Skip to main content

Rather than just pimp someone’s diary in the open thread, I thought I’d  use my diary today to plug one put up by TigerCourse earlier.  Thanks to this fact-filled diary we got a really great discussion going regarding Hillary’s progressive (yes progressive) voting record.

TigerCourse (and I’m sorry but I’m not yet clear whether to say "he" or "she") posted links to some really great sites that rank a Senator for their liberalism / progressive votes over the years, and they take the time to map out a bit of methodology used, when the rankings were done, and offered a bit of analysis on the sites overall.

So I thought I’d offer up this space to plug that diary and maybe continue the discussion – it was a good one and I’d like to encourage more of that here.

Make the jump...

We got this dialogue going on Monday, when I posted a diary with Hillary’s voting record since being elected to the Senate.  Good discussion that day (164 comments), but TigerCourse took it a step further in their diary today.

There were over 200 comments made and nearly ALL of them were civil etc., focusing on the record of one candidate while steering clear of slamming the others.  Even supporters of other candidates gave a fair hearing to what TigerCourse had to say and I applaud them for it.

I won’t mimic all of what they included in their diary, but I will include the links so you can take a look at where Hillary stands in the rankings.  To get us started, here’s what TigerCourse had to say in their intro...

A common negative comment I read about Clinton is that "she doesn't vote the way I want most of the time". When I first came onto this site, as a somewhat Clark supporter, I also believed that. I thought Clinton had a conservative voting record, closer to the right of the party then the left. I imagined a large gap between her and the liberal leaders of our party, like Boxer and Kennedy. Of course, I'd never actually looked at her record, or where she ranked. I held my opinion on faith and faith alone. And I think alot of people here are the same way.

One day someone made a comment like "Hillary Clinton is the worst Democrat in the party". And I though, "that probably isn't quite true. Bad, but not the worst". So I looked it up. And I was wrong. She's not the worst. She's not even bad. Hillary Clinton has a liberal voting record.

Check out their diary and I’m sure you’ll be surprised at where Hillary fits in the rankings among her colleagues.  There’s also a link that compares her votes to LIEberman’s and she’s far and away more progressive than he is.

Progressive Punch Clinton is ranked as the 14th most liberal Senator.

National Journal Clinton is ranked 13th most liberal.

GovTrack Clinton is ranked as the 5th most liberal Senator.

Drum Major where Clinton earns an A.

A Diary By Democratic Luntz Comparing everyone’s record to LIEberman’s.

At one point, GussieFN asked me if there was anything about my candidate that would give me pause to support her, and I answered in the following way (I thought this was worth repeating)...

http://www.dailykos.com/...

I don't like that she supported the war resolution - I was adamently against that back then but then I wasn't getting briefings in the Senate and didn't have constituents contacting me night & day to go after the people we were told had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.  I lived through them in DC so I can just imagine what New Yorkers were saying back then.

I've looked at her floor speech and I understand her reasons for supporting that resolution.  So overall I have to say this really doesn't give me pause or make me uncomfortable in supporting her.  I'm behind her candidacy a thousand percent and if I could afford to leave my job and give up my family's health insurance coverage, I'd make the commute down to VA and back each day to work on her campaign - making copies all day if need be - to help get her elected as our next president.

Seriously guys – we got such a great discussion going – without the usual attacks and hate-filled generalizations – that I’m amazed this diary didn’t make it up on to the Rec List.  It served to clear the air regarding some of the misconceptions about Hillary’s voting history, and lets you know where she stands on the issues of the day in the thoughtful comments that people have left there.

Please check it out – Rec it up if you think it’s worthy, and continue the discussion here if so moved.

Peace.

Originally posted to Alegre on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:55 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips For Clearing The Air Re Her Record (21+ / 0-)

    If you take an honest look at her record, and where she fits in the Senate among her Dem. collegues, you'll learn something new today.

    At least I hope so.

    •  Thank you for putting this up (11+ / 0-)

      It seems Hillary gets blamed for all sorts of things she never did. Clearly she is a liberal with a liberal voting record. She is also certainly more liberal than hubby.

    •  The problem is not the voting record (0+ / 0-)

      beyond the AUMF. That one I don't know if I can ever forgive her for. Edwards I forgive completely because of three little words I have yet to hear come out of Hillary's mouth.

      The problem is one of perception and image. I perceive Hillary as a warmonger with an image of someone unwilling to admit a mistake.

      PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

      by Walt starr on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:25:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warmonger? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, KnowVox

        I don't get it Walt - you're not charactarizing one of the other candiates that way because he apologized - even though he co-sponsored that bill to begin with?

        I posted my thoughts on the whole apology thing down-thread.  Take a look and tell us what you think ;o)

        •  Three little words are all I need (0+ / 0-)

          to be convinced she's not a warmonger.

          "I was wrong."

          Without that, she loses me completely.

          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

          by Walt starr on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:31:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Three Little Words? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caldonia, Pozzo, KnowVox

            Seriously Walt - do you honestly expect her to apologize now?  Even if she did she'd be accused of pandering to us, or of copying Edwards' apology.

            And what would that get her?  A few votes among people who're leaning left anyway?  While she turns her back on the independents and moderate repubilicans who might vote for her if she stands her ground?

            As far as I can tell, an apology would hurt her chances in the General and open her up to flip-flopping charges from the righties (I supported it before I regretted it).

            An apology for her would be a mistake.

        •  Oh, and that means NO NUANCE (0+ / 0-)

          None of the bullshit that she was deceived. She wasn't deceived, she was flat out WRONG!

          Until I hear her admit it, I cannot support her at all.

          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

          by Walt starr on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:32:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am sorry Alegre, these IWR excuses don't fly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Taylor

          The excuse the Hillary camp has been giving (and you've posted here in this thread) are really empty because what HRC said in her October 2002 floor statement became moot and irrelevant when she stood by her support for the war as the UN inspection reports were were getting filed in in March 2003, and the reports were debunking the war lies already.

          She stood back with her support for the war eventhough UN inspectors were ALREADY inside Iraq (for months by then) and were reporting that no WMD were to be found (and ruled out nukes essentially):

          Hillary Given 'Pink Slip' for Stance on Iraq War

          by Julia Duin

          The senator's staff finally agreed to make Mrs. Clinton available at 4:45 p.m.

          Mrs. Clinton, who arrived 45 minutes late and insisted that all reporters leave the room before she addressed the protesters, explained her reasons for not trusting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

          "I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of women and children in Iraq," she said. "The only way to change this is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I don't think he will. We are in a very difficult position right now. I'd love to agree with you, but I can't."

          and she was using 9/11 as an excuse for supporting the war (just as Giuliani now postures.)

          "I am the senator from New York," she said, "and I will not put people's security at risk."

          "But you are," the demonstrators shouted at her as she exited.

          Don't forget that Saddam was NEVER an imminent threat including in particular because there were no established ties between Saddam and 9/11 perpetrators. He didn't have anywhere close to missiles needed to hit US (or Israel), as became clearly known by the UN inspections (his range was 183Km, and the US is several thousand miles and Israel some 400-500Km away from Iraq).

          This Youtube video shows very clearly that Hillary was all in support of the invasion (despite UN reports) and that she was merely triangulating in her floor statement before the vote: Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD.

          Edwards was worse in both co-sponsoring and even more explicitly continuing hawking of the war in March 2003: El Baradei: no nukes in Iraq, John Edwards: Still YES to war. But that doesn't make what HRC did any less significant given what the grave consequences of the war, given the she carried more weight as a former first lady with more expeirence than a 1st term senator too busy running for President much of his time.

          Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

          by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:49:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for reminding everyone (9+ / 0-)

    of the facts. The truth is annoying sometimes. (I'm still an Edwards supporter!)

    •  Thanks Mae. There Seems to Be A Lot of (5+ / 0-)

      hit-pieces around here lately and a lot of them are filled with half-truths or outright lies about Hillary.

      I thought this information needed to get out so folks could make up their own mind.

    •  I'm an Edwards supporter. too. (8+ / 0-)

      But I find myself increasingly drawn to Hillary.  This heterosexual watched the LGBT debate last night.  She was very good--talking about the specifics and process of policymaking, how to implement her aspirations.  The others (except Richardson, who seemed to have a comprehension problem) just talked about hopes and promises.

      I have also discovered that she has (or has developed) a good sense of humor.

      •  She's Detail Oriented for Sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib, KnowVox

        I like the way she's already laying the ground work to force the Pentagon to put together plans to bring our troops home too.

        That lady is always thinking ahead and that's how you win elections!

      •  From What I've Heard From Folks Who've Worked (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib, KnowVox

        with her in the past, she enjoys a good practical joke too ;o)

      •  An alternatve interpretation of Richardson (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib

        and it goes for Edwards and Obama, they were a few steps ahead and knew they were getting cornered into an illogical unsupportable position. Richardson backed into the corner dissembling and avoiding it as much as he could without falling off his chair. Still progress.

        HRC almost started out in the same vein with her "It's a personal position" which made me cringe and go ewwww.  But then when she empathized and said if she were in Melissa's place (i.e., if she weren't in her place running for president) she'd be saying the same thing. I can celebrate those code words...a long way from where we started and a long way from where we should be but she's a  sister at the ready to lead through the first green light she sees.

        Also, Edwards culture clash, really seemed authentic. It made me sad, not angry with him. Just a little sad. And funny, I had to laugh, in a good natured way, at his disconnect with the group.  

        Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

        by kck on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:40:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't really believe her and that made me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kck

          cringe to but it was a vey nice rescue.  She seems too evolved and frankly too comfortable with gay people to seriously have an issue with gays getting married.  I think she just doesn't want the issue to be used as a political football in the next election.

          I'm a Hillary Democrat.

          by masslib on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:56:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Someone said something to me on this site (0+ / 0-)

        once, I wish I could remember who it was, because it made a lasting impression.  She said that Hillary had stopped talking religion when "gay marriage"(I prefer marriage equality) came up.  She just flat out dropped the usual God speak.  It is a small thing, but I really appreciate because I don't think we should not legitimate the argument that people can protest equality on religious grounds.  Not to dis any of the other candidates, just something that I now always tend to notice.

        I'm a Hillary Democrat.

        by masslib on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:54:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I've been tracking her for awhile (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rapala, Alegre, lorelynn, masslib

    Sometimes she needs to be pushed and she doesn't get out in front and lead.  These are the main two complaints I have about her voting record.  But overall, her votes are consistent with my principles.  
    I don't know where she got the Republican-lite reputation.  Except for the IWR, it simply isn't true.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

    •  Exactly - and the More I Read & Hear on That Vote (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, KnowVox, rigso

      (even though I was opposed to this war from the start), the more I've come to understand why she voted the way she did.

      It's made abundently clear in her floor statement prior to that vote...

      http://clinton.senate.gov/...

      •  Um, no (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alegre, masslib, tucsonlynn, rigso

        I mean, I have swung over to Hillary's camp because overall, she is the best prepared and polished to be president.  She's going to be great.
        But I will never accept that vote.  I don't think there is a way in my mind for her to justify it.  I have simply decided to let it go because she is going to have to be the one to end it and I believe she will.  It's Karma.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:14:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That vote (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Caldonia, Alegre, masslib

          sucks yes, but after we are out of Iraq we will need a president capable of handling everything else. As much as I was against this stinking war prior to its start, I don't want to be a one issue voter like the right wingers I bitch about.

          •  I think the issue for many about that vote (0+ / 0-)

            Is what we think it implies about what she might do in the future.

            When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

            by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:36:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If You Want A Look at the Future (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia

              Look at what she's done so far.

              She's got a pretty consistent anti-war voting record (nearly identical to Obama's btw).

              Nobody's defined by one vote.  You have to look at the entire picture AND at what she's doing now (forcing the Pentagon to put together withdrawal plans, proposing legislation with time-tables and a sunset to the initial war resolution).

              •  It isn't about being anti-war (0+ / 0-)

                I have no doubt that Clinton wouldn't have started that war if she were President.  That was Bush's war.  

                More accurately (and I say this with respect, as she is a great Democrat like all of our candidates) I think it showed either a lack of foreign policy acumen (which I don't believe) or a willingness to do a very, very wrong thing in order to preserve political viability (sadly what I do suspect is the issue).

                To a certain extent I empathize with the position she was in, but should our President be put in another thankless situation in theior first term and be forced with a choice between re-election viability or the best interests of the country - I want a President who I feel more confident will make that personal sacrifice for the good of us all.  Her vote for the AUMF makes me worry about her on that count.        

                When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

                by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  AUMF? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  masslib

                  As for her putting the nation before her own politcal viability I'd like you to consider this...

                  She's put others first for over 35 years, going back to the days when she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund rather than take a high-paying job out of law school.  She's fought non-stop for the rights of women & children.  And her voting record in the Senate (and the legilslations she's proposed) shows us she puts people first.

                  If she were only concerned with her political viability she would have the high liberal rankings noted in the sites in my diary.

                  I know people who've worked with her and they tell me she's one of the most down-to-earth and genuine people they've ever met.  That says a lot to me about her as a person when someone's that dedicated & loyal to their boss / former boss.  And that's accross the board - totally consistant to the last person.

                  •  Hold on now... (0+ / 0-)

                    Why must everything be black or white?  Where did I EVER say she was ONLY concerned with her political viability.

                    I said that I believe she was in that instance.  Either that or her foreign policy instincts were terribly, terribly off.

                    I have no problem believing that in general she is a selfless person motivated by all of the best values.  But that vote was one of those unfair tests life hands out to some people and not others.  I don't judge her for failing it, but I can't disregard the knowledge it illuminated either.  This is about what a person is when push comes to shove.

                    I'm sorry if that's not the conclusion you'd like me to draw from this, but I can't say it any more gently than that.    

                    When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

                    by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:03:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I did not believe the war BS for one minute (0+ / 0-)

        I just eyeballed her speech.  I wonder if Saddam in his many years of being president killed more people than her husband (about 1 million ) and GWB (with her approval) another million?

        I didn’t believe the war BS, she must not be all that bright.  I was listening to weapons inspectors and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.  Who was she listening to?

        I don’t think I will vote for her.  

    •  She cultivated it (0+ / 0-)

      She consciously framed herself as a moderate over the last year or two in orer to boost her chances for this upcoming general election.  Beyond foreign policy there were highly publicized flirtations with a flag burning amendment and statements made designed to sound socially moderate.

      There was also the little matter of her husband's term in office - his roll back of welfare and her attempt to include the insurance companies in her health care reform attempt.

      Lastly - there is the lobbyists.  Takin money from lobbyists always reads as "corporate" to us lefty's.

      Not criticizing her for any of this...but the impression doesn't come out of nowhere.    

      When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

      by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's Not Her Husband (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, masslib, KnowVox

        and her voting record in now way shows any quid pro quo where the lobbyists are concerned.

        •  We were discussing her image (0+ / 0-)

          Certainly she is and will be associated with her husband's Presidency.  It is silly to think otherwise, no matter how fair or unfair you consider that.

          As for quid pro quo - again...we are talking about image.  

          When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

          by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary: the right's choice? (0+ / 0-)

            Clinton's free-trade economics and posturing on security could endear her to conservatives unimpressed by the GOP field.

            Is hell freezing over? One might think so after reading recent comments from editors at National Review and the Weekly Standard, America's leading conservative magazines. Over the last 15 years, both magazines seldom have passed up an opportunity to excoriate Hillary Rodham Clinton as some kind of crypto-communist.

            No more. Today, Sen. Clinton is rapidly becoming not merely acceptable to many right-wingers but possibly even their candidate of choice.

            On economics, Clinton seemed likely to be a rerun of her husband's administration: fiscally conservative, free-trade-oriented, pragmatic. She confirmed my conclusion in a May 29 speech on economic policy. In it, Clinton said, "There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets." That's about as good as any conservative can hope for from a Democrat.

            Clinton's voting record also shows that she is far from the most liberal member of the Senate. According to the National Journal, she ranked 32nd last year, with a rating of 70.2 (100 being perfectly liberal). Obama, by contrast, was significantly more liberal, with a rating of 86.

            http://www.latimes.com/...

            Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

            by William Domingo on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:12:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And BTW - The Other Candidates Take (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib, KnowVox

        questionable contributions as well so if you're going to talk about her you need to include them in this part of the discussion.

        •  They are part of it (0+ / 0-)

          As I said...I wasn't criticizing.  I was discussing where the image came from.  Don't kill the messenger.

          When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

          by snout on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:52:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I was (and still am) critical of Hillary Clinton- (8+ / 0-)

    but I must applaud the Clinton supporters (actually all candidates supporters) for keeping the discussion earlier today on the level. It was nice not to have any name-calling or other personal attacks for a change.

    Maybe there's hope for us all yet.    ;-)

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:07:20 PM PDT

    •  Hear Hear! I'm seeing a little less flaming (9+ / 0-)

      the last day or two.  It was pretty bad at the start of the week but it seems to have evened out.

      TigerCourse's diary and the discussion there is a good example of what we can do if people actually LISTEN to one another.

      Either way - the important thing is that we unite behind WHOEVER gets the nod next year.

    •  Records are what should be disected (0+ / 0-)

      Here is why this voting record doesn't tell much of a  story:

      Troglydytes of the lowest conservative order decided what would be voted on in most of Hill's tenure as senator. Cave men  would have voted against the troglydyte bills introduced by many of the conservatives in the last few years and those votes wouldn't have made the cave men liberals.  

      For those tepid souls still afraid of the word liberal let me point out - Clinton is no liberal.  You can quote us liberals on that when those mean old conservatives come around claiming your liberals instead of being for progress which is all some wish to contend for.

      Barack Obama calls himself a liberal.  John Edwards is a liberal if he believes what he says these days.  But Hill is no liberal on several important issues.

      She was absent without leave in the war against the war not just on a fateful day in 2002 but up until almost a year ago when real liberals booed her intransigent kow-towing to the neo-cons on Iraq.

      She helped orchestrate the taking of American jobs oversees.

      She wants to wink at big medicine and not do anything about health care till her second term.  What second term?  She have diebold in her pocket now too?

      These are not the doings of a liberal.  This woman represents a different agenda.  I wouldn't call it progress

      Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

      by SmithsLastWord on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just Look At Her Voting Record (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib, KnowVox

        see my sig line for a link.

        (which by the way is more liberal than Edwards was, and is nearly identical to Obama's).

        This diary isn't about her voting record by the way but since you brought it up - go look at actual record (unless you're afraid it will open your eyes to the fact that she's really not so bad as you claim).

        This diary is about how others - more experienced in this sort of thing mind - rank her among her colleagues in the Senate.

        •  In the land of the blind the one eyed is Queen (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Taylor

          That was one blind Senate Hill served in.  Republicans ran a reactionary pork sausage farm.  They ran it tightly too. Nothing got to the floor that the most conservative hacks in America wanted to come to the floor.  No one but a conservative hack would do anything but vote against that agenda.  Obviously Hillary isn't as bad as most those reactionaries she served with.  But she isn't proven much better by voting often against their agenda of greed.  That doesn't make her a liberal.

          Hill's record of inaction in the face of war, of aiding the loss of American jobs, of now caving to the medical industrial complex and assuring them that this election will result in no decrease in the deaths of the uninsured - that is not something liberals can be hopeful in. Most important Hill has NEVER gotten one thing accomplished for the liberal agenda in this country ever. Name one program she is really responsible for.  And yes some of the other candidates really have put programs through that insured children, fed them and housed them. Not in the first years of Hill's senate carreer however.  the senate voted the agenda of the greedy and blind in those days.  there was No liberal agenda to vote on.  Your analysis is inacurate then - based on opposition to the worst of reactionary laws - not the adoption of good ones.  

          Except for repeating your original argument you don't seem to be helping yourself here. Your authorities on votes don't explain th e significance of votes and neither could any of us for 99% of them.  I submit many votes were pro-forma rejection of utter nonsense from reactionaries.  such a vote is not a measure of liberalism.  Only better sense than a reactionaries.

          Why should a vote against say a  Jesse Helms school textbook monitoring bill, for instance, be seen as proof of anything very positive.  It is praise to vote against such a monstrosity but it is damn faint praise.

          Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

          by SmithsLastWord on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:54:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I Was Considering Posting a Diary the other day (6+ / 0-)

    That would essentially go like this:

    Post a comment below expressing the one thing you're not proud of about your candidate.

    •  That Might Be An Interesting Discussion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, tucsonlynn, KnowVox

      I've noted that in my diary above. I don't like that vote but I'm beginning to understand WHY she did it.

      Someone suggested earlier that she apologize for her vote and I responded with the following...

      If she did apologize a lot of folks here would dismiss it as too little too late.  And that she's copying Edwards.

      Meanwhile it'd hurt her chances of winning over independent votes and moderate rethugs who're unhappy with the GOP nominee in the General.

      Hate to say it but the nubers tell her to NOT apologize and I'm guessing her gut's telling her the same thing.  She voted the way she did based on the information she had at the time.  She opposed the invasion (as is made clear in her floor speech) and only supported the bill to put pressure on Saddam.

      Frankly, if she apologized now I'd lose a bit of respect for her.  She did what she did and we can't change that.  A hollow apology in an effort to pander to the anti-war voters (which includes me) would only mimic what Edwards did.

      I honestly don't think she'll apologize - nor should she.

      •  That's not the Worst thing in my Opinion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alegre, masslib

        I'd be more annoyed at Sen. Clinton for not grabbing her husband by his collar and forcing him to do something about Rwanda back when it mattered.

        I not only understand her vote on the AUMF.  I respect it.

        •  She should have grabbed him by the collar (0+ / 0-)

          and got him to speak out and help us stop this war. If Bill Clinton would have said, "Vote against this Iraq war supplemental" they would have done it. People can see through this kind of stuff in their everyday lives, but what it comes to politics, they're blind as bats.

          •  Ex-Presidents (0+ / 0-)

            I don't remember any of them showing up 2 years later to tell their party how to vote on something.

            •  Pick any something (0+ / 0-)

              in our history that has hurt the credibility and respect of America as the Iraq war, then we'll make a comparison. The Iraq war is not just "something". It's kind of a big deal.
              In this rare case, I think it's fair to say that if Hillary was really serious about stopping "something" like the Iraq war, there were a lot more things she could have done.
              Should there be a gag order on ex-presidents, no matter how bad the situation? I don't think so, but I'm one of those "Liberals".

              •  I'm Sure If Bill Knew (0+ / 0-)

                What would happen in Iraq then he would have been happy to say something about it beforehand.

                •  I'm not so sure about that. (0+ / 0-)

                  Because after he has seen that it's a disaster, he's still not jumping out there to help America get back on the right track, by calling to cut funding for this war. As long as people fall for the "supporting the troops" deal, it will be a war without end. The only way they were able to stop the Vietnam war was to cut the funding.
                  Like I said before, people can see through these kinds things in their everyday lives.

                  •  Yeah I Know (0+ / 0-)

                    Sen. Webb and Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton want perpetual war or they'd be for Defunding.

                    •  There's a lot of oil money being thrown around. (0+ / 0-)

                      Look how Lieberman turned out! He was supposed to be our vice-president! We have to watch everybody very closely in the current political environment.
                      Do you ever go to opensecrets.org. Hillary is number 16 in the senate for taking money from oil and gas. http://www.opensecrets.org/...
                      This could have something to do with why the war wasn't a "mistake"

                      •  Poor Us (0+ / 0-)

                        I keep telling my fellow Clinton Supporters she should have just taken the money from the Spouses and Co-workers of the Oil and Gas Industries.

                        That appears to be the acceptable workaround these days.

                        Just out of curiousity.  Why do you think Max Cleland voted for the war?

                        •  They all gave us the "old unpatriotic" excuse (0+ / 0-)

                          but these excuses are getting old. The excuse the "democrats" gave for supporting Bush's spying program was "they were afraid they would get the blame if another terrorist attack happened".
                          These fear based excuses are getting real old. It's like republicans are using fear and "democrats" are scared into doing just what republicans want, every time.
                          Don't take my opinion of Hillary personally, I don't have much "faith" in any of them anymore. And that's coming from a lifelong Democrat who proudly voted for Mondale against Reagan.

                          •  I'll Take That To Mean (0+ / 0-)

                            You think Cleland voted for the war out of fear.

                          •  It was the common "democratic" excuse. (0+ / 0-)

                            Max Cleland was successfully being portrayed by his opponent in 2002 as "unpatriotic". I don't know if he personally voted for the war out of "fear of being called unpatriotic", but when Cleland lost in 2002, it became the "perfect" excuse for other "democrats" to continue to vote for Iraq war funding, because "if they can portray a triple amputee, highly decorated Vietnam war veteran as "unpatriotic" they can do that to any of us" was their talking point. Maybe Cleland personally wasn't afraid of being called unpatriotic, but it sure work on 2/3 of the other "democrats". It was "too perfect".
                            But now that public opinion is on our side, it's time for them to stop using the fear excuses. There ARE some signs that the leaderships of both parties aren't in a hurry to stop this war.

      •  Regarding an apology (0+ / 0-)

        She expressed regrets that the preconditions were not met; she engaged in a deal with a crook. For me further dwelling on it is silly.  

        My burning question though is, why did she feel she should vote differently than Levin who presumably saw more intel than she did. I'm still curious about that.

        Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

        by kck on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:57:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ohhh, I like it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia

      I'm a Hillary Democrat.

      by masslib on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary Clinton (7+ / 0-)

    is a realist. Love her or hate her she knows exactly where the limits are.

    Blame God and you'll get away with anything.

    by langerdang on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:15:24 PM PDT

  •  Down with the Bilderbergian Queen! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2

    I kid, I kid.

    -4.63 -5.28 - Gandhi & I's score!

    by pinche tejano on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:20:07 PM PDT

  •  Even if Hillary had the world record for the most (0+ / 0-)

    "Liberal votes", that one vote, to give this idiot(Bush) authorization to invade Iraq undoes it all, because she turned on us at the most critical time on the most critical issue and still doesn't think is was a mistake.
    We already have a president who can't make a mistake. I don't want another one.

    •  So I Take It You're Not Supporting Edwards Then? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, KnowVox

      As for Obama's claim that he would have voted no... I have a really hard time believing that given the fact that he's voted in lock-step with Hillary since joining her in the Senate, and he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote.

      He didn't get the briefings.

      He wasn't getting calls from constituents night & day about Saddam.

      He can talk all he likes about how he would have voted no, but I'm not buying it.  We have no way of knowing for sure what he would have done if he'd been in the senate 5 years ago for that vote.

      •  Actually I am. (0+ / 0-)

        He knows that voting for a mistake is a mistake. Also, he's the only one who can win a general election.
        Republicans have no one to vote for, but Hillary gives them someone to vote against. America needs somebody who can unify the country and Hillary would be as much of a divider as Bush.

        •  Trust me (0+ / 0-)

          Edwards the moderate turned populist, who wants to socialize everything, put the medical industry under tight government control, and take long term capital investments from 15% tax rate to 38%.  He'll bring the republicans to the voting booth like no other candidate.  

          He doesn't have a chance to become President but I'm sure he will be taken care of for the good work he has done, likely a high cabinet position.

          •  There're more populist republicans than you think (0+ / 0-)

            Ross Perot got many of their votes, on many of the same issues Edwards is campaigning on.
            The percentage of investors is decreasing rapidly with the record number of homes foreclosures. Many Republicans have figured out that "trickle down" economics(protecting the billionaires) is not trickling down to them.
            There are more "anti-globalization" republicans now than in 92, when Perot ran. I bet Edwards would get more republican votes than Hillary, although that wouldn't be hard to do.

  •  I know Hillary doesn't like the word "liberal"... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, masslib, Hairy Legs, KnowVox

    ...and prefers "modern progressive," but since that term hasn't entered the national lexicon yet, I'll go with liberal, when saying that Hillary is a lot more liberal than her husband was.  

    Great diary!

    Support the Clinton Climate Initiative http://www.clintonfoundation.org

    by Berkeley Vox on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:44:59 PM PDT

  •  If Hillary were a Progressive - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Taylor

    she wouldn't be raking in the moolah from News Corp fundraisers and donations. Instead she could have actually answered the questioned posed to her at YearlyKos about media consolidation. But, as a true Centri$t - she blamed Al Gore.

    •  If Hillary were a True Liberal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annefrank

      She would have answered the question of media concentration by blasting it and pointing out the legislation she authored to make news media more free no matter who gave her donations.  Then she would have plugged her legislation on campaign finance reform.  Unfortunately this is Hillary we are talking about - neither a liberal nor a progressive!

      Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

      by SmithsLastWord on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:18:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  $ 20K (0+ / 0-)

      it is $ 20K that the Repugs don't get.  One is smart to keep the enemy close.  And what better way to persuade the slightly right of center, that she is not a wacko liberal.

      Very smart indeed!

      •  Go over to RedState (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        txlosthorn

        and read some wacko ideology - fed to the brainwashed sheep by Murdoch & Co. 24/7. And yet - the "liberal" Clintons get in bed with Murdoch who keeps Americans dumbed down with wacko conservative ideology, fearmongering and bashing Democrats 24/7.
        How does that help Democrats?

  •  I hate to nitpick (0+ / 0-)

    but are the National Journal and Progressive Punch ratings really all that useful?  I'm suspicious of any rating that puts Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton at the most liberal end while Tester, Webb, Dorgan, and Byrd come out near the bottom.    They're either counting minor bills, procedural votes and a lot of straight party-line votes, or defining liberalism as something other than economic populism and individual liberties.

    •  There were no votes on a liberal agenda (0+ / 0-)

      In those Republican Senates.  Those particular years the ratings are useless to distinguish between middle of the road skunks waiting to get run over by conservatives and liberals.  No one but the troglydytes voted for the bills that made it onto the Republican controlled agenda. Everyone but tropglydytes voted against them.  those years the ratings were useless.  they show who was a reactionary bible thumping, pork laden conservative.  Hill didn't make that list.  but you can't tell who was a liberal from those votes - they were not on a liberal agenda.

      Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

      by SmithsLastWord on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:42:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, what? (0+ / 0-)

        If you're talking about 1994-2006 there are plenty of egregiously bad bills that had a lot of Democrats voting with the Republicans:  NAFTA, Telecommunications Act, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and about 15 other pieces of major legislation I can think of.

        "No one but the troglydytes voted for the bills that made it onto the Republican controlled agenda. Everyone but tropglydytes voted against them."

        This is factually incorrect as it gets - Biden and Dodd, to name a couple who were in the Senate that entire time, voted the wrong way on every one of the bad bills I can think of.  Hillary Clinton joined them in voting the wrong way once she got into the Senate.  By comparison, Russ Feingold voted the right way on just about every one.

      •  Followup to that last post (0+ / 0-)

        I agree with you that Hillary is not very liberal.  Just saying there were plenty of votes during that time that can be used to tell the difference, not everything was a straight party line vote back then.  In fact most of the really bad major legislation wasn't.

  •  Hillary Supporters (0+ / 0-)

    I have a few questions I'd like answered before I consider voting for her in the primaries.

    How would Hillary's nomination as the Democratic candidate for President affect the other Dems nationwide running for office in '08?  And how would her candidacy affect the types of inititatives we will see on our local ballots?  Will her presence on the ticket bring out the Republican base in '08?

    Honest questions here...I have no dog in this race yet (undecided).

    "Strap him with an AK-47 - let him go - fight his own war - let him impress daddy that way" - Eminem

    by Otis29 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

  •  Excellent Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KnowVox

    We really should be discussing facts and qualifications of the candidates, based on their record.  A politician can say anything so we really need to look into their past accomplishments and voting record.

    Hillary has an excellent record, that all liberals, progressive can live with.  She can fight the right-wing, like no other candidate.  She can win in the general.

    We should be treating our candidates as if we are the board of directors hiring a chief executive, not as rock stars and as if we are voting on American Idol.  I just want one that will do a good job.  I don't care how they look or about the stupid sound bytes spun and taken out of context, or whether they have a 10 point plan.  I want one with a proven record of fighting the tough fights, and of accomplishments.

    Many people are repeating Rush Limbaugh ditto head smear about Hillary.  She definitely doesn't deserve it.  She is the best we have.  Don't help the right wingers defeat her.

    •  The right has already defeated her. (0+ / 0-)

      When she repeats Bush's talking points like, "We're safer but we're not yet safe", or still carries the water for the "war on terror" when the Bush team refuses to secure our ports and borders. If there was really a "war on terror", there would already be some serious port and border security in place. Or maybe, waiting for the war funding bill to get enough votes to pass before she finally decides to vote against it.
      I am firmly convinced there is a blinding effect about politics, because if people we're this gullible in their everyday lives, they would get taken advantage of every time they turned around.

  •  Election tags added to this diary (0+ / 0-)

    We need help from Clinton supporters!

    Your friendly tag librarians are asking for candidate supporters to pitch in and check (and correct when needed) the tags on all diaries for their favorite candidates between now and the elections.

    Calling now for a Hillary Clinton supporter to step up (and maybe recruit one or two partners) to check all the diaries about Hillary Clinton and made certain that, at a minimum, these tags are included:

    Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats

    Other names and issue type tags allowed - just try to make sure they are on the Standard Tag List.

    Your Daily Kos Tag Librarians thank you for your cooperation!

    ============
    Tips on Creating Good Diary Tags
    Try to use tags from this List of the most used standard tags.
    Find good tags (those used over 30 times) and their diaries by using this Great Tag Search Tool
    TUs, please consider giving an hour a week helping with these Tag Clean Up Jobs

    •  I have been consistently doing this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alegre

      but I'm frustrated to find that the tags "Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats" have been mysteriously changed when I check back later in the day or week.

      Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently -- often for the same reason.

      by KnowVox on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:47:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site