ACLU Congressional Scorecard: Obama 80%, Hillary 67%

[usregimechange]

Lifetime scores:

Obama: 82% (better than Edward Kennedy's and John Kerry's)
Hillary: 75%

Now, that should put a stop to the elephant baiting of Obama's decisively progressive record.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Should put a stop, but won't. They're shameless.

[bluedawg12]

38. They were the same last year. Jr. Senator BO was not there prior.

I wonder what an eight year record would look like if the comparison was between two Senate records of the same length?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Just curious, how does it compare to Edwards?

I'm not being facetious, I really am curious.

Is there a list?

[usregimechange]

3. His was lower but he didn't have enough votes to get a decent measure

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Not enough votes?

So Obama's had more votes than Edwards already? Kind of defeats the "experience" argument too.

[usregimechange]

9. I did not post this to criticize Edwards, another progressive warrior

[silverweb]

5. Link for those interested:

Scroll down to see individual names and their records _here_.

[papau]

6. But Murdoch endorsed Obama (NY Post - also owns Fox News) as being less of a worry to the right

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/postopinion.htm


POST ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA


January 30, 2008 -- Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.<snip>

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.<snip>

Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.<snip>

[usregimechange]

7. Yes, it was likely to hurt him, like the NYT endorsing McCain did to his base

[usregimechange]

8. Does Murdoch support the ACLU?

[Clarkansas]

35. Do you know which candidate Murdoch raised money for?

[bluedawg12]

36. Yeah, for having two faces why does he wear the ugly

face in public?

He is picking the one he thinks they can beat. HRC then, BO now.

[jackson_dem]

10. Both have similar ratings across the board

Who is more progressives depends on what your issues are. Not everyone cares about the ACLU. My main issues are economic justice and equal rights. They are all the same on the latter, although I give Obama demerits for using Donnie Mac for political gain. Economic justice is where I thought Edwards was better than the others. I don't see any difference on economic issues, especially trade, between the two celebrity candidates.

[cali]

11. Most people on this board care a lot about the ACLU

and many of us are members.

[ErnestoG]

14. shameless what some of these people do, isnt it.....

[usregimechange]

22. I have to say, that was the first time I seen anyone here distance themsevles from the ACLU

[jackson_dem]

25. I'm being honest

And I didn't distance myself for them. I just said what many who read this thread are thinking. The ACLU is not the arbiter of who is or isn't progressive. For some it is very big factor in determining how progressive their candidate is, for others it isn't. That is the truth. Do you prefer some lockstep ideological orthodoxy? That is exactly what your candidate opposes. If you are going to post ratings then post them from a broad range of groups like WesDem did. If that is done you will find HillBama get similar ratings.

[ErnestoG]

30. Amazing. They did it with Ted Kennedy too

What's next? "Well, MLK wasn't that great a person..."?

[bluedawg12]

41. We can look up the actual vote at the ACLU link and decide

for ourselves if the vote was of importance to us or not.

Clinton
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=legScore

Obama
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=legScore

[usregimechange]

12. Good points.

[ErnestoG]

13. oh cool, now bash the ACLU. I love this stuff!

First it's Ted Kennedy, now the ACLU. Former liberal/progressive keystones but if they say ONE CROSS WORD about Hillary, they are forever after stripped of their value or relevence.

Seriously, Hillabots...do you HEAR yourselves?

[jackson_dem]

26. I never bashed Ted Kennedy

And when did I support Hillary? I have had nothing but positive things to say about Kennedy. I said it before he endorsed Obama and said the same thing aftewards: no one has been a bigger champion of working folks in the senate than Kennedy. He is a great man and one of the greatest senators ever.

[ErnestoG]

29. I didn't say you did. But you did backhand the ACLU.

Another of the amazing things I've seen on this "Democratic" site since I joined up.

[jackson_dem]

33. Do you give equal weight to every interest group?

I doubt anyone does. It is idiotic. Some groups, some issues matter more to folks. I am a Democrat. I didn't sign a fealty pledge to give the ACLU the same importance I give to a group like the AFL-CIO. I also never signed a pledge to be a sheep and agree with every position every left-leaning interest group took.

[Occam Bandage]

40. ACLU bashing won't get you far here.

[Blue-Jay]

15. Only 80%?!?!?!

[PeaceNikki]

16. The ACLU is not the totality of a progressive record.

There are many other factors.

Besides, in the 110h congress, you're talking about a difference of one vote. Oh... and Obama missed one more vote than Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

28. Which is exactly what I was attacked for saying by Obamites

:shrug:

[usregimechange]

17. Kick!

[ginchinchili]

18. The question is, how are these percentages going to play to the general public...

in the general election? You can tout Obama's liberalism all you want, but it won't mean a damn thing if he can't get elected. This is what the Democrats are always forgetting. If Dems believe that their candidate is so wonderful, then certainly everyone else will feel likewise. It's the Democrats' obsession with themselves. Don't worry. Republicans have their variation of the same thing going, only in this election they were able to overcome their egocentricity and nominate someone who can appeal to the general public. Too bad Democrats don't even have as much sense as the Republicans. If they did, they would have nominated Joe Biden, who would have chosen Obama as his running mate; Biden definitely would have won the general election; would have stayed in the White House for 8 years, giving Obama the necessary experience that he so sorely lacks now; and then we'd have had 8 more years with a Democrat in the White House with President Obama. It just boggles the mind.

[usregimechange]

19. True... Rasmussen: McCain Leads Obama by Six, Clinton by Eight

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama

[sniffa]

20. THE ACLU IS A HILHATER OBAMANATION

*drools*

[usregimechange]

21. Ha! If you aren't with her you are against her

[bluedawg12]

44. If you aren't with her, you're probably a repug!

Because Obama and Clinton vote pretty much the same way--they are not the enemy.

In fact, HRC has a better score than Teddy K.
Ted
Lifetime score: 81%
Score for 110th Congress: 71%

HRC had a score same as BO for the 109th session:
Clinton, Hillary 83%
Obama 83%

Remeber this repug prize?
Senator Schambliss
Lifetime score: 11%


This guy got a perfect zero!

[cooolandrew]

23. Especially when endorsed by 80 gitmo lawyers. The detainess aren't all guilty.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Very nice! 82% > 67%

(((psst: You have 80% in the OP Title and 82% in the text.)))

[magatte]

27. present congressional record vs. Lifetime record, I think... (nt)

[bluedawg12]

39. Lifetime scores: OB: 82% HRC 75% , with OB there for 2 sessions

Arguably, HRC's score reflects 8 years in the Senate and not always being convergent with the ACLU's position.

However, of the two years Sen. Obama has been in the US Senate, he was higher this session than HRC but the last session, they were equal scores.

[Yossariant]

31. Depends on What Obama Really Meant -- as well as his confused supporters.

The ACLU rated only 7 bills for both candidates.

Out of those 7, Barack managed to miss TWO votes while Hillary missed ONE.

Do the math.

She has 4 Yes and 2 No, with one missed.

He has 4 Yes and 1 No, with two missed.

[usregimechange]

34. Which is why I also posted the lifetime score

[bluedawg12]

42. They voted pretty much the for 110th and the same for 109th

According to the ACLU score: they both voted wrong on Grassroots lobbying

HRC voted wrong on Expansion of Real ID's

BO did not have his vote countd on:Lifting the Global Gag Rule and Voter ID Requirements


HRC did not vote on: Lifting the Global Gag Rule

The best way to explain this is for golks to go to the web site, a hell of a lot less confusing.

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=legScore

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=legScore

[usregimechange]

32. kick

[bluedawg12]

37. Last year they were both 83% ! BO has only had two sessions

in the Senate.

Thank you for the link:

Here is what the data says.

Sen. Clinton elected in 2000.
Sen Obama elected in 2004


Sen. Clinton’s record goes back to a “lifetime” record of being in the Senate 8 years.
Sen. Obama’s record goes back to a “lifetime” record of being in the Senate 4 years.

The comparison is between a lengthier record compared to one half as long.

Both voted the wrong way on the Patriot Act reauthorization

For the 110 th congress seven votes were reviewed:

Obama 80% 7 votes,
4 the right way
1 voted the wrong way
2 Votes not counted

Clinton 67% 7 votes
4 right way
2 wrong way
1 not counts

The difference is that HRC voted the wrong way (ACLU measure) on two occasions and BO voted the wrong way once.

On the other hand BO’s did not have a vote counted 2 out of seven times, skewing the record.

For the previous (109th) congress they actually had the same score 83%.

109 th 12 votes
Clinton, Hillary 83%
Obama 83%

We can not compare HRC to BO before the 109th because Sen. Obama was not in the Senate and had no vote to record.

For the 108th congress, HRC had a 78%, while BO was not in the Senate yet.
108 th
Clinton 78%
Obama not there yet.


Clinton score summary:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=455&session_num=0&page=legScore

Obama score summary:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=25424&session_num=0&page=legScore


One cannot compare Sen. Obama’s shorter record, 110th and 109th, to HRC’s record from the 110th through to the 107th sessions.

The numbers are nice to review but not a statistically significant difference .

[bluedawg12]

43. Now for the repugs: Brownback: 0% for 110th and 16% lifetime

This is why we get nothing done for our nation!!!


Sen. Brownback

Kit Bond (R) Missouri:
Lifetime score: 16%
Score for 110th Congress: 14%

[usregimechange]

46. Vomit

[Knox Harrington]

45. Does anyone really care

how the ACLU rates them?? Truth be told, I'm glad HRC's rated lower. Just shows she has more integrity and doesn't cater to special interests so much.

This is almost as ridiculous as people getting excited because BO was endorsed by the lawyers for Guantanomo prisoners. Talk about an endorsement you DON'T want. I think it tells you something when people who represent terrorists want that man to win.

[bluedawg12]

47. It's useful for Dems to go look up the actual votes

but for the GE and so called heart-land vote- they have been brain washed to distrust the ACLU.

Go figure...but the RW has done a number on the ACLU and lawyers.

[Big Blue Marble]

48. What a stupid rationalization.

You are telling me that you do not care about civil rights voting records.

How in the hell does voting so that it lowers her ACLU rating show integrity.

Some special interest civil rights law.

I am proud that he received the endorsement from the lawyers representing Guantanamo prisoners

Who are you anyway?

Perhaps you meant to sign up on a different forum.

Around here we support civil rights for all. Kinda of a Democratic thing.

[Knox Harrington]

49. I think that's the second time

you've told me I should become a Republican. Listen, I'm a life-long democrat. But I also realize that there are many out there who want to harm us. I lost all respect for BO when he talked about negotiating with enemies of the US like Hugo Chavez and Syria. And that vote against labelling the Iran army a terrorist organization? Pure idiocy. Seriously, how naive can a person get? And now this loser wants to run for president? (And as an aside, he's also a mean-spirited, dishonest person).

I think there's a VERY good chance we're going to need to attack Iran within the next few years, and I'm not just talking about targeted strikes. Would namby-pamby BO be willing to do this? No way. Would Hillary? I think we all know the answer to that question is yes.

From reading this board, I've gotten the impression that most of the posters occupy the far left wing of the party. Which is fine, and I can respect that. But I can't respect throwing away a vote for some idiot who unintentionally (or maybe even intentionally) will undermine US interests.

[Big Blue Marble]

50. You scare me.

Why will we need to attack Iran in a couple of years? And if we did, exactly where would we get the military and the money?
You want us to invade a country of 75 million people when we can hardly manage an occupation of a country with 25 million.
That country is on the border and friends with Russia as well as China.

Why are you so quick to say that Syria and Chavez are our enemies?

It was unprecedented to call the army of a country a terrorist organization.

We are a left-of-center kind of place.
With your views, I am not sure you will find much support around here.

And your real jerky comments about a serious democratic candidate border on alertable.

If I read your post correctly, you are nearly accusing Obama of treason.