Reply #57: Edwards left the senate over two years ago

[draft_mario_cuomo]

To compare only their voting records in the senate is looking at only part of the picture.

As far as the RFK substance thing, let's face it: if RFK were running today Obama supporters would be writing him off because he wasn't against the war several years prior to the campaign. It is easy to talk about his superior substance four decades later.

Here is a comparison of Obama and HRC's votes on Iraq over the past 2 1/3 years:

==Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.==

This was done in March. Since then they voted the same way on Reid-Feingold and yesterday. That brings the tally to voting the same at least 71 out of 72 times--98.6% of the time. The lone difference was on the confirmation of Gen. Pace, which was a token vote. Even in the case of the lone difference between the duo it was HRC who cast the nominally anti-war vote against Pace. So we have the irony of Obama tracking HRC 98.6% of the time and the one time he deviated from HRC it was actually to vote with the Republicans.

Given the actual record it is not surprising that Obama supporters whole argument for Obama being the best chance to end the war is based on freezing time in 2002. Nevermind that Obama and HRC vote the same, have the same de-escalation plan that would continue the war with a "residual force." All that matters is that cold October day half a decade ago. We are supposed to rely on that for a faith-based initiative that Obama will be superior on Iraq than a President Edwards or President Dodd or even a President Clinton II.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq