MyDD :: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records

Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records

by Vox Populi, Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST

This is a short commentary, but one of the 'quiz of the day' features on CQ politics was the question:

How many times have Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama disagreed on key Senate votes?

a) 25

b) 15

c) 7

d) 3

They've shared three years in the Senate. Obama talks oft about bringing change to Washington. But just how much does he differ compared to Hillary Clintion?

Answer below the fold.

Answer: d. In the three years they've been in the Senate together, Clinton and Obama have only disagreed on three important votes, as rated by Congressional Quarterly. CQ editors pick "key votes" on matters of major controversy, matters of presidential or political power and issues with potentially great impact on the nation. The three were 8 percent of the 38 key votes selected by CQ.

On changes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to restructure the agency but leave it within Homeland Security, Clinton voted "no" and Obama voted "yes."

On an energy bill that included tax incentives for energy production and reduced regulation of power companies, Clinton voted "no" and Obama voted "yes."

On a GOP bill to limit class action lawsuits, Clinton voted "no" and Obama voted "yes."

Ouch. Mr. "Most liberal Senator in America" differed on only three votes with Clinton, and each time took the Republican side of the debate. Kind of one of the reasons I prefer Senator Clinton to Senator Obama.

But at this point, I feel and Obama presidency is much, much more likely.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002666219

Tags: Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

Excellent job, Vox. Thank you.

Buddhist Clintonistas for Obama.

by Denny Crane on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

Excellent job with one exception: Obama is presently rated the most liberal senator in the Senate by virtue of his voting record.

I'll get you some further information about critical issues Hillary has voted upon, mostly related to her disasterously warmongering hawkish stance on Iraq, Iran, and Israel-Palestine.

Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.

by shergald on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Voting Records: here you are! (none / 0)

Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary Clinton
by fromtheleft, Daily Kos
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM PST

Can you tell us just where Obama was on this legislation and positions?

With 48 hours until the polls open on Super Tuesday, I thought I would post ten reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton voted for Bush's Iraq war

Hillary Clinton for Bush's USA Patriot Act

Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize Bush's USA Patriot Act

Hillary Clinton opposed the international treaty to ban land mines

Hillary Clinton is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of the United Nations

Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas

Hillary Clinton is one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations

Hillary Clinton supported Israel's massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, half of whom were children

Hillary Clinton opposes the complete repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act)

Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to read the NIE before casting her pro-Iraq war vote

Hillary Clinton's positions on all of this legislation is virtually identical to AIPAC's, a primary constituent of the Israel Lobby. Do you want American foreign policy run by the Israel Lobby as it would be in a Clinton administration?

Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.

by shergald on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

I've defended his CAFA vote several times on this site and am too lazy to do it again. So, I'll refer you to this article by Victor Diaz.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11 79944585528

From my perspective as a lawyer, I see it as perfectly reasonable legislation. I happen to think that federal courts are superior to state courts in almost every respect, so I don't see any problem with a bill that gives exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over certain class action suits.

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

By the way, contrary to the excerpt in your diary, the bill doesn't "limit class-action lawsuits." It just requires that certain claims be litigated in federal court.

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

Well your opinion is noted.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

same thing.

Check the GOP/Dem split on voting on that measure.

by steveinohio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

No, it's not the same thing. And, the number of dem votes against the bill doesn't answer the question. Nothing in the language of the bill affects the substantive right of plaintiffs in class action lawsuits. It's just a jurisdictional law (defining which courts have authority to hear certain cases), but the same substantive law (whether we're talking about tort law, securities law, or whatever) would apply in the federal case.

The reason defendants like the law is because federal courts apply more scrutiny when it comes to class certification and summary judgment motions--which is a good thing. Federal courts just have more resources (very smart law clerks and fewer cases on the court docket) than state courts and can't look at these issues more closely. Class certification is a big deal and should not be done lightly.

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

correction: ". . . than state courts and CAN look at these issues more closely."

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

My point wasn't whether the vote was good in your view or not. It was a vote for the Republican position.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

I wasn't replying to you specifically, above. The comment suggested that the legislation said something it doesn't, and the only argument for that position was that democrats opposed it.

But, I not just arguing it is good "in my view." I'm arguing that it's good from an impartial perspective. It produces more legitimate results. I take court procedures very seriously (as any good liberal should), so I think the greater scrutiny of federal courts is a good thing for complex cases like class-action suits.

It may help to consider that Obama is also obsessed with process in government. This kind of legislation appeals to liberals who emphasize process, even if the legislation turns out to be more popular with right-leaning lobbies (corporate defendants) than left-leaning lobbies (plaintiffs' bar, and some consumer groups). Those lobbies aren't paid to improve judicial legitimacy. They are paid to advocate for favorable procedures. Most politicians follow the lead of such lobbyists. In this case, I think the "democratic" position didn't reflect the best interests of litigants, impartially considered. So, the fact that Obama crossed party lines was justifiable.

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton v Obama: The Voting Records (none / 0)

Here's an important vote on which they differed that isn't included: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees /clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Don't know why that didn't make the list, but it's an important issue to me.

by DPW on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST

I've seen this before and... (none / 0)

agree that I don't like Obama's votes on these.

I do wonder, Vox, if this is how you came to choose Hillary, or something else?

I, like you, fiercely supported Edwards, and now am behind Obama - not as passionately, but he got my vote and will get money and time if he wins the nomination.

For me, it's about not taking lobbyist money, that he will be less divisive, more likely to win some of the 50% of America that dislikes Hillary, and his roots in the community.

I don't trust Hillary to do what she says - I trust Obama a bit more to be forthright about what he says and does.

Since we agreed so much on Edwards, I'm curious what else drove you to her?

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

by passionateprogressive on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:59 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.