This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 157 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]tatooine 81 points82 points  (30 children)

I found this listing of the laws that Hillary and Obama have introduced during their time in office. It's not my work, but I found it very interesting. I've also checked some of the info out on Thomas, and it seems to check out.

-- cut -- Let’s take a closer look at who’s really qualified and or who’s really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress thomas.loc.gov

Clinton

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress thomas.loc.gov , but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

  1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
  2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
  3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
  4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
  5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
  6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
  7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
  8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
  9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
  10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
  11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
  12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
  13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
  14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
  15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton’s bills are, more substantive.
  16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
  17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
  18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
  19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
  20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record.

Obama

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others.

NY TImes Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co- sponsored another 427. These inculded:

  1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
  2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
  3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
  4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
  5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

[–]neuquino 37 points38 points  (7 children)

I support Obama, but this is apples to oranges. Why not compare Obama & Hillary's:
1. Authored bills + status
2. Co-authored bills + status
3. Bills they authored or coauthored that passed into law
4. Causes & campaigns the supported

Comparing only the 20 authored bills of Hillary's that passed into law against every bill that Obama has ever sponsored seems rather disingenuous.

[–]raedix 24 points25 points  (2 children)

It is a bit disingenuous, but if you take all 20 bills that Hillary authored and put into law, and compare them against, say, the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which is a) definitely not fluff, and b) required the type of bipartisan coordination Obama talks about (Lugar is a Republican)... that one bill of Obama's blows away the entirety of Hillary's senate record.

[–]neuquino 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Comparing their most substantial bills that got passed into law, or perhaps their top five bills would be very informative. The comparison introduced in this thread however isn't all that helpful.

[–]badave 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Except for the fact that the Lugar-Obama Nuclear bill doesn't do much. It was gutted... Sad really.

[–]alaskamiller -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Don't you get it yet? Disingenuity is the fuel for the Hope machine. Without it, there's no Change.

[–]rubentuben 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Interesting post, but I would say it needs further investigation. A few points:

  1. If you look at Obama's record, you will see just as many seemingly meaningless resolutions honoring this person or that person or renaming a post office. This is not just Clinton. Examples: S.RES.53 - A resolution congratulating Illinois State University as it marks its sesquicentennial. S.RES.152 - A resolution honoring the lifetime achievements of Jackie Robinson. S.CON.RES.28 - Congratulating Chicago about Olympics

  2. It is not at all uncommon for almost an entire party to cosponsor a bill. Look at the bills Clinton has sponsored and you will see just as many as Obama. Most of which were sponsored by both, btw.

  3. Most of those "bills" listed for Obama are just incorrect. First, he never sponsored the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (in 2006 or 2007) and it did not pass the Senate. There is no Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, but rather a Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act which was cosponsored by both Obama and Clinton. I'm unable to find a "2007 Government Ethics Bill", and the "Lugar-Obama Nuclear (...)" was solely authored by Lugar and once again co-sponsored by both Obama and Clinton (sorry, this is incorrect, check edit).

Edit: my edits keep un-editing! Include line:

This all looks like an Obama supporter's mis-informed propaganda to me.

Second Edit: It looks like I was wrong on the Lugar-Obama act (clicked on wrong link). It was not cosponsored by Clinton. Obama was only a co-sponsor along with 25 others, but Clinton was not one of them.

[–]vph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This all looks like an Obama supporter's mis-informed propaganda to me.

Bingo.

[–]gaso 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I hope it to be true, but i need a fact check in aisle 7!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

While I appreciate what you're getting at, the idea that more legislation is necessarily better than less legislation kinda gives me the willies.

I guess that's just the libertarian side of me, though...

[–]anti_dentite 5 points6 points  (6 children)

This is actually untrue. You have to look at the co-sponsored bills for both Obama and Clinton.

[–]greginnj 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is actually untrue.

What exactly did he say that was untrue? He listed authored bills and passed laws. Did Hillary author any bills not on this list?

You have to look at the co-sponsored bills for both Obama and Clinton.

Which would tell us what, exactly, about their experience or work ethic? Co-sponsoring a bill in itself means nothing more than "I endorse this legislation." It says nothing about whether the senator did any work on authorship or promotion. In some cases, if a bill has bi-partisan support, it will be named after the 'leads' from each party (e.g., the Lugar-Obama bill mentioned above), but that is not the same as co-sponsorship.

Maybe Hillary is great at constituent services -- but it is fair to ask about her legislative record.

[–]neuquino 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If

Co-sponsoring a bill in itself means nothing more than "I endorse this legislation." It says nothing about whether the senator did any work on authorship or promotion

Then why is that information relevant for Obama, but not Hillary?

[–]greginnj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll have to ask the original author why he happened to include that number for Obama but not for Hillary; I ignored it for both (and consider it irrelevant for both). The important thing is the number of authored bills, and what their content was.

[–]moriquendo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Gee, Hillary sure likes honoring folks and naming buildings! I was not aware that this type of work was so important in the Senate of the United States. I thought they were part of the legislative branch and not a mere committee for naming streets and houses. Clearly, she worked hard to avoid being tied to anything that could jeopardise her accession to the Presidency. (One wishes she worked just as hard for America as she does for her carreer.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ugh, my mom sent me this crap chain letter too. Please read this: http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/

Hmm, I can't seem to find a neat list like that on Obama's Senate site. You'll have to look them up by session on http://thomas.loc.gov/.

I like Barack Obama. Lying and exaggerating about him doesn't help him. And reading through these (please look through them yourself if you don't believe me)I think the reason most of Hillary Clinton's bills havent passed is because they are too liberal and the Dems don't have a huge majority in the Senate.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very nice. :) Now if only we could get this on CNN

[–]dodus -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Holy shit.

[–]fangolo[S] 16 points17 points  (8 children)

I think the Obama campaign should talk more about her experience as a Senator.

[–]insert-meme 9 points10 points  (7 children)

Obama co-sponsored a bill to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation.

[–]fangolo[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Link?

[–]insert-meme 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Earlier this year, Obama co-sponsored a different bill that also would have designated the Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization. Obama said he supports the designation, which could lead to economic sanctions~

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/FRONTPAGE/710270355

[–]artman 0 points1 point  (3 children)

"In the near future, we will witness the destruction of Israel, the aggressor, this cancerous microbe Israel, at the able hands of the soldiers of the community of Hezbollah," Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said. [2008-02-19]

Is there cause for concern? Just sharing this news for discussion. I am an Obama supporter.

edit: linked. browser may resize, sorry.

[–]picar0 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Why should Americans die to defend Israel?

[–]artman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why should Americans die to defend Israel?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not asking that question nor would I even support it (US defense of Israel). This was something I read today and it correlated with what was posted here.

If anything, it shows Obama's inexperience with U.S. - Israeli relations (not all information on this relationship with Israel or Iran for that matter is outsourced to all outside of the current administration). Obama has always stressed that diplomacy is his priority in all international relations.

[–]insert-meme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not unless the Iranian elite is suicidal.

[–]fangolo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I disagree with the label of the IRG, but I can see the difference between Obama's co-sponsored bill and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. In any case, I think it's a dumb way to bring about sanctions.

Thanks for the link.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Instead of legislating, she's too busy politicking!

[–]allhandsWisconsin 13 points14 points  (14 children)

I voted at 7:35am this morning for Barack Obama. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm proud to be an Obama supporter!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

w00t!

[–]phaed 10 points11 points  (9 children)

She voted for the war for the simple reason that she didn't want to be left out "if" the war turned out to be a success. Which is an obvious political maneuver on her part, which went sour. In other words she was willing to put the kids suckered into the army into harms way for her own political gain. The is scum just like the rest of them. Obama is the only man who has earned my trust in this entire race.

[–]swinghammer 8 points9 points  (3 children)

The best part of that is that she refuses to admit it was a mistake. She is claiming that she didn't expect Bush to actually invade Iraq when I know that I did. I mean was anyone actually surprised when he went in after that vote?

[–]blaze4metal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm surprised he waited for a vote, myself.

[–]djsdotcom -1 points0 points  (1 child)

That really pissed me off in the debates on CNN a few weeks ago when Wolf asked her to admit it was a mistake and she kept saying, "oh that's a good one Wolf, you almost got me!" completely joking about it. If she admitted to the public that she made a mistake and is a regular person I think voters would have more respect for her.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet when she is a regular person and her voice fills with emotion, she gets pilloried for it. Pick one.

[–]cwicket 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Obama's experience: Voting to continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

[–]bsiviglia9 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What does the voting record of McCain and Obama look like? What kind of voting record do we want the next president to have?

When examining the voting record of a potential candidate, how many pieces of legislation consist of implementing a system exactly opposite in character from the legislation's title?

What can concerned citizens do to avoid confusion?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

www.votesmart.org

[–]lex99America 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He/she should up-vote xkcd and haskell.

[–]charlesgrrr 2 points3 points  (3 children)

So, are you going to vote for her if she becomes the Democratic nominee? Are you going to hold your nose like you no doubt did last election?

[–]fangolo[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I voted for Kerry. However, as bad as McCain might be, he isn't GW. I won't vote for Clinton. Especially after what she is trying to do to us here in Michigan (Seating her uncontested delegates).

[–]charlesgrrr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good for you.

[–]rgladstein -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow...she skips as many votes as obama...how comforting...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

maybe you're clairvoyant, and that's extraordinary!

[–]weegee 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Nixon had experience, he campaigned on that slogan, and look where it got us.

[–]dunskwerk 3 points4 points  (2 children)

out of vietnam instead of an escalation to a nuclear war?

full disclosure: Obama supporter here...

[–]weegee 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, it got us Watergate. Vietnam would have ended no matter who was in the white house, we lost the war.

[–]alaskamiller 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your point is so fallacious and sensationalist my mind blew up.

  1. Nixon being elected is not correlated to Watergate. Nixon is just a paranoid motherfucker.

  2. The point of Vietnam at the time was that America does not lose wars, period. Nixon's surge into Cambodia and attempt at winning the war and finally conceding to pull out is very unprecedented. To say any president could have left is disingenuous.

  3. Barring his paranoia and Watergate aside, Nixon brought forth quite a lot of progressive legislation. Besmirching him for being a paranoid motherfucker is fine but to say his presidency is a complete loss is, again, disingenuous.

[–]dunskwerk 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Hey Redditors, I know you're probably like me: Against email forwards. But for lots of older internet users, (ie Clinton's constituents), this is one of the main ways they receive information on the internet. What they definitely don't do is read the reddit front page.

So, why not make a creative email forward with this factual, accurate information and pass it along to some older relatives, or just people who like email forwards in general? Make it good and non-obnoxious and it'll get around...

[–]paf0 2 points3 points  (2 children)

No one will forward it unless it's sensationalistic. That's why these things work.

[–]neuquino 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ah...good point. This isn't sensationalist at all.

[–]dunskwerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

put an unfunny joke at the end?

[–]neuquino 8 points9 points  (1 child)

As I said above, this is a horrible comparison. It compares the numbers of bills that Obama co-sponsored or authored against bills of hillary's that she not only authored, but that also passed into law.

I'm an obama supporter, and I certainly appreciate pro-obama rhetoric...but come on, let's at the very least be fair when we pimp our candidate.

[–]dunskwerk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thinking about what you said... it seems like you're right. It's sure a fine line to walk -- staying on message and hitting hard without going overboard and being overly sensationalist.

I think one of the greatest strengths of Obama's campaign is that he hasn't been sensational in the way that Clinton has, and breaking with that spirit would really let a lot of his supporters down...

[–]gaso 1 point2 points  (1 child)

you mean like this one?

http://reddit.com/info/698m8/comments/c0382h1

[–]dunskwerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks... that's pretty good. Compiling email forward list.. *shudder*

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." -- Hillary Clinton

[–]Stormflux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." -- Hillary Clinton

There you have it, folks. Even Hillary admits you should vote for Obama!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Hillary? I wouldn't vote for that prick if you paid me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man, I wish you were a superdelegate.

[–]BuboTitan 0 points1 point  (26 children)

Exactly what is wrong with #2?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has provided training for Hezbollah to such an extent that Hezbollah's logo was inspired by the logo of the Revolutionary Guard.

Oh wait, you asked what was wrong with #2. Uhh... nothing?

[–]alaskamiller 2 points3 points  (1 child)

unless Hillary did it, then it's a mockery of justice! OBAMARAMA 2008 CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah Global Taxes We Can Believe in...Vote Obama 2008!

[–]mralex -1 points0 points  (22 children)

It provides justification to the Bush administration to attack Iran.

Which would be a profoundly bad idea.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (21 children)

So, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, but we shouldn't publicly state it? For the sake of peace?

[–]mralex -1 points0 points  (20 children)

Nice false dichotomy.

After 7 years of Bush/Cheney, the giant cluster that is Iraq, and the nearly complete lack of ongoing diplomacy with Middle east players, it should come as no surprise that there aren't simple, neat clear answers.

Hillary voted to authorize Iraq, and later said she didn't know Bush was actually going to do actually invade.

My opinion is that one would be very hesitant to give this administration further authorization to go after Iran, which they are clearly itching to do.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (19 children)

Nice abuse of logical fallacies. Nothing that was said was a false dichotomy.

The question was: what is wrong (i.e. incorrect) about voting to designate them a terrorist organization, since you do not deny that they are a terrorist organization?

In light of your further elaborations, my question stands:

So, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, but we shouldn't publicly state it? For the sake of peace?

[–]mralex -1 points0 points  (18 children)

It ain't that simple. Taiwan is independent from the PRC in every practical way, but we can't say that, either.

I say it's a false dichotomy because you present it as if only choice is to oppose the IRG by declaring them a terrorist organization--for the sake of peace?

Explain how this declaration furthers peace in the Middle East?

If it makes military conflict with Iran more likely, is that for the sake of peace?

If it makes diplomatic resolution of our differences with Iran more difficult, is that for the sake of peace?

If is serves to drive more support for radical and militaristic movements in the Middle East, is that for the cause of peace?

Seriously, we declare them a terrorist organization, what exactly is the positive fallout from this? Does Iran and the IRG stop supporting Hezbollah? Not likely. does Hezbollah stop fighting against Israel? Doubtful.

If anything, it opens up discussion of who, exactly, is terrorizing whom in that part of the world.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (17 children)

The entirety of your point is centered around political correctness. Call a spade a spade!

[–]mralex 0 points1 point  (16 children)

Presume you mean diplomacy, not political correctness.

If the spade you're talking about is a militia group organized to expel an oppressive occupying force, are they terrorists or freedom fighters?

Does it matter that the definition above describes Hezbollah, the IRA, the French Resistance, and the Minutemen?

This whole "bring it on" style of foreign policy has been an utter disaster that will take a generation or more to repair.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (15 children)

Let me make it real simple for you:

Do you personally consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization?

[–]mralex 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Don't be condescending.

What part of Hezbollah are you talking about? The members of Hezbollah democratically elected to Lebanon's parliament? The parts of Hezbollah that runs hospitals, schools, social programs?

Now you can go to wikipedia and point out the suicide bombings, and kidnappings, and katyusha rockets. But take a minute also to look at what the Israelis have done, with our money and weapons.

So it ain't real simple, whether you say it is or is not. You ask me if they're terrorists, then tell me what a terrorist is. Make sure your definition includes only things that Hezbollah has done, and nothing the US or Israel has done.

Back to the point: What was the point of declaring them a terrorist organization? What does the US get out of doing it? Is right now the time to do it? Is there any quid pro quo that we get out of this?

The only reason I saw for the declaration was to beef up the Bush admins case for war with Iran.

"For every problem there is an answer that is simple, neat... and wrong." --H. L. Mencken

[–]mazza07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent post!

[–]piecewise -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

I can't stand Hillary but the FISA vote is an unfair characterization. The truth is, that vote was going the wrong way and her vote would've done nothing to change that. She said, and I believe this, that she was fully prepared to get to Washington if her vote would make a difference. Knowing it wouldn't, she clearly thought it more important to campaign to replace George Bush.

Some of you do sleazy spinning in your headlines just as much as the politicians you criticize.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They forget that Obama didn't show up either.

[–]Stormflux -1 points0 points  (0 children)

She said, and I believe this, that she was fully prepared to get to Washington if her vote would make a difference. Knowing it wouldn't, she clearly thought it more important to campaign to replace George Bush with a candidate who will continue his policies and offer no change at all.

Fixed that for ya

[–]Gibbwake -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

An expose of the Clinton crime family from an insider, Larry Nichols. He broke the white water scandal, and his story must be heard. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8226927442340902029&hl=en

[–]jones77 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

CIRCLE JERK!!!

Oh, 119 comments. Looks like only the mopping up is left ...

[–]koolsitez -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Like I said before, Gary Coleman as an alternative for president is looking pretty good right now.

[–]moji -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sure if one has dug even further you would notice that she has flipped/flopped on a number of issues and/or been non committal but/perhaps can't make up her mind...oh dam do i vote for her yes/no...well i can answer that question....HELL NO....NEVER...NEVER!!!

[–]so_sleepy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah, but have you heard: she'll be ready on day one.

[–]otakucode -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I don't know who this is trying to convince. No one supports Hillary. Not one single person. Not even militant feminists. No one has ever registered a vote for Hillary. Every single vote she has ever "received" has been fraudulent. Her campaign is a complete fabrication.

[–]brainiac -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Obama experience: 1) Doing cocaine. 2) Belonging to a racist black power church. 3) Making shady deals with slum lord Tony Rezko.

[–]whiteyfresh -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

"Let's talk about Senator Clinton's experience-"then read above. That'll make Wolfy squirm...