How Progressive is Obama: the two labor ratings that Obama supporter's do not want you to see

[Progress And Change]

There is a thread which includes two of the four ratings I posted yesterday when I compared the voting records of Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards. Two of the ratings mysteriously were excluded, though... Why does ObamaNation want to hide those ratings from you? Here they are. Unlike those who profess fealty to openess, I will give you the rest of the information and let you decide for yourself.

3. AFL-CIO

Lifetime

Edwards 97%
Obama 96%
Clinton 93%
Dodd 91%

4. SEIU

2003-2007

Edwards 100%
Clinton 96.8%
Dodd 88.6%
Obama 85.3%

Here is the original thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3815138

Obama's SEIU rating ws hurt partly because--you guess it--he failed to show up for some important votes. Clinton did show up and voted for labor...

[maximusveritas]

1. I made clear why I didn't include them: they only look at labor votes

The systems I looked at include all votes. They're not just interest group ratings.

Why are you only cherry-picking the ratings of these labor interest groups and not looking at all the other interest group ratings.

[Progress And Change]

2. I looked at four groups and you included two of the four in your OP

You copy and pasted my numbers. You are the one who cherry picked and used the labor group sleight of hand to exclude half of my post because it did not fit with the predetermined conclusion you want to reach.

[maximusveritas]

4. Can you not read? I looked at ratings that looked at all votes

not just those dealing with labor, abortion, war, or whatever.

So if you're so interested in interest group ratings, why are you only looking at the labor votes and not the others?

[Progress And Change]

6. nice sleight of hand to explain away excluding half of my post that did not fit your view

Why are being deceptive and claiming I only looked at labor votes? I looked at four groups based on an analysis someone else did. Two were labor groups and two were progressive in general. You should know this since you copy and pasted those numbers from my very post. You are a lot like your candidate...

[maximusveritas]

9. You're embarassing yourself now

I provided a sound reason for why I included the systems I did.

You on, the other hand, only included the groups that were beneficial to your candidate with no other rhyme or reason.

Everyone can see that, so just stop with this embarassing charade.

[cuke]

14. No, you provided an excuse for your cherry picking

And the poster you're responding to included ratings that didn't put Clinton on top. You're the one who only posted ratings that made you candidate look good

[Progress And Change]

17. another myth bites the dust. more chicago politics...

Average ranking from the four interest group ratings I used:

Clinton 2.0
Edwards 2.0
Obama 2.25 (including first with the ADA rating)
Dodd 3.25

My ratings showed no real difference between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--that was the point of the thread. You knew that, though, but acknowleding that would get in the way of Chicago-style politics designed to mislead people...

[mopinko]

32. have you ever been to chicago?

getting a little tired of this slur being used over and over.

[Mass]

3. Why would the Obama fans not want you to see the AFL-CIO rankings?

He is basically at the same level than Edwards. When you consider they have exactly 0 votes in common, not sure why he should be ashamed.

For SEIU, I would have to check how Obama ranks compared to Clinton and Dodd during 2005-2007. Edwards's ranking for this period is insignificant, as he was running for president, then VP. so, when he was voting, it was in the right direction.

[Progress And Change]

5. easy, he is behind the allegedly then right-wing Edwards

It is only a one point difference but they don't want Edwards' real record to be compared to Obama's. They prefer, as usual, the politics of perception so they can continue the myth that Edwards was a right-winger in Congress (the same thing they say about Clinton) and Obama the progressive savior.

Here are the ratings for 2005-2007

2005: Clinton 100%, Obama 92%, Dodd 79%
2006: Each had a 94% rating
2007: Clinton 90%, Dodd 70%, Obama 70%

[Mass]

10. Edwards and Obama have NO vote in commun as they have never served in the Senate together.

For the comparison between Obama and Clinton, they have exactly 1 vote of difference in 2005 in the list, 0 in 2006, and in 2007, the votes in questions are NV votes.

So, once again, a lot of BS.

[Progress And Change]

12. what part of "lifetime" and 2003-2007 ratings are you not understanding?

You so admit your little sleight of hand. First it was "1 out 17" votes and now it is "NV votes." Yes, votes. Plural. So he cast a vote the group viewed as wrong once and then--you guessed it--ducked a few more votes on issues the SEIU thought were important. Clinton bothered to show up for the votes. Once again we see that Obama will not stand up when it counts.

[Mass]

7. More information on the infamous SEIU record for Obama.

in 2006, the only vote that SEIU was unhappy with was the Fence. 1 vote out of 17.

in 2005, he did not vote for one of the vote, and, as Durbin did not vote either, my guess is that something happened in IL, and voted YES to the tort reform bill, a vote that I would disagree with.

Other than that, not sure how you found the global score? the score for the 2 years is 92 % and 94 % and he has not been in the senate before that/

EDITED to correct the dates.

[Progress And Change]

8. see the original thread and e-mail the person who did the original analysis

Can you show us what you are talking about? How does one get a 70% rating because of 1 vote out of 17? That doesn't make sense.

[Mass]

11. Sorry, I meant 05 an 06. As for 07, it is about votes that he missed.

You can infer whatever you want from that, and I have no interest in answering the person who did the original analysis. I am just debunking what you are saying. You may want to follow the links to the SEIU to know exactly what you are talking about.

[Progress And Change]

13. how many votes did he note vote with the SEIU? why are you withholding that number?

You've looked at the scorecard. Why not bother to tell voters what you found? Let me guess: you are an Obama supporter...

[cuke]

15. Obama supporters never post facts and evidence to defend Obama

All they do is make claims and think everyone should just take them at their word

[Mass]

18. I posted plenty of facts that you and others could have found if they have bothered checking.

(It is easy, just follow the the links in the OP until you find the scorecards). But it is so easy to simply post the Clinton talking points.

[cuke]

21. Cherry picking

IMO, you're one the worst. The "facts" you post are not true. In one thread, you said that Obama's plan was universal and "far better" than Hillary's, and in another post in the same thread, you say that it is NOT universal and "very similar" to Hillary's plan. You also say that Hillary's plan doesn't have a mandate when the truth is, it does

[Mass]

22. Yawn.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Progress And Change]

25. wow. does barack himself post here?

;)

cuke, we need to keep putting the facts and truth out there. We know we do not need to do otherwise.

[Progress And Change]

23. here is what "Mass" didn't want people to see

Of 12 votes the SEIU considered important Obama voted against them once and--as usual--failed to show up to vote on an important labor bill another two times. He was nine for twelve.

Let's compare that to Clinton. Clinton voted correctly 11 out of 12 times. The lone time she did not vote with the SEIU was when she did not vote.

Unlike Obama supporters I don't feel the need to mislead about candidate's records or use sleights of hand. I will tell you that after looking at the scorecard the vote he voted "no" on was actually mostly a war supplemental bill. Clinton also voted against that. This should not be held against them. Here are the two votes Obama couldn't be bothered to vote on:

3. Senate Amendment Ensures American Workers Have Access to Jobs (06/05/2007, Roll Call No. 183)

06/05/2007 -- S.Amdt. 1231, Roll Call # 183. Senators passed an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that ensures employers post job opportunities in their community before hiring immigrant workers. This ensures that American workers have access to all available jobs. The measure passed on June 5, 2007 by a vote of 71 to 22. A YES vote is Right, a NO vote is Wrong.


11. Senate Expands Health Care for Kids (09/27/2007, Roll Call No. 353

09/27/2007 --
H.R. 976, Roll Call # 353. The Senate passed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act which will expand health care coverage for millions of children. The measure passed on September 27, 2007 by a vote of 67 to 29. A YES vote is Right, a NO vote is wrong.

[Mass]

16. Exactly 2. But I am not sure why I should make the research for you.

[Progress And Change]

19. you did it already but did not bother to disclose it

I wanted to see if an Obama supporter would be willing to put Obama's record on the table for once. Not surprisingly, that is not the case. This raises a larger issue: why are Obama supporters intent on first hiding Obama's record and then alternatively misleading about his record? Only Obama supporters do this.

[Mass]

20. I am not here as your researcher. I am here to debunk your lies. You said that Obama's supporters

do not want us to see these records. I just showed as it was BS, which any half-brained person could have done just by following the links you provided. And of course, you get angry because of that.

[cuke]

24. You're being absurd

1) There were no lies. Just information you don't like

2) You didn't show that anything was BS.

3) Following the links he provided won't show him that Obama supporters are willing to post the facts. It would only show that HE was willing to post the facts.

The lengths we have to go just to get an Obama supporter to post a true fact, and not something they made up, demonstrates how empty Obama's rhetoric is

[Progress And Change]

26. I am willing to post the facts and, unlike mass, did so in post 23

And I even posted something that I did not have to do to give Obama a pass on his "no" vote. I could have simply not mentioned that if I engaged in Chicago-style politics and made it appear that his "no" vote was a nefarious thing. There is no need for me to do that. Cuke, you know that we benefit the most when there is more information out there about the candidates. We don't need to hide things or use sleights of hands to mislead people.

"The lengths we have to go just to get an Obama supporter to post a true fact, and not something they made up, demonstrates how empty Obama's rhetoric is"

Precisely. That is why I asked him to post it before doing it myself.

[Mass]

27. Yawn. And I am not really invested in this race.

I prefer Obama to Clinton and Edwards, that is clear, but I have no involvement or do not support Obama more than that. This said, it is amazing how far the hatred of some Clinton supporters for Obama would go.

(and, BTW, I am a woman).

[Stop Cornyn]

29. Thanks for posting the labor ratings. Do you have links to the original labor sources?

[Progress And Change]

30. go here

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Click on what is in bold to see their ratings. For the AFL-CIO ratings the candidates' names are in bold. For the SEIU the years are in bold.

[HughMoran]

31. One vile nitpicking Obama thrashing post after another for you today

Hate much?

:mad: