Let's compare their voting records (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)

[nebula]

A break down of each candidates voting record, according to Votesmart.


John Edwards (From his voting records, he isn't half bad but his hedge fund earnings may be hard to swallow ) http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107



Barack Obama ( From his voting record it's not clear he shows up for work )
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/



Hillary Clinton ( From Hillary's voting record, we should be scared )
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463




Dennis Kucinich ( Proof is in the pudding. No longer running but posted for comparison sake)
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318

[wundermaus]

1. It troubles me that Kucinich endorses Obama

Kerry and Kucinich both endorsed Obama.
What am I missing that they see?
Why is Edwards an endorsement pariah?
Is Edwards the only one outside of the corporate umbrella?
Or are the others saying that he is a trojan horse?
I trusted Kucinich to be neutral in his assessment of the candidates.
Does Kucinich know something about Edwards that we do not?
I trusted Kerry to endorse Edwards because he chose him as his running mate in 2004.
When Kerry folded minutes after the sElection of 2004, Edwards was ready for a fight.
What is it about Kerry that made him back away from election fraud and then kicks Edwards to the curb?
What do we NOT know that would cause these sorts of choices to be made?
Something stinks.

[kerrygoddess]

2. Kucinich has not endorsed anyone. n/t

[Snotcicles]

6. The Iowa deal gave the appearance. nt

[nebula]

3. Comparing actual voting records

is the best way to decide which candidate to vote for.

it is meaningless for people to base their vote on the debates alone,
because rhetoric is meaningless if it doesn't match the record.

this is especially true for Hillary. her voting record is the complete opposite
of her rhetoric at the debates. if people knew that, they would not be
voting for her. it proves she is dishonest and a fraud. like a used car salesman,
all Hillary does is tell you what you want to hear.

[robbedvoter]

8. he didn't endorse anyone. The iowa thing was for caucasing purposes only.

When he left the race he said: no endorsement.

[Adelante]

4. Showing up for work?

Clinton is in the Senate the longest, so I list her first. She also has the best record on missed votes. Her rating on voting attendance is "Average"; Edwards' rating on voting attendance is "Extremely Poor"; Obama's is "Very Poor." In three years, Obama sponsored 48 more bills than Edwards did in six years. In three years, one bill sponsored by Obama was successfully enacted; while two bills sponsored by Clinton in seven years were successfully enacted; and zero bills sponsored by Edwards in six years were successfully enacted. In terms of results, meaning enacted legislation, given the different time spans, Clinton and Obama performed similarly. Edwards and Obama have similar records on missed votes.


Clinton 7 years

Sponsored 350 bills; 2 enacted
Co-sponsored 1706 bills
Missed 6%; 143 votes of 2394
Average relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022




Edwards 6 years

Sponsored 81 bills; 0 enacted
Co-sponsored 531 bills
Missed 15%; 311 votes of 2019
Extremely poor relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300039





Obama 3 years

Sponsored 129 bills; 1 enacted
Co-sponsored 529 bills
Missed 16%; 177 votes of 1086
Very poor relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Kay Andar!

This is the only real way to keep "discussions" on a factual basis -- start with the record.

:thumbsup:

--p!

[Adelante]

7. The often overlooked S.900: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

This bill repealed the New Deal Glass-Stegall Acts which had protected consumers from financial predators, which, when Edwards sat on the Banking Committee, he voted in favor of and supported. I won't go as far as to say this bill is responsible for the current economic crisis, but it went a good ways in making it easier for the credit crisis to happen. Because Clinton wasn't in the Senate, she had no vote, but this is a product of the Clinton administration she is claiming credit for, so I guess she gets the discredit.

Would Glass-Steagall save the day from credit woes?

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Time was when banks and brokerages were separate entities, banned from uniting for fear of conflicts of interest, a financial meltdown, a monopoly on the markets, all of these things.

In 1999, the law banning brokerages and banks from marrying one another — the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 — was lifted, and voila, the financial supermarket has grown to be the places we know as Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, et al.

But now that banks seemingly have stumbled over their bad mortgages, it’s worth asking whether the fallout would be wreaking so much havoc on the rest of the financial markets had Glass-Steagall been kept in place.

Diversity has always been the pathway to lowering risk. And Glass-Steagall kept diversity in place by separating the financial powers that be: banks and brokerages.

Glass-Steagall was passed by Congress to prohibit banks from owning full-service brokerage firms and vice versa so investment banking activities, such as underwriting corporate or municipal securities, couldn’t be called into question and also to insulate bank depositors from the risks of a stock market collapse such as the one that precipitated the Great Depression.

But as banks increasingly encroached upon the securities business by offering discount trades and mutual funds, the securities industry cried foul. So in that telling year of 1999, the prohibition ended and financial giants swooped in. Citigroup led the way and others followed. We saw Smith Barney, Salomon Brothers, PaineWebber and lots of other well-known brokerage brands gobbled up.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/would-glass-steagall-save-day-credit/story.aspx?guid=%7B3AA33D85%2DAD38%2D41B4%2DB300%2D033235B5734A%7D

The bill was the culmination of years and years of lobbying by financial services firms such as Citigroup:

Citigroup: The standard in political corruption

Citigroup played the lead role in ushering the “Financial Services Modernization Act” through the US Congress, in the process joining with the rest of the financial services industry to set a new standard in legalized bribery. The Act will tear down the regulatory walls between banks, and insurance companies and securities firms, paving the way for a massive concentration of financial wealth and a future of industry bailouts, weakening the Community Reinvestment Act and permitting huge intrusions on consumer privacy.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/01/fotc16.html

Apparently, Edwards was helpful:

Several weeks after testifying to two subcommittees of the Senate Banking Committee, Fed Governor Laurence Meyer received a letter from eight senators admonishing the Fed for its stance on merchant banking and demanding a more lenient approach.

But only the Merchant Banking Eight have so wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the grievances of Chase, Wells Fargo and the largest financial conglomerates.

Dear Governor Meyer,

On behalf of the Securities and Financial Institutions Subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, thank you for appearing as a witness on June 13 to discuss the Board’s Interim and Proposed regulations concerning merchant banking activities.

Your testimony was helpful in clarifying your intent to consider carefully the views of members of Congress, the financial services industry and other interested parties concerning your proposed regulations. Your assurances that the Board’s goal is to encourage Financial Holding companies (FHCs), bank holding companies and banks to engage in innovative and progressive private equity investment activities while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial services system is welcome….”

MERCHANT BANKING EIGHT
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
John Edwards (D-NC)

http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%7BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339%7D/sept00.pdf

Molly Ivins wasn't talking about Edwards, but this is what she had to say on the Financial Services Modernization Act itself and its sponsor, Phill Gramm:

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the recipient of enormous banking contributions, Gramm did an even bigger favor for the financial industry in 1999 when he sponsored the Financial Services Modernization Act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to combine. The bill weakened the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Gramm described community groups that use the CRA as “protection rackets” that extort funds from the poor, powerless banks. The bill is also a disaster for the privacy of bank customers and weakens regulatory supervision. As Gramm proudly declared, “You’re not going to find a single bank, insurance company, or securities company that will say they were hurt financially by this bill.”

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2002/03/mean.html

PBS did a documentary called "The Wall Street Fix" which covers the demise of Glass-Steagall:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html


I will say a lot of good Democrats did vote for this legislation, not just Edwards, and of course it was under the Clinton administration, but once again we have Edwards on the critical Senate committee and voting for a bill that has had serious repercussions.

NAYs —8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:2:./temp/~c106cx5u0N::