudden use of "DMC"...This raises the obvious question of what and how they ae being synchronized...They have the coordination of a professional campaign.

[Tellurian]

41. What is unsettling to them is... you sound like Wyldwolf's twin

that would be their worst nightmare..trust me!

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. My point is specific to this OP only

Perhaps other OP's have been highly offensive, or not, but this one isn't. In fact this one suggests exactly one of the things responsible Democratic primary voters ARE supposed to do; examine the relative records of different Democrats competing for our votes for the same office.

I know that there are other signifcant variables that can and even should be factored into considering who to vote for other than just their literal voting records, but no one can deny that voting records are relevent points of data.

When you think the person who wrote this OP hopelessly enters the "spin zone", sure, call him or her out on it. But I call it a problem when emotions get so hot at DU that someone saying "let's compare voting records" gets met with "Shut the Fuck Up".

[snowbear]

7. Sheez Tom..

If you don't have 'Progress and Change' (newbie with the locked up tight profile) down pat by now..

I don't know what to tell you.

You.. a fello' Clarkie of all things are defending this dude!?!? Have you read their threads??

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Read my reply above...

I am not defending the poster. I am defending the post. There is never a reason to say "Shut the Fuck Up" when anyone here asks that voting records be compared.

[snowbear]

13. I read it and all I have to say is ....

You do NOT know the person you're defending.

At all.

Wait until they start ragging on the general again. See how you like it then.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. There are many posters on DU who I blast for one post...

...but treat respectfully on another. I can't "call out" DU members by name here but if you PM me I will rattle off a list of at least 5 or 6 regulars that I often get into brawls with because of posts that they write about General Clark or "Clarkies", but I start relatively fresh with them with each new post, and sometimes it even remains civil. For me it all depends on the specific content. Maybe I am atypical about that around here, but I try to remember that we will all end up on the same team in July.

[Progress And Change]

20. tom, notice what the ObamaNation members are doing in this thread?

As you stated, the thread is about getting past bs, rhetoric, and recriminations and looking at facts and records. This is exactly the type of thread those who profess to desperately desire a "new politics" should be flocking to and promoting...but that is neither here or there...What they are doing is turning a thread to compare records into a pissing match regarding a poster. Why? What are they hiding? What do they fear from comparing Obama and Clinton's records? You are obviously intelligent, and since you post here presumably well-informed about politics. I am sure you know what they fear: the truth is Obama and Clinton are basically the same in their records. If one is slightly more liberal it is probably Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Thanks for the compliments and all that but...

...I already said what I really wanted to say on this thread. Everyone should draw their own conclusion, both about the voting records of our candidates and about how people on DU choose to pursue discussions, you and I included.

[snowbear]

22. Let's give it a rest.

You had the thread deleted, pat yourself on the back and move on.

You defended a person who you either haven't followed one iota, or you get off on their continual attacks on those of us who don't agree with their piss poor attitude.

I never thought I'd see the day when Tom Rinaldo was defending that dude.

--

[BootinUp]

26. Yes lets, and not follow it with a post like the one above.

I don't think Tom needs your advice on this to be honest.

[Progress And Change]

29. notice the Obamabots are doing everything they can to divert from the OP?

You'd think while they were in this thread they would at least post a few facts about Obama's voting record versus Clinton's. Why are they silent on that and so intent on diverting attention from the OP? What do they know about his record that they don't want others to know?

[cuke]

31. They will say anything to avoid addressing the issues

Just like their candidate

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Do you care about the truth anymore?

"You had the thread deleted, pat yourself on the back and move on."

I think you just called me out for something with no evidence, didn't you? Think me a liar if you must, because that way you won't have to believe this, but I did absolutely nothing of the sort. Everything I had to say to anyone here has been up front posted on this thread.

No, I did not "alert" on any posts here.

[Tellurian]

118. Hammer, nail, head...

Anyone wondering why there is such consternation between the camps, this is the reason why..

This is a basic disagreement we have with Obama supporters. They are repelled by the discussion of facts. They are so uncaring of the Truth they will never take the time to defend him with factual evidence..ie. links, instead preferring to assault the messenger and carry on in blind adoration of an unqualified, unworthy, presidential candidate.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Thanks for the post.

And welcome to the shooting zone! :thumbsup:

[cuke]

32. Obama voted to confirm Gen Casey as Army Chief of Staff

Clinton voted against confirming Casey

Every other vote on Iraq saw both Clinton and Obama vote identically. The only difference is one vote where Obama sided with bush*

[Progress And Change]

34. damn. is this why they want to hide the records and engage in Chicago-style politics and diversion?

[Tellurian]

37. Obama also voted to confirm Condi Rice and a RW SCJudge..

Condi will be gone soon. The RW SCJudge Confirmation is the more unforgivable!

[Progress And Change]

39. and i believe clinton voted against rice? am i right?

[Progress And Change]

43. i checked. durbin voted against rice while obama voted for her

Clinton confirmed her along with 84 other senators. It was not as contenious as the Roberts confirmation. It was still a net bad vote but it is a wash between Obama and Clinton since they voted the same.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

[Tellurian]

54. Of course, but you knew that already!

[NYCGirl]

58. No, Clinton voted to confirm Rice.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

[Tellurian]

72. Right! Thanks.. but not a RW SC Judge..

[NYCGirl]

104. Which RW SC judge was that? N/T

[tammywammy]

107. She voted against Roberts & Alito

And so did Obama

[tammywammy]

108. Which judge are you referring to

They both voted against Roberts & Alito

[Tellurian]

120. Hillary supported the Kennedy/Kerry filibuster of Alito..

Obama would not...

[cuke]

35. Both Obama and Clinton supported designating the IRG a terrorist organization

Clinton supported the Kyle/Lieberman resolution, and Obama co-sponsored S.970 which designates the IRG a terrorist organization

Clinton voted yes on K/L. Obama ducked the vote, then said he ducked it as a protest against a "pretext for war". Later, he admitted his missing the vote was a mistake. No one has been able to explain why Obama lied at first, and said his non-vote was a "protest"

[IndianaGreen]

42. Here is the vote that counts: Hillary joined Lieberman to give Bush the green light to attack Iran!

If there is any lesson to be drawn from Hillary's vote on Kyl-Lieberman, and her endless trust and faith in Bush, is that no matter who you choose to support for President, it should not be Hillary Clinton.

[Progress And Change]

45. Obama had the same position as cuke pointed out earlier in the thread

So chalk that up to another wash. The few differences we have all are in favor of Clinton. No Obama supporter has showed us a vote where Obama was more liberal than Clinton. Is it really that hard to find? If so what does that tell you?

[ClarkUSA]

50. No he didn't. He was against Kyl-Lieberman

:eyes:

[Progress And Change]

53. Obama co-sponsored S.970 which designates the IRG a terrorist organization

See post 35 (cuke).

[maximusveritas]

68. Big difference - S.970 explicitly said it didn't authorize war

Here's what Obama's ammendment said:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran."

Kyl-Lieberman didn't say that.

[cuke]

73. Nothing in K/L authorized any military action outside of Iraq

and it explicitely said so.

If K/L was could be considered an authorization for war, then why did Obama miss such an important vote? Shouldn't he have stuck around to vote on such an important bill? Every other candidate stuck around

[maximusveritas]

80. I looked in the text

and couldn't find where it explicitly it didn't authorize military action. Could you provide the exact quote where it says that?

[cuke]

85. Paragraphs 3 & 4 from the "Sense of the Senate" section

which explicitely limits any policy findings to within Iraq.

Can you now show me where it authorizes an invasion or attack on Iran? Turnabout is fair play

[maximusveritas]

103. Are you talking about these?

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

I don't see how that limits them to Iraq at all. If anything, it gives them a green light to do as they please to keep Iran from destabilizing Iraq.

[cuke]

123. Wrong

Both paragraphs are the only ones that talk about military actions and they both explicitly limit the actions to "inside Iraq" and "in Iraq". Nothing in this comes anywhere close to authorizing any action against Iran.

That's why you will never respond to my request that you identify where K/L authorizes any sort of military action against Iran.

[maximusveritas]

126. It says we can use the military instruments we have in Iraq against Iran

It never says we must limit this action to Iraq.

You've got to learn to read as a lawyer. Lieberman, Clinton, and Obama are all lawyers. Every word has a specific meaning. Kyl-Lieberman allows the President to use our military in Iraq against Iran. It's clear. It never explicity forbids this as the Obama ammendment does.

[cuke]

127. No, it doesn't

That's why you don't supply the quote.

For one thing, it "authorizes" nothing. It's a non-binding resolution that merely states "the sense of the Senate"

For another, it limits all actions to "inside Iraq" and "in Iraq"

[cuke]

57. The only thing Obama was against was showing up to vote

Obama co-sponsored S.970 which also designated the IRG as a terrorist organization, which according to Obama, is a pretext for war with Iran.

Obama didn't say word one about Kyle/Lieberman until hours AFTER the vote, when he lied and claimed his non-vote was a "protest". Probably the first protest to announce itself AFTER it happened. After running around claiming that it was a pretext for war, some reporters questioned how he could have missed such an important votes. At that point, Obama admitted it was a mistake for him not to vote.

[Progress And Change]

60. how could he "protest" a vote that he allegedly was not aware was occuring?

;)

[IndianaGreen]

63. The point is to knock the Clintons off the race, and I don't care who does it.

We'll figure out the rest later.

Hillary voted to trust Bush on Iran, as she did on Iraq. Biden and Dodd voted against Kyl-Lieberman, and they deserve more consideration than the phoney "Goddess of Peace."

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cuke]

124. So you don't care if another repuke becomes president

Nice

[Progress And Change]

44. limiting the right of people to sue big corporations: Clinton stood against it, Obama voted FOR it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009

As a side note, Biden also voted against it.

NAYs ---26
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR

[ClarkUSA]

48. You are misrepresenting the bill's intent.

How surprising.

[Progress And Change]

52. what was the intent of a bill that EVERY REPUBLICAN voted for and progressives opposed?

Please let us know...

[ClarkUSA]

67. Many Democrats voted for the bill as well... and you misrepresented the bill's purpose.

That's a fact.

[cuke]

74. The bill limited people's ability to sue corporation's in state courts

It moved cases that were filed in multiple states into the Federal courts, where it's much harder to win a case against a corporation. It was a PRO-CORPORATE vote that Obama made

That's a fact. You've got nothing but bullshit

[Progress And Change]

77. every Republican voted for it..

[cuke]

78. Every repuke......and Obama

[Progress And Change]

79. Lieberman voted for it too. he was a Dem at the time so he counts

;)

Notice that Durbin voted against it...

[cuke]

61. Another attack on the messenger and no defense of Obama's corporatism

Imagine voting to limit someone's ability to sue a corporation. How republican can Obama get?

[cuke]

47. Clinton has a better record on Bankruptcy Bill of 2005

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011256.php

Obama voted against limiting the amount of interest that can be charged on
any extension of credit to 30 percent. Clinton voted for the limit. Their records on this bill are identical except that Clinton missed the final vote on the bill because Bill was in the hospital, but she has said she was going to vote against it, as Obama did

[Progress And Change]

55. thanks. another difference and yet again it is Clinton who voted more liberally

Is this a fluke or is it that when they vote separately it is Obama who drifts to the Republicans? Why have we not heard of one vote on which Obama was more liberal than Clinton?

[maximusveritas]

65. Not true

Obama had a good reason to vote against it. The 30 percent threshold was too high. His state already had a better threshold in place. That's why Durbin also voted against it. Check the roll call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00020

[cuke]

70. So the "defense" is that Obama put the nation behind his state?

Durbin isn't running for President. What kind of leader was Obama when he screwed the 49 other states by voting against limits on interest rates?

When Hillary fought bush* over funding for the Ryan White Care Act, she eventually agreed that NY State would get a slight cut in grants, but that the total funding would increase and be distributed more evenly amongst a larger # of states. Up until then, NY and CA got almost all of the money.

That's the difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton is willing to stand up and fight for disadvantaged peoples, such as people with AIDS. And, like the leader Obama isnt, she is willing to expend her political capital (and let her state take a hit in funding) in order to help them. And unlike Obama, she has long record of doing so.

[Progress And Change]

81. this qualifies as an example of clinton doing something controversial

She went against her constituents interests for the greater good. She did what a leader should do.

[Nailzberg]

56. Obama and Clinton voted differently 145 times.

Or 13.6% of the time. Now I gotta go look at those bills. At least the striking writers have me sitting at home all week.

[tammywammy]

59. Here's some:

Boosting funds for ethanol: Clinton against, Obama for
Bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico: Clinton for, Obama against
Bills to stripped funding for TV Marti: Clinton against, Obama for
Bill that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters: Clinton for, Obama against
Bill to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts: Clinton no, Obama yes

[cuke]

62. Do you have any links or citations?

Those are interesting votes. I'm surprised that Obama voted FOR gun confiscation

[tammywammy]

64. You're reading that wrong

The bill was to prohibit the gun confiscation, Obama voted for the bill (so that guns cannot be confiscated), Clinton against.

I found all this in their official voting records.

[ClarkUSA]

71. lol!

cuke has a reading comprehension problem... it's related to being fact-challenged in everything she writes about Obama on DU.

[cuke]

75. Even funnier - You both read it wrong

It says the bill was to "prohibit confiscation".

Obama voted to NOT prohibit confiscation - That means, Obama voted to ALLOW confiscation.

It's not rocket science

In post #64 tammy says "Obama voted for the bill". But in post #59 she said he voted AGAINST the bill.

And you think I have a reading problem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[tammywammy]

82. I found an article on it

I may have worded it wrong in the previous post

"The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_2.html

Clinton is for allowing law enforcement to confiscate legally held guns during a natural disaster and Obama is against.

This was in H.R. 5441

[BootinUp]

84. it doesn't surprise me

that Hillary was for a gun control measure.

[cuke]

91. And it doesn't surprise me that Obama took the repuke position

on gun control

[cuke]

90. In that case, I accept your apology

and I'm not surprised that Clinton voted for gun confiscation. Clinton is a liberal in a state whose largest city has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. It's not surprising she would take the law enforcement position and the liberal pro-gun-control position.

It was surprising to see Obama take the non-repuke of wanting to confiscate weapons. It turns out, Obama takes the more rightwing approach of banning gun confiscations

[tammywammy]

92. It's hard when a yea means they're against

and a nay means they're for, you know. :)

I don't like the idea of the government confiscating legal guns, even during a natural disaster. So, I agree with Obama on this. But as you said, Clinton being from a state with a gun control heavy NYC, it's not surprising that she voted for it.

[cuke]

96. Yes, it can be confusing

I understand and you were not hostile or inappropriate. You merely thought I was wrong and said so. Nothing wrong with that. Mistakes happen

[BootinUp]

83. people get excited

when they argue and make silly errors. I'd cut 'em some slack except then they attacked you and compounded the error. lol.

[tammywammy]

86. I never attacked Cuke

edited to add: It gets difficult sometimes when you're going through a record and a yea really means they're against something and a nay is for it.

[BootinUp]

87. true. i apologize

for that inaccuracy.

[tammywammy]

89. Thank you

I try to be a polite poster even if I disagree with someone. :)

[ClarkUSA]

69. Wow, Clinton voted FOR expanding oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; Obama voted against it!

Well, not surprising since Clinton gets the most lobbyist monies out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat.

Good work, tammywammy!

[Progress And Change]

76. thank you

But those votes cannot easily be categorized as liberal or conservative, aside from the lawsuit one (where Obama was more conservative). I still don't see how Obama is more liberal than Clinton.

Ethanol: despite the hype it costs more energy that it produces.

Drilling for gas: I agree with Obama on it and he took what could be called the liberal view.

TV Marti: Cuba is not a liberal/conservative issue. Farm state senators of both parties are more lax on the embargo and Cuba related
issue. Obama does credit here for offering change, though, however small it may be (both Clinton and Obama will preserve the
embargo).

[tammywammy]

88. I was just looking briefly for things they voted differently on

[cuke]

93. Clinton voted against raising fuel efficiency, Obama voted for it

Score 1 for Obama

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_2.html

[cuke]

94. Clinton voted against 2005 Energy Bill. Obama voted for it

Score another one for Clinton

[cuke]

95. Clinton votes against Ethanol - a controversial and risky position

for someone thinking of running for President

[BootinUp]

98. Thats impossible

I've researched her by reading blogs and she would never do such a thing as vote against her own personal interests.

[BeyondGeography]

99. Someone probably paid good money for that vote

Tell me, why did Clinton scream at Russ Feingold back in 2002 over McCain-Feingold and the soft money ban? She wound up voting for the bill, but her instincts don't seem to have been too good on this one:

==Sens. Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold engaged in a heated argument over the impact a new campaign finance law will have on Senate Democrats, Feingold said Friday.

"You're not living in the real world," Clinton screamed at him during the closed-door meeting of about two dozen Senate Democrats on Thursday, according to Feingold, D-Wis., the party's leading proponent of the law. Feingold said that prompted him to raise his voice.

"I picked up my glass of water, and said, I do live in the real world and I'm doing just fine in it,' " he said.

At issue was the law's ban on soft money -- large, unregulated donations toparties from corporations, unions and others. Clinton is worried the law is vague and will open Democrats to legal liability, Feingold said.

Feingold said a "core group" of five or six Democrats, including Clinton,D-N.Y., were trying to find ways to get around the ban. He declined to identify the others.

"It was a troubling display for a party that claims to be for trying to clean up the system," Feingold said.==

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2002/07/20/0207200169.php

Just a tiny little example why threads like this are of dubious value when it comes to understanding how a candidate would actually govern as President. Clinton voted for reform in this one instance, but her words tell you she would never be a leader in this area were she to lead this country.

[BootinUp]

100. This seems more like a blogger opinion

than a comparison of voting records of the two candidates.

[cuke]

101. Changing the subject? It won't work

but I can't blame you for trying to spin away Obama's rightwing record

[Progress And Change]

102. shift back to the good ole' days when Obama was not in Congress

The thread shows why Obamaists want to avoid a head-to-head comparision...BeyondGeography you are big Obama supporter. Can you name any votes on which Obama and Clinton differed?

[BeyondGeography]

105. Let's stick with reform, kids, since this thread, like every other one you've put up tonight

is a narrowly focused, utter waste of time.

You're convinced Obama is a liar and a fraud, yet he outshines the competition in the one area that figures to be the biggest issue in the election next year: changing the way Washington works:

The Purity Primary

==What is the candidate's history on campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics rules, and open government generally? How transparent is the candidate about campaign and personal finances? What steps will he or she take to limit the influence of money during the current campaign?

On these, there are revealing differences among the Democratic front-runners.

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html

[Progress And Change]

106. Obama also violates FEC laws and takes money from lobbyists while lying about it to voters

That is hardly what one would expect from a paragon on ethics and clean government...You at least pointed to something substantive for once. So the only difference is Obama favors identifying bundlers and Clinton doesn't? That hardly lives up to the Obama camp's narrative on Obama being a progressive beacon and Clinton a right-winger.

"changing the way washington works" is an empty phrase trotted out every four years. You hear the same thing at the state level with the state capital's name being substituted for Washington. It is nonsense and voters know it. The real issues that will decide the election are health care (especially if we have a candidate like Clinton who is for UHC), Iraq, global warming, taxes, trade, the middle-class squeeze, immigration, choice (especially if we nominate someone like Obama with a record of not standing up for choice), etc.

[tammywammy]

109. Violates the FEC?

[Progress And Change]

111. about half of HOPEfunds money mysteriously made its way to four small states

And Obama--Mr.Honesty and Integrity--claims it had nothing to do with the fact that these four tiny states happen to be the first to vote in the presidential primaries. :spray: He also lied for months to voters about not taking lobbyist and PAC money.

Clinton made the allegations herself, AP reported. ''It's beginning to look a lot like that ... where somebody who runs on ethics and not taking money from certain people has found out you have at least skirted if not violated FEC rules and used lobbyists and PAC money to do so,'' she said.

Clinton said HOPEFUND "had lobbyist money, it had PAC money, and they were more than happy to take that money and use it to try to influence elections and create relationships with people while he was running for president.''

One of the main themes of the Obama campaign is his refusal to take money from federal lobbyists and PACs for his presidential war chest.

The dispute was triggered by the Nov. 15 filing of the latest HOPEFUND report, which revealed the committee -- which has accepted contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs -- made donations to Democrats in the early voting states Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as well as to other Democrats.

Such PACs are not supposed to bankroll presidential bids. Stories in Congressional Quarterly and the Washington Post suggested Obama walked up to -- and may have crossed -- a legal line. HOPEFUND and Clinton's HILLPAC were used to pay for some early White House testing-of-the-water expenses.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/677938,CST-NWS-obama03.article

[tammywammy]

112. Hopefund also gave money to people who are supporting Hillary

"Hopefund distributed donations to congressional candidates as well as officials and local Democratic Party groups in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Some of those elected officials who received contributions endorsed Obama's campaign. Others did not, with some endorsing Clinton.

Obama has made an issue during the campaign of his refusal to accept money from lobbyists or from PACs for his presidential campaign. Hopefund, however, received more than $120,000 from PACs in 2005-2006. Hopefund raised only $2,000 from PACs early this year before it stopped fundraising."

snip

'The Obama campaign also pointed out that Clinton delivered a check for $100,000 last week from her family's tax-exempt charitable foundation as a donation to a proposed public library in South Carolina."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_po/clinton_obama


Obama: PAC contributions violated no campaign rules

"Obama's Hopefund Inc. was established in 2005 to raise money for congressional candidates and political groups. The PAC has disbursed about $620,000 this year and has donated about $180,000 to people or groups in early presidential voting states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

It has given about $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February, according to an analysis of election records compiled by the Washington Post.

Hopefund had money left in February when Obama announced his candidacy for president. On the advice of his lawyers, the PAC continued to distribute the money in the same way as before his announcement, he told the Register."


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/NEWS09/712060394/-1/RSS22

[Progress And Change]

114. Does Obama have a crystal ball? Half the money went to states with 3.7% of the population?

Why doesn't the campaign that claims to be so open and clean give us a timeline of contributions and then of endorsements? What percentage of people he gave money to wound up endorsing him? How many of those that did not endorse him received money from Clinton, Edwards, or whoever they endorsed?

Let's cut the BS. The four early states account for 3.7% of the population. Yet nearly half of Obama's PAC money managed to flow to these states. There is only one conclusion you can reach from that if you are honest to yourself...

[tammywammy]

115. You can read the filing yourself

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/efile_search.shtml

Put in Hopefund as the Partial Name, and select Political Action Committee below.

[Progress And Change]

116. half the money went to states with less than 4% of the population

If you can believe this was a fluke, more power to you. I am not going to search every person he gave money to, then fish to find out who they endorsed, and then check to see if any other candidate gave money to that person. This is a res ipsa loquitor case. It speaks for itself.

[tammywammy]

117. You wanted a timeline of contributions and I told you how to get them

[cuke]

125. All those words to cover up the fact the at all you have is ONE vote

in the Senate on an ethics bill. Everything else is blather. The funniest part was where "Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same."

Do you really think there's any chance the repuke candidate will opt for public financing? It's like promising to do something when "hell freezes over"

[tammywammy]

97. Force more disclosure on earmarks: Obama yes, Clinton no

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15920743/

[Cameron27]

110. This is a wonderful thread,

I'm kicking for more vote comparison. Thanks guys!

[harmonicon]

113. could someone who's good at these things make a chart of the votes for all senators running?

[Evergreen Emerald]

119. Best thread of the month

And maybe even the election cycle.

This is DU (minus the few ugly posts). Get to the issues and records.

Very informative and interesting post. Nice Job Progress And Change

[mtnsnake]

122. Bravo, Progress and Change! Awesome thread

:thumbsup:

[cuke]

128. k&r