onegoodmove

Hillary...

Wasn't she running for president once?

I remember her, she said she would be willing to obliterate Iran.

Ohhh those crazy progressives.

Norm, I appreciate your passion for Sen. Clinton, but what is the purpose of this line of argument? Clinton has a 5% chance-- tops-- at this point of finagling the nomination... unless something crazy happens, for all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

I can't believe there are still Democrats-- with less than six months to the November election-- attempting to tear down our candidate out of some increasingly erratic grudge.

So she's like one or two points more progressive than him on some issues. I see some issues there where the vice versa is true. Again, what is the point of this?

Put up Obama's chart up against McCain's, and you will see what this argument really should be about.

Reference please. I have a hard time believing Flag burning and video game banning senator is more for civil liberties. I dont know if Obama is more progressive but he is far more liberal than DLC candidate Hillary.

I am sorry I did not realize the image was the link. I only checked their human rights and civil liberties section. Obama and Clinton both voted against the progressive position on a Gitmo bill but because Hillary had more votes in the senate her ratio looks higher.

This is an amazing site. The explanations attached to each bill seem to me, from having read a few of them,to be admirably detailed and well-thought out.

That said, I am skeptical along two dimensions.

(1.) What do Barack and Hillary's minor differences in a few categories really show? And I note in passing how misleading percentages are: they are informative to the extent that there is a large sampling--e.g. many votes cast--within a given category or subcatagory: a percentage difference by itself is utterly unrevealing.

(2.) I am also skeptical that things like "progressive" can be very well quantified. For instance, a number of the votes were for cloture motions and amendments, not the bills themselves (some of which never went up for vote). Is it progressive or not to vote on a cloture motion to bring debate to a close? Well, that very depends heavily on the circumstances--say, if key amendments are waiting to be proposed by one party, or the minority is outnumber--but usually it doesn't mean anything. (Although, again, the creators of the site do offer some explanation of what the stakes, in their view, of voting for or against cloture in any given case).

(3.) Some of these categories are too broad to be helpful. For instance, are 'farmers' an underprivileged group? Well, surely some of them. But I find that category far too general to be helpful--e.g., agri-business is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I am skeptical along two dimensions.

ehem. Make that three.

Can we bash on McCain now?

This has nothing to do with Hillary as a candidate for president. I've acknowledge that it is extremely likely that Barack will be the candidate. I have over the past year said I thought Hillary was more progressive. Each time I've made the argument there has been a chorus of opposition from Obama supporters claiming I was wrong. They asked for evidence. So I'm offering some evidence. I'm tired of the cherry picking that supporters of Obama make in claiming that Obama is more progressive, he's not. If you want to move on acknowledge the facts or refute them don't just pick at the edges and think you've done the job. No analysis of the progressiveness of a candidate is perfect, but this data is certainly more persuasive than Obama supporters on this site have offered. Want to move on quit making bullshit arguments.

i apologize for posting a comment that i think made norm feel obligated to post this post. i agree we should all be talking about mccain vs. obama from now on, and leave this tired debate behind us... but before i do, let me just reply to your post norm.

You don't believe her words and you're willing to conflate Bill's record with what she might do in the future.

actually, i think hillary made it pretty clear during her campaign that her time in the white house was a big selling point for her. so i would say SHE conflated her record with bill's (he's been campaigning for her wherever he is allowed to, and they have both fervently defended his record when it has been mildly critiqued (accurately) by obama).

and, for the record, yes, i have looked at both of their records on a wide range of issues, and i simply do not agree with the rankings cited above. i think the methodology is misleading for many of the same reasons that adam already pointed out. so i don't buy those stats anymore than i believe the bullshit stats from national journal saying the obama is the "most liberal senator". clearly this is not the case, any more than it would be for clinton to be called that. they are both pretty centrist in my book.

but to me the difference is that one is much deeper in the pocket of all the moneyed interests that will ensure our country never does any better than it did in the 90s, which if you were poor wasn't all that kickass a decade regardless of what the clinton's (and bizarrely krugman) now claim.

i live in brooklyn, and hillary has been my senator for long enough for me to see her record up close, and i would say she has been a pretty consistent democrat. i guess that would be good enough if the democrats hadn't been a bunch of fucking pussies for the last 8 years. so from my apartment, her record on military issues hasn't been very good at all. also, it is worth noting that even on health care her national record is one of offering up a non-single payer plan, and not getting it passed. to my knowledge she has never even advocated a single-payer system at all (while obama has, but says we're in too deep with the current system for such a dramatic shift to be a realistic goal). i guess your point is she'd be able to apply what she learned in failing the first time around and get one thru this time? i'm not buying it. do i think obama is going to get a great plan thru? nope. but like i said, i think that issue is pretty hopeless, and thus a lousy issue to be your single-issue to vote on. especially when her plan is only a little better than his. neither plan is by any means ideal.

war and peace, torture and diplomacy, lobbyists and corruption, military spending... these are all better issues to focus on since we stand a better chance at getting what we want with either democratic administration. do you disagree? if so, why? or is it that on these issues, even given the record as you see it, hillary is actually better than barack on these issues too?

Adam,

Since I have been reading the earlier threads, I have to defend Norm here. Dzwonka in particular had asked Norm and others to explain why they preferred her - Norm is providing the evidence. No problem with that - any broadly based scoring system for evaluations is going to suffer from validity questions like those you've raised - what are you going to do if you want to make an argument that is reasonably brief and is still not focussed on a few particulars?

More general comment:

One thing I think is important to keep in mind - the money. Frankly, I think that either of Obama or Clinton would like to do the right thing (the left thing?) on most issues. However, one of Clinton's biggest campaign mistakes was her over-reliance on Bill's moneyed supporters:

For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up ... Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.)

As cynical and pessimistic as I often am about the political process, I see Obama's money distribution as a very good thing. If Obama wants to stand up to special interests, he now has a grassroots base of financial support that could allow him more independence than has been possible for politicians for a long time.

It would be great if we had more efficient ways of identifying and rallying around good congressional candidates early in their careers and save them from the clutches of special interest donors.

Both think the Patriot Act is just great. Both think dumping millions and millions more into the Iraq Slaughter is just fine. Neither showed any interest in trying to stop Bush from stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing corporatist judges.

Any measure that would declare either of these pathetic candidates a "progressive" is a joke.

Tim (and Norm):

Norm is providing the evidence. No problem with that - any broadly based scoring system for evaluations is going to suffer from validity questions like those you've raised - what are you going to do if you want to make an argument that is reasonably brief and is still not focussed on a few particulars?

Yes, this is fair: I certainly did not intend to criticize Norm for providing evidence (as I said, the site he linked to is awesome). But let us distinguish between the presenting evidence and the status of what is thereby presented. I can find it laudable that someone backs up their claim with evidence--the act--while having reservations about whether it has demonstrated the case he or she was trying to make--its result.

My own view is that I doubt the relevance or productiveness of arguing over who is more "progressive", since the term is proprietary and on policy Obama and Clinton have few differences, either in their voting records or their policy proposals. The question is which of those differences different people will tend, for different reasons, to identify as salient. And for me, as for many others, I wonder: Is it consistent for someone to vote for the war in Iraq, have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard labeled a 'terrorist organization', threaten publicly, on more than one occasion recently, to nuke Iran, use political tactics worthy of Karl Rove (race-baiting, flag-pin obsessing, 3 am red phone ringing,guilt-by-association, 'elitism' smears), and still be considered 'progressive'? On my own (admittedly) proprietary definition of 'progressive', no, it is not, and a gerrymandered statistical analysis of where Obama had a smaller sampling of votes, or was absent on a cloture motion, is not going to magically wipe those differences away. Its patent incompetence aside, the politics of paranoia and gutter-clawing is what I have found most disgusting about the Bush administration, and it doesn't make me feel better when a Democrat use the same tactics, even if she is not, by any means, comparable with them in any other sense.

If Obama wants to stand up to special interests, he now has a grassroots base of financial support that could allow him more independence than has been possible for politicians for a long time.

I definitely agree.

The claim I made was that she was more progressive on social issues. Furthermore I think there is less difference on military issues than Obama supporters contend. For example he hasn't ruled out nuking Iran if they were to attack Israel. So the actual difference may be in rhetoric not policy. I don't like Hillary's views on the use of the military, but I could never sell my own views to the voting public. For example our decisions on tactics in Iraq place an emphasis on saving American lives at the expense of innocent Iraqi lives, a policy I disagree with though I think both Barack and Hillary would adopt similar tactics in like situations. Those who argue that neither are very progressive have it right. A single payer system is the right one for healthcare, so both of them are less than ideal on that score and so it is on most issues. We don't really have any real liberals with a chance of being elected in this country.

The real chart would compare them to Nader.

Can we bash on McCain now?

Yes please!! claps hands excitedly

Anyway Norm, I respect your motivation for doing this: this is solid evidence, at least, that claims of one of these candidates being the "progressive" candidate is, at least on the basis of voting record, pretty much unfounded. I would throw in a caveat that, although this is quantifiable data, the criteria applied for what constitutes a "progressive" vote is inherently subjective (and if you think that's a difficult distinction to make in US congress, try figuring out who's "progressiv-er" in Canadian parliament--four main parties, but the "liberals" are gernerally corrupt and only sometimes liberal and the "conservatives" occasionally have good ideas--what a nice concept!) All that being said, point taken Norm, and now as Adam said, let's bash McCain.

Is Barack hoping to change the Union?

I hope the late night shows have some fun with this one.

You Yanks really have a weird idea of "progressive".

Here's a presidential candidate who voted for the invasion of Iraq and talks about "obliterating" Iran.

And she gets a progressive score of 85.37% for War & Peace??

Okay, I had a look at that stuff...

From these voting records, it does seem clear that Clinton really is the more progressive of the two candidates. Although when I look at the details, it is obvious that Obama's score is influenced far more by absence, than actual votes.

As far as health care goes, Clinton is rated 98.96, to Obama's 92.86.

They both got a 50% score on "Preventing Injuries Before They Occur," which turns out to be about a single vote about encouraging states to enact motorcycle helmet laws, and they both voted no on that one.

Both candidates were absent on a vote to repeal a statute that prevented foreign aid organizations from receiving federal funds if they performed abortions. (I guess, or speculate that both candidates realized that their votes weren't needed — and further speculate that a pro-abortion vote would not benefit their Presidential ambitions...)

Other than that, Clinton voted against an amendment that would require prescription drugs to be certified as safe before they could be imported, while Obama was absent. That is the only difference between the two candidates' actual votes.

Clinton's voting record on health care is far longer than Obama's. From the chart, Clinton has had an opportunity to cast a vote on health care 49 times, compared to Obama's 10. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I assume that this is because she's been a Senator longer than Obama?

So as far as health care goes, the only difference between the two candidates is that Obama has been absent from a single vote.

I do not consider that significant.

I believe the answer to who is the most progressive is "C", none of the above.

Good points, all around: the site is useful but limited, clearly their "progressive" status needs serious burnishing, and it's an open question as to how much of their lack of "real" progressive views are more about the limitations of the office/campaign versus their actual feelings/views on issues.

I'd just like to expand on Adam's point about the salience of tactics and rhetoric: it really does matter, and should factor as a score. This is not only in terms of the ethics of these things, but as insights into how each candidate is likely to work through some of these problems. In terms of foreign policy, I'm not sure that in practical terms Hillary and Barack are very different. However in diplomatic negotiations tone and other subtle cues makes a big difference, because in diplomacy people are always trying to work out motives and subtext. Barack gives the IMPRESSION that he's less hawkish, more flexible, etc., than Clinton. At this stage, I think this impression is important and needed.

Secondly, Barack gives the IMPRESSION that he's more open to negotiation on other domestic issues. The questions all of us need answered is: (1) will he be too willing to cave to corporate interests on health care and energy in the process of working out "compromise"? (2) Or, will he use this negotiating in good faith guise/strategy to get corporations on board with meaningful and smart reforms on these issues, and more?

One of the reasons I became and Obama supporter after Edwards dropped out was because I think that #2 seems more likely, based on what Obama's said and the way he says it. Mr. Lemos, in particular, thinks #1 is what will happen, and folks like me are being played. That seems to me to be the essential dividing line among Dems and Dem-leaners this primary season: is Obama's "third way" about changing politics, or about selling us down the river (more like Blair's "third way")?

There is one thing left that can hopefully help Obama tend toward #2: maintaining the grassroots funding, to which Tim refers. Keeping big money away from Obama will be crucial.

There is of course the clusterfuck of Congress, but that's a whole other issue.

So as far as health care goes, the only difference between the two candidates is that Obama has been absent from a single vote.

I do not consider that significant.

It is significant that you fail to acknowledge the difference in their proposed healthcare plans. Did you listen to the PBS bit on healthcare and the difference mandates make?

We don't really have any real liberals with a chance of being elected in this country.

That thinking is precisely our downfall. It's time for progressives in this country to stop whining and grow some motherfucking balls. "Boo fucking hoo...no one will vote for me cuz I actually stand for something so I must water down my values to appeal to bovine consumers. Woe is me." Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt & Kennedy would be crestfallen to learn how spineless American progressives have become.

Norm, I appreciate the clarification, but that doesn't really answer the crux of my question, which was...

So she's like one or two points more progressive than him on some issues. I see some issues there where the vice versa is true. Again, what is the point of this?

Put up Obama's chart up against McCain's, and you will see what this argument really should be about.

It is significant that you fail to acknowledge the difference in their proposed healthcare plans. Did you listen to the PBS bit on healthcare and the difference mandates make?

No, I did not.

I'm a big fan of PBS, and I'm sure that whatever they have to say on this matter is well worth considering, but I feel that you're shifting away from the argument, here.

I asked you what concrete evidence there is, as to how Obama is worse than Hillary. You said, "HEALTHCARE." I asked you what concrete evidence there is, as to how Obama's stance on healthcare is worse than Clinton, and you provided this website. I pored over it and discovered one single, simple truth: there's nothing much, that separates the two candidates on this issue.

Your response does not address mine.

there's nothing much, that separates the two candidates on this issue.

MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES.

Again, what is the point of this? Put up Obama's chart up against McCain's, and you will see what this argument really should be about.

The point, if you'd bothered to follow the conversation is that she is more progressive than he is. I wasn't answering the question who is more progressive Clinton or McCain. I get the point you're making but that wasn't the question. The answer to your question is obvious there is no dispute that both are more progressive than he is. You want the focus on McCain vs. the Democrat, and there is time for that too, but this thread was about Obama and Clinton.

You Yanks really have a weird idea of "progressive".

No kidding! I remember all the crowing by the right when Sarkozy, the "conservative" candidate won in France. There will never be a President liberal enough for me in the US, and I'd vote for Sarkozy.

Norm, I noticed when you copied my comment to respond to, you clipped this part out-

So she's like one or two points more progressive than him on some issues. I see some issues there where the vice versa is true.

Naturally.

PS- I am all for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (meaning, actual universal health care, not what our politicians consider "universal health care"), but here is my feelings on mandating the purchase of health insurance (a separate issue)-

Health Insurance Mandates... Fun For the Whole Family!

I agree that it's a serious and substantive difference between the two. I just don't believe her position is better, or even more progressive in an honest sense.

"MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES... Look, lets be fair here. I asked for someone to provide an example of exactly how Obama was worse than Hillary. I asked the question again and again. And again. And again. Finally, Norm answered: "HEALTHCARE."

Now, if I were to ask someone a question, and they were to respond in that way, with a single word, typed in all capital letters, I'd assume that I had asked a stupid question.

But I hadn't. And when Norm eventually provided the information/URL on the candidates' record, I responded with a straight forward response: On health care, there isn't too much that separates them. Norm responded with: "MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES,MANDATES, MANDATES."

Okay, I'll be honest: I don't get it. What does that mean? Please, feel free to mock me if I'm missing something obvious here. Hell, I'm not even sure if we're still on the topic of on health-care here — but I do feel fairly certain that this particular argument isn't particularly constructive...

Norm, I noticed when you copied my comment to respond to, you clipped this part out-

That's the nature of averages. The argument is that on balance she is more progressive. So your point is irrelevant to the larger point.

Norm, his scores are higher on the environment, labor rights, and war & peace.

But that does actually mean anything in the grand scheme of things? No.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who wouldn't call "more progressive" the candidate who rants against those damn elitist economists and supported the war and threaten to ban flag burning and helped pass NAFTA and proposed a gas tax holiday and etc etc, but these %s don't count stuff like that, so this is all black and white, and no grey.

That's my beef here. That and everyone focusing on those minute differences in %s when we have bigger fish (or, elephant) to fry.

Norm raises an excellent point. The difference between Clinton and Obama on healthcare is mandates. However, I'm still not convinced mandates are a good thing, and I agree with WeezTheJuice37 that they may actually HURT the working poor, who are the current victims of our system.

I am totally in favor of universal healthcare, and funding this initiative with a corresponding decrease in military spending. However, I think it is obtuse, if not deceptive, to describe either Clinton's or Obama's plans as "universal". As compared to the European model, both plans are in fact incredibly non-progressive, and I fear may do more to help insurance companies than those who need a doctor.

Also, by any metric you care to use, the race is over now. I'm bummed that my preferred candidate lost the nomination too (Paul), but life goes on.

My game plan: 1) defeat McCain 2) bask in the paradigm shift of the first __ President for a few days 3) continue bitching that no one appreciates my own personal view of geopolitics.

This is to say, there are HUNDREDS of things I don't like about Obama, and I intend to bitch about each and every one. However, I think he deserves a week in the oval office first.

How is it progressive to mandate Healthcare Coverage that is too expensive, lining the pockets of the Insurance companies? You need to control the cost. You need to take on the insurance for profit companies, not just give them more money.

I've got a lifelong Republican co-writing at my blog (he's very good -- here's his page), and this year he's firmly behind Obama. Why? Because, being a registered GOP, he's not as "progressive" as us? Not really: what Terry reminds us is that Obama's health plan, for instance, while not as "progressive" is actually capable of being accomplished, in real life, and within the next four years.

Now scientists and pollsters who do these things can't take those sorts of factors into account -- statistics is a weak enough science without attempting such a reach. So that requires human judgment, a sense for reality -- what can be accomplished in Washington and what cannot.

So I don't have an answer on who is more "progressive", because, for one thing, I'm not that smart; and for another, I think it's the wrong question, or at least it tends to excludes equally important questions.

Obama's 99% likely to be our candidate, and I will do my damndest to see that he is taking the oath next January.

Oh, and by the way, I'm foursquare with "Zaphpod for President" -- Beeblebrox in 2012!!!

Don't panic...

This ratings are kind of interesting. Some of the issues and votes I don't know about, and peace and war is really the only one that seems like baloney. Obama and Hillary are further apart than 2-something points on that issue. She's been voting and campaigning to his right on foreign affairs all along.

As for mandates, it seems like Hillary's idea is better, but I'm not sure that mandates, by themselves, are necessarily more liberal. It's essentially a mechanism which creates better insurance pools. Obama's motivation for not committing to mandates certainly isn't conservative, because it's motivated by the concern that people who can't afford a plan will still have to buy it. Maybe they should buy it anyway, but Hillary's trying do right by them by requiring them to do what's in their interests, whereas Obama is letting people decide what's in their best interests. The difference is important but it doesn't obviously map onto a left-right difference.

Obama's health plan, for instance, while not as "progressive" is actually capable of being accomplished, in real life, and within the next four years.

The attitude expressed here, especially if it is true, is truly depressing. I'm immediately reminded of the Frontline show, Sick Around the World, and I can't help wonder, 'If they can have a decent, workable system, why can't we?' How did we get to the point that we take for granted that our government can't act, can't deliver? We're so whipped that we now assume that in four years, the United States can not put together a health-care system the equal of any of those described in this show.

Obama and Hillary are further apart than 2-something points on that issue. She's been voting and campaigning to his right on foreign affairs all along.

I agree that is likely true, but Barack doesn't have much of a record on foreign affairs. It will be interesting to see if his rhetoric translates to action that is significantly different than hers. I can't put my finger on what it is but I have a feeling he is not. It may simply be my bias, but I'm reserving judgment until I see more.

Brian Donohue:

...and don't forget your towel... ;-)

Tim:

1. Apollo 11. The USA put a person on the moon, and brought him back alive. That is to say, there is NOTHING this country can't do, once we pull together.

Obama as JFK 2.0? My fingers are firmly crossed.

Obama's health plan, for instance, while not as "progressive" is actually capable of being accomplished, in real life, and within the next four years.

The attitude expressed here, especially if it is true, is truly depressing. I'm immediately reminded of the Frontline show, Sick Around the World, and I can't help wonder, 'If they can have a decent, workable system, why can't we?' How did we get to the point that we take for granted that our government can't act, can't deliver? We're so whipped that we now assume that in four years, the United States can not put together a health-care system the equal of any of those described in this show.

How true, it is depressing that some here will present right-wing talking points.

I do appreciate Hillary's loyal democratic stances on many issues, but these numbers are hardly representative.

The entire difference between Hillary's 100% on corporate subsidies score and Obama's 77% score is one vote on how student loan funds are allocated.

So if that is the case the relevant difference between 91% and 88% is about 0, given that is the equivalent of missing 1/15th of a vote more over the scope of all these issues. For a relative unknown who was overtaking a near incumbent, that is a respectable record.

Also, since 2002 there have been few if any progressive issues brought to the senate, which is why minutia is exploded out in scale in this scoring.

Also that war & peace/ Iraq score is a work of fiction. They included every budgetary vote as some sort of act of charity, much of the score in Hillary's record is either a vote to insert money for things like Food for Iraqis, money for armor, and voting Against Bolton's appointment.

Wonderful things but their relevance to being pro/anti war is null.

On the other hand her public stances on flag burning, video game banning, Iran, the patriot act, and her ties to Bills work on Welfare reform, Free trade, and DOMA are ignored or buried in procedural votes. Not to Mention the DLC and thier views on a host of issues.

How true, it is depressing that some here will present right-wing talking points.

Baaahh... Individual Mandates were not progressive talking points before this election and they really aren't now.

Insurance companies love the idea!

Employer mandates, single payer, expansion of medicare, healthcare for children, regulation and price controls of prescription drugs. Those are progressive talking points.

So sad that some maintain the delusion that saying a right-wing idea won't pass is somehow a right-wing talking point.

I guess i have to give you Clean Coal. That is one BS policy.

How true, it is depressing that some here will present right-wing talking points.

Yep, both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters have been presenting right-wing talking points this primary season.

It really is depressing.