You know what my favorite type of diary is? It's the "[Insert Dem] voted incorrectly on [bill] so they're a traitor who deserves to be tarred and feathered and run out of the party--the sell-out corporatist/bigot/neo-con stooge!!" diary. There have been quite a few of them in my time here--and especially lately. Typically, they focus on ONE vote (or even statement) and ignore all others. I've seen this in connection to the war, to CAFTA, and to the same-sex marriage amendment to name a few. At the end of the day, though, the same Senator or representative who is a "traitor" on one of these votes is a stalwart ally on the rest. I submit that there are many separate important votes each year, and a politician deserves to be judged cumulatively taking the entire record into account.
How does one do that? By evaluating how the individual votes on a series of key votes in which a "liberal" and "conservative" position is ascertainable. The nonpartisan National Journal magazine does such ratings each year. See
http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2005/voteratings/ for the details. The ratings are broken down by votes on economic issues (e.g. trade agreements), foreign policy issues (e.g. the Iraq War Authorization), and social issues (e.g. the same sex marriage ban). The ratings literally are the liberal and conservative percentiles of the Senate based on the important votes of the year. An evaluation of the records of the six Democratic Senators with presidential ambitions proves, in my mind, that five of six have been good, if not perfect liberals. I will discuss each in turn below:
Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Economic:
2004--63L/36C
2003--90L/7C
2002--95L/0C
2001--87L/13C
2000--not in Senate
Average: 84L/14C
Foreign Policy:
2004--58/41
2003--79/14
2002--70/27
2001--61/27
Average: 67/27
Social Policy:
2004--82/0
2003--85/0
2002--82/0
2001--70/20
Average: 80/5
Overall Average: 77/15 (+62)
In sum, one of the most liberal records in the Senate. Foreign policy has been less so than the rest--which is usually the subject of criticism.
John Edwards:
Economic:
'04--93/0
'03--93/0
'02--66/32
'01--74/23
'00--90/7
Average: 83/13
Foreign:
'04--81/18
'03--n/a (missed too many votes b/c of campaign)
'02--62-36
'01--61-27
'00--72/15
Average: 69/24
Social:
'04--n/a
'03--85/0
'02--56/38
'01--60/36
'00--66/21
Average: 67/24
Overall Average: 73/20 (+53)
Still very reliable.
Joe Biden:
Economic:
'04--93/0
'03--82/10
'02--90/5
'01--82/15
'00--69/30
Average: 83/12 (NOTE: Pretty good for a guy supposedly owned by corporate interests)
Foreign:
'04--69/29
'03--60/35
'02--67/30
'01--87/3
'00--70/28
Average: 71/25
Social:
'04--69/30
'03--77/22
'02--64/34
'01--81/8
'00--79/0
Average:74/19
Overall Average: 76/19 (+57). Hmm, also a reliable liberal vote.
Russ Feingold (typically the good guy for those tearing down HRC, Biden, and Edwards):
Economic:
'04--90/7
'03--90/7
'02--73/20
'01--79/19
'00--94/4
Average: 85/11
Foreign:
'04--86/8
'03--90/0
'02--85/12
'01--60/40
'00--66/31
Average: 77/18
Social:
'04--67/31
'03--79/15
'02--82/0
'01--65/32
'00--66/21
Average: 72/20
Overall Average: 78/16 (+62). Absolutely a great voting record, but even with Clinton, and just a few points better than Biden or Edwards.
I won't go into detail here b/c this is getting long, but John Kerry's record tops all four of the above, with an overall average of 80/13 (+67). I am not advocating for him (or any of the others) as the nominee--he proved to be an awful presidential candidate, but he is a good Senator and would be a good President (as would Hillary, Edwards, Biden or Feingold). The one exception is Evan Bayh: his composite is 60/36.
For comparison's sake, to answer the argument that our guys should all be at 100/0 "like the GOP", some notables from the other side:
Frist: 17/82 (-65); Santorum: 20/79 (-59); Brownback: 19/79 (-60). About the same spread as the "Vichy Dems".
In conclusion, I can understand anger when one of our guys votes the wrong way on an issue we care about. It's important to keep in mind the fact that there are other votes and other issues. To call someone a traitor based on one or two issues is not only false, but cheapens the term as applied to actual Dem traitors like former Sen. Zell Miller.