Comparing Hillary and Obamas actual senate records
deej
5,125 Posts
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633Bloggers can do journalism
deej
5,125 Posts
Comments
Read that via Digg earlier this morning.
This is what the Clintonistas don't want you to see.
please be serious. it's Clinton who has been campaigning on her record.
Challenge overruled, 4th Down.
On what she wants you to believe to be her 35 years of service. 8 years married to the President does not make you anything like an elected official. And her Senate Record is no more special than a lot of other Senators who couldn't get themselves nominated either.
yeah dude I did read it.
I am not expressing any opinion on who's record is stronger. I am simply saying that the notion that Hillary is somehow hiding or obscuring her own record is absurd. she has been campaigning strongly on her record and her record is available for anyone to see.
just because some Daily Kos Obama fanboy has finally, you know, like looked at Obama's record and decided that it is to his liking does not make this some profound revelation.
if Obama's record is so strong why doesn't he emphasize it more? why is it newsworthy this late in the campaign that he actually has a voting record in the Senate? it's been there all along.
Way to stick your nose in, sister.
well, this is always the case. let's not pretend that "the Senator with the strongest voting record" is entitled to the nomination. that's fantasy land.
real gangsters don't talk
haha real badboys move in silence ( with regards to their Senate voting record ).
You clearly didn't read it well, because the author went to great pains to emphasize that they were not, in fact, a fanboy...
but to answer your question, I believe Obama has not gone out of his way to highlight things on his record because it's not his strategy - it's Clinton's. You can't campaign as the change/new politics candidate and simultaneously rely on your ability to get co-sponsors and bills through as evidence of your competence. You're right, it has been there all along and he can fall back on it when necessary, but - as this piece, which you undoubtedly read thoroughly, illustrates - it's his ability to change perception that is most important. And I think that's why he's leading off with that.
To me this is great because it's a thorough synopsis of his relevant experience for those who feel like he just fell off the wagon and found himself the frontrunner in a presidential election. It's a well put together argument.
*sigh* thanks dude. I'm glad you cleared that up.
my original post was in response to the absurd notion that "ooohhh this is the deep, dark secret that Clinton has been hiding -- her record versus Obama's!! "
GTFOHWTBS. you admit it yourself there's a reason no one's up on Obama's record: because he hasn't emphasized it. (I would add another huge factor: Obama has attracted a lot of support from people that don't really care about, you know, stuff like Senate voting records. )
but the suggestion that this Daily Kos diary reveals something Clinton has been trying to hide -- the suggestion I was responding to -- is laughable.
because we all know that only consanguinial relatives and spouses of former presidents are entitled to the nomination...
What the hell does that mean? Who then is entitled to the nom?
dude stop. that's not what I said. I think we agree on the fact that the nomination process is messed up. I made no claim that Clinton was "entitled" to schitt. I'm just saying that your complaint that there are people with stronger voting records "who couldn't get themselves nominated" is a nonstarter. nice idea, but fantasy. we all know this is not a meritocracy.
That is my point, having a voting record is no direct line to the White House, if anything, it's a hinderance. That's why Governors seem easier to elect in modern times. This year, it doesn't matter since both nominees will be Senators. And I maintain, that her record is neither here nor there, neither surprising in it's substance, nor controversial in it's ineptitude. It's seems pretty standard to me.
I shall point your attention to exhibit 48:
527 bullshit
stop embarrassing yourself. its painful to read your posts. i feel like i'm watching shaq at his press conference last night.
some women who calls herself "grassroots mom" makes a post on the daily kos - and you dedicate a thread to it!!??!! is this what you do? skip out on actually doing your own research and then wait for Sally the housewife to make a daily kos post?
did you just take her word for it, or did you actually check hillary and obama's record in the senate. she compares actual bills that hillary has sponsored to special amendments that obama has proposed...as if the two are equal. then she hand picks a few of those bills and gives editorials on why she prefers obama's versions. she talks about their "successes" as if hillary wasn't dealing with a majority of republicans in both the senate and house for 90% of her term. how about we look at the number of bills she has proposed compared to the number proposed by obama? If her number doesn't dwarf obama's by double-digits, then get back to me.
I would actually say that the media is AT LEAST as complicit in the obfuscation of Obama's voting record - his campaign has not happened in a vacuum in which only his supporters and him are present. Every debate I've seen him in he has talked about projects he's worked on, bills he's sponsored - so if anyone's unfamiliar with it in a broad sense I think that responsibility rests with them. You're implying, like our friend KeithVanHorn, that Obama should be combing through policy details on his stump speech.
As far as Clinton trying to hide his record - I don't think that's a far-out accusation at all. She's called him unprepared, inexperienced, even naive.
If you weren't trying to be so contrary most the time, you'd be right more of it.
Where did I say that again?
saying. both have strong Democratic voting records. we could, if we wanted to, find individual votes on either one of their parts with which we disagree.
Make sure you go add "GrassRoots Mom's after-school diary" to that thread of unbiased news sources
"her Senate Record is no more special than a lot of other Senators who couldn't get themselves nominated either."
that's what you said. and I agree with you dude. stop arguing. I am just saying that the nomination process is not based purely on one's voting record. Clinton and Obama both have plus (and minus) factors going into this nomination process that have nothing to do with their voting records.
Right below "younglawyernamedaftermediocreretiredballplayer".
Dude, I said that.
you are pathetic. stop sonning yourself. stay away from the political threads and go analyze mase's second album - or whatever it is you do in your free time when your not reading a newspaper or bothering to check facts before insulting me on shit you don't know or don't understand.
also, your wack ad hominems are reflective of your wack candidate's wack overall strategy
you mean birdman is not an alias for cashless? lol. I think I made my point regardless. I am going to lunch.
I don't know who shold be more flattered or who should be more insulted.