Clinton votes with the Democratic majority as often as Obama does, despite empty labels and hype

[draft_mario_cuomo]

There is a lot of hype surrounding empty labels such as "moderate" and "liberal" when the reality is often different than these marketing terms suppled by the media.

109th Congress

Democrats, voting with party scores

1) Barbara Mikulski 95.9%
2) Dick Durbin 94.8%
2) Barack Obama 94.8%
4) Edward Kennedy 94.4%
4) Jack Reed 94.4%
4) Paul Sarbanes 94.4%N
7) Daniel Akaka 94.3%
8) Carl Levin 93.9%
9) Frank Lautenberg 93.8%
10) Barbara Boxer 93.5%
10) Harry Reid 93.5%
10) Patrick Leahy 93.5%

Notables

11) Kerry 93.4%
13) Clinton 93.0%
Feinstein 92.7%
Dodd 92.5%
Harkin 92.1%
Biden 91.6%
Bayh 90.6%
Lieberman 89.9%
Jeffords 89.2%
Feingold 87.0%
Nelson (FL) 85.5%
Carper 84.3%
Landrieu 82.5%
Nelson (NE) 62.8%

The only one who lives up to the hype is Nelson of Nebraska, who voted against the Democratic majority nearly two-fifths of the time. The difference between Clinton and Obama was a mere 1.8%. Moreover, Obama was the second most likely to vote with the majority from 2005-2006--which flies in the face of the "thinking outside the box" marketing of Obama as a presidential candidate.

110th Congress

1) Johnson* 100%
2) Durbin 97.5%
3) Cardin 97.2%
4) Biden 97.0%
4) Inouye 97.0%
6) Brown 96.9%
6) Lautenberg 96.9%
8) Clinton 96.7%
9) Akaka, Murray, Reed, Whitehouse 96.5%

Notables

13) Schumer 96.5%
14) Obama 96.0%
Dodd 95.8%
Reid 95.1%
Boxer 94.9%
Leahy 94.8%
Feinstein 94.1%
Kerry 93.5%
Nelson (FL) 93.5%
Salazar 92.7%
Feingold 91.8%
Carper 91.7%
Lincoln 91.6%
Kennedy 91.4%
Webb 90.2%
Lieberman 88.5%
Bayh 87.0%
Landrieu 84.9%
Nelson (NE) 78.0%

The difference between Clinton and Obama was a mere 0.7%--and Clinton was actually more likely to vote with the majority than Obama. Biden, a "moderate", ranking 4th with 97% was a surprise. For all the hype, again, only Nelson truly lived up to it. Take "moderate" Webb for example. He voted with the majority only 5.8% less than "liberal" Obama.

Of course we need to look at when they deviated. Notice Feingold usually ranks low, even though the "maverick" votes with the party over 90% of the time. The fundamental point is this: the labels mean nothing. They all, with the exception of Ben Nelson, vote with the majority virtually each time.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/party-voters/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

[jobycom]

1. Don't speak truth, we've got all those Drudge and Newsmax stories to use instead!

I mean, if the Republican activists are trying to convince us that Clinton is a right winger, they must be right, mustn't they? What would their motivation to lie be? Other than to get us to defeat Clinton in the primaries, since they would supposedly rather face a stronger candidate than the one they supposedly believe they can beat most easily.

I mean, you are implying that the Republicans are LYING about Clinton, that maybe they are really MOST afraid of her, since she has the strongest name recognition, fundraising skills, campaign experience, and a certain indescribable ability to kick Republican ass. That just can't be, because I read on Drudge and Newsmax that she's against flag burning and video games and stuff.

[pnwmom]

2. Thanks for the reality check.

And the numbers are the same on the other side of the aisle. The difference between the votes of a typical Democrat and a typical Republican are stark.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Thanks

it shows how stupid it is to call these people "republicans" or "republican lite".

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Wait, you mean she's not a Republican after all?

You mean Hillary Clinton, despite being both a solid Democratic senator and active First Lady in the Democratic White House, might actually be a Democrat? Huh.

Someone might want to try informing GD of that.

[Dawgs]

5. Right, but did you mention that she authorized a war she refuses to aplogize for?

Didn't think so.

[Dawgs]

6. self-deleted... posted in wrong location.

[wyldwolf]

8. no, but he also didn't mention Obama supporting the war at every turn since he was elected Senator..

:shrug:

oh, and he also didn't mention Obama gave his "anti-war" speech to impress someone who wanted as an advisor.

And he also didn't mention Obama has stated he doesn't know how he would have voted if he had been a Senator at the time.

And Dawgs, one more thing: The day Hillary bows and scrapes to "progressives" and "apologizes" is the day Hell freezes over. Get used to this:

LAT/Bloomberg: Hillary Leads In Early Voting States

CNN: Hillary Beating Leading GOP Contenders

[Dawgs]

9. Obama never supported the war. He supported funding the troops.

Nice spin though.

[wyldwolf]

10. Obama has voted exactly as Clinton has since being elected Sen. Nice try, though.

[Dawgs]

11. So. They are both right on almost every issue. But, the key word in your post is 'since'.

[wyldwolf]

12. I supposes. But since you contend Hillary supported the war and Obama did not...

...she has been consistent. Obama - flip floppy.

[Dawgs]

13. How has he flip-flopped? Voting to give money to the troops is not voting for the war.

Didn't we go over this already. I'm done with you. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours.

[wyldwolf]

14. so you're telling me that EVERY vote was about money to the troops? No, it wasn't

And here is the flip-flop. If one opposes something, they don't vote to support it.

[Dawgs]

15. "so you're telling me that EVERY vote was about money to the troops?" In Obama's mind, YES!!!

Again, we are going to have to disagree.

[wyldwolf]

16. Even if the votes had ZERO to do with funding? LOL!

[Clintonista2]

19. Then why did he stop funding "the troops" during the last Iraq funding vote?

He suddenly hates the troops? Your logic doesn't match up with reality.

[Ethelk2044]

20. Obama never supported the war. He has been outspoken against the war.

She was the one out there pushing for support of the war. It is her and Bush's war. They have cost over 3000 soldier's lives.

[w4rma]

22. Except when he voted to fund it, over and over. (nt)

[Dawgs]

7. So why do you spend so much time attacking Obama?

I mean what's the deal with the obsession?

Obama is every bit as Democrat as Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, etc., yet you seem to live to destroy him. What's the deal?

The only difference between him and the others is...

well, you figure it out.

[dmallind]

17. The only difference is......

.....he's the leading challenger to HRC for the primaries, and so a Clinton supporter would naturally seek to diminish or hurt that challenge.

It's not going to be all that meaningful - or necessary - to attack a Biden or a Dodd who cannot even get past Kucinich in support levels now is it?

[Clintonista2]

18. Don't forget, she actually votes more progressively than Obama in that 1.8% difference

Look at the percentage difference in how progressively they vote at www.progressivepunch.org

[CTD]

21. Look at Lieberman's numbers as well. Barely behind either Clinton or Obama.

So it's important to look at which votes make up the % of votes where they did NOT support the party, what issues were voted on with THOSE votes.

Because there are many, many rather trivial votes these members make that can inflate that percentage and mask those critical times when they do NOT stand with the party or what is right.

The vote to authorize force in Iraq is just ONE vote out of hundreds. And in these percentages it counts equally to some bill authorizing research into toad secretions or some such meaningless crap.

Don't let statistics mask reality.

[FredStembottom]

23. The entire party is Republican Lite

That's the problem. I am sure Hillary has no trouble at all voting for the policies that send our jobs to China. The entire party does that!

The party needs deep change from within.

And I think that message was heard in Congress (for the 1st time since about 1984) as witnessed by the Mexican trucking shutdown yesterday.