Did Obama make a gaffe?
I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000...On the surface, one cannot disagree: Naturally, one wants to go into a race with more than half the country willing to vote for one's party. But Newsday is playing this remark as an Obama critique of Kerry and Gore, who -- in reality -- did little or nothing wrong. The right-wing hate machine went into overdrive against them, and would have done so against any Democrat.
I don't think that Obama is engaging in blame-the-Dems rhetoric here. Nevertheless, his politics-of-unity meme is worrisome -- he really thinks he can solve all problems by asking widely disparate factions to come together for a group hug.
Perhaps that's why the disgusting Dennis Kucinich, who favors the idea of running with Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul (a true corporatist), now asks his supporters to vote for Obama in the second round of the Iowa caucuses. (In 2004, Kucinich went for Edwards.)
Obama probably intended his remark as a jab at Hillary Clinton. So let's turn our attention to her.
Hillary, the "corporate Democrat": As you know, I do not support Clinton. Nevertheless, the oft-heard meme (oft-heard in "progressive" circles) that Hillary Clinton is a "corporate Democrat" is one of those ideas that lodges in the group mind through sheer repetition. Does this accusation have a factual basis? No:
Just for the record, Hillary Clinton has a 95.8 lifetime rating from the progressive ADA, and a 9.0 lifetime rating from the conservative ACU (average of 6 separate years).(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
John Edwards had a 77.5 lifetime rating from the progressive ADA, and a 10.0 lifetime rating from the conservative ACU when he left the Senate (average of 6 separate years).
To be fair (and so that we are not comparing apples to oranges), when looking at only the years in which they served together in the U.S. Senate -- 2001 through 2004 -- Hillary’s ADA rating average was 95.0, while Edwards’ was 72.5 (to be fair to Edwards, he did miss a good number of votes in 2003 and 2004, and the way the ADA scores, those missed votes bring down his score for those years; nevertheless, in 2002, a year in which both Hillary and Edwards did not miss a single vote, her score was 95, while Edwards scored only a 70).
The ACU (American Conservative Union) rating average for the years in which they served together in the U.S. Senate -- 2001 through 2004 -- was 9.3 for Hillary and 16.5 for Edwards.
Here is a more detailed look at her record from Project VoteSmart. A few highlights:
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.Yes, I've culled -- but I do not think I've been terribly unfair.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 100+ percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 17 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 80 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 8 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 5 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 0 percent in 2005.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 16 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 93 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Club for Growth 8 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the English First 0 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interest of the National Association for College Admission Counseling 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wind Energy Association 100 percent in 2006.
2006 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy calculations, in 2006 Senator Clinton voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 35 percent of the [HOUSE].
2006 In 2006, The Genocide Intervention Network--Darfur Scores assigned Senator Clinton a grade of A+ based on voting records, bill sponsorship and other activities related to ending the genocide in Darfur.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2006.
2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
Remember: This is a discussion of the "corporatist" accusation, and thus the focus is not on foreign policy. Only slimeballs change the subject when they suddenly realize that the facts do not support their position. You're not a slimeball, are you, gentle reader?
I am not an uncritical admirer of Hillary Clinton. She voted for the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill (although she has changed her position on the latter, it seems).
eriposte of The Left Coaster did a close analysis of her voting record and came to these conclusions:
Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist.One reason why I support Edwards is that his more conservative voting record, though less to my liking, may make him more electable.
...In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions.
7 comments:
Joe,
Thanks for (again) using cold hard facts to shoot down a false arguement. But here's the thing--if you, Joe Cannon, can find these facts out and post them here (and I'm assuming that you found the links and such without much of a hassle), then what the hell is the problem with the Hillary bashers who keep spewing the "she's a corporate Dem!" line? Are they aware of these facts, and, if so, do they STILL recite the usual BS because...well, because of what?
I dunno. I do like Hillary--yeah, she isn't perfect, but you better believe I'd vote for her over Ron Paul any day. I like Edwards, too. I feel that Obama has played fast and loose with the facts, but the bottom line is that all of the Democratic candidates for President are light-years ahead of the Republican bunch.
Hillary has the experience and the will to stand up to the Right-wing slime machine that will be turned on ANY Democrat, regardless of who gets the nod. Edwards has clearly learned from '04 and is actually speaking about issues that the MSM ignores. I do like them both.
The bottom line here is that Joe has just blown away a major talking point of the PPs who hate Hillary to the point where they would consider voting Republican over here (or claim that she's directly responsible for NAFTA, Iraq, and the hangnail they got yesterday). Of course, as usual, the Repubs are never blamed--it's only the Dems who are to be excoriated.
Thanks again, Joe.
Aitchd,
Sadly, according to the MSM, far too many Americans, and too many liberals, the belief is still, "Gore and Kerry lost in 2000 and 2004".
And no, I don't think Obama gets any talking points from Joe. But that's just me.
There have been studies, investigations, and it all comes down to dirty tricks and dodgy electronic voting. The system is damaged, and it needs fixing. There are bills circulating around Congress to address this, but...
a) The MSM ignores them.
b) Well meaning progressives complain that the bills don't go far enough, and there's moans and groans, and in waiting for the spotless white lamb an opportunity to affect change is wasted.
c) The Repubs are so good at this, they feel they can get away with it again. Or they shift blame onto the Dems. After all, if the MSM doesn't mention it, then who cares, right?
Sorry for ranting. It's just that the fact that this administration even GOT to the White House is the direct result of a major failure on ALL sides. Just seeing what Al Gore has become (something he always was, an honest and thoughtful politician concerned about his country and his planet) and remembering the s#!t he got back in 2000 is enough to make one cry themselves to sleep at night.
"The right-wing hate machine went into overdrive against them, and would have done so against any Democrat."
I love the semantics here. When the right openly criticizes the left, it's the "hate machine." So what's it called when it's the other way around? Or doesn't the left possess a hate machine of its own? I guess Harry Reid, for example, simply shares "constructive criticism"?
Partisanship is so much selective blindness.
Steverino, you've spent so much time on your side of the aisle that you have no idea what is going on in progressiveland. Harry Reid is not a HatER; he's a HatEE. Yes, there is indeed a left-wing hate machine, and their primary targets are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. Those are Public Enemies number 1 through 4 throughout Blogostan Left. At this point, the left has pretty much stopped caring about Cheney and Bush.
THAT's the difference betweent he right-wing and left-wing hate machines. The "circular firing squad" factor.
That, and a lot of money. Nobody on the left can afford to run major newspapers or cable news networks at a loss for many years while building up an audience.
Your comment reminded me of the strange disconnect I would often experience in the 1990s. Every time I spoke to a CLinton-hater, they always presumed 1. The Clinton was a socialist, and 2. That Clinton was universally beloved by everyone on the left.
In truth, for the first six or so years of his presidencey -- until the Monica nonsense rallied his supporters -- he received almost non-stop criticism from the few left-wing organs in operation at the time. The Nation and American Spectator were pretty much united in their hatred, and Alex Cockburn was printing the same crappy rumors.
And yet the right maintained a completely delusional idea of how "progressives" thought!
That was the period when I became disillusioned with progressives.
And now the same thing is happening. You apparently presume that the problem with Harry Reid is that he is too hard-hitting. Do you have any idea how absurd that charge sounds to most on the left? It's like accusing Dr. Nigel Crane of being too macho.
At any rate, nobody can rationally argue that there was any kind of a hate machine against W in 2000.
Sorry. Instead of "Dr. Nigel Crane" I should have said "Dr. Niles Crane." I guess I was unconsciously thinking about the British cooking babe on the Food Network. Been thinking about her a lot, for some reason.
That's a fairly convincing argument, but I remain unsure of its conclusion.
Is HRC in open rebellion against her husband's many pro-corporate, anti-American public measures, such as NAFTA, GATT, the Communications Deregulation Act, and etc.?
As Clinton administration initiatives passed prior to her Senate career, she didn't have an opportunity to vote on them at the time they came up. What is her position on them now?
...sofla
Post a Comment