97.0%.

[Rhythm and Blue]

That would be how often Senator Hillary Clinton has voted with the Democratic party in the 110th Congress. That's more often than Obama, Biden, Webb or Dodd. By party loyalty, she's the sixth-best Democrat in the Senate this term.

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

[TheUniverse]

1. Is Party loyalty what matters most?

Or is ending this God Damn war the most important thing?

[CreekDog]

3. How does Hillary end the war on her own?

The only one person that can end the war is George W. Bush.

Otherwise, it will take 67 Senators and about 290 House Members for sure fire way to end it

For a less surefire way, it will take some of our blue dogs and a few moderate Republicans in the House to support leglislation that leaves out funding of the Iraq War at all, which the prez will veto and then we get the stare down where he vetoes it and the Dems hold firm while the Defense department is not funded. If it weren't for the Blue Dogs, the Dems might pull that off, but I doubt it anyway.

Besides, when the Republicans tried that in the 1995 gov't shutdown, the President refused to cave and it all fell apart and congress lost and remember, Clinton was struggling at that point, though not as bad as Bush is now.

The danger of the shutdown/staredown approach is that it will have to be part of a defense appropriation and the president can veto the entire defense budget if it doesn't include Iraq and call Dems bluff.

He has incredible power, and he will fight the Dems to defund everything we care about to end the Iraq War and attempt to split the party and get the war funded anyway.

And you wonder why the war isn't ending.

THINK ABOUT IT FOR LONGER THAN A MINUTE.

[Usrename]

22. What difference would 67 Senators make?

None.

And nobody remembers Gingrich shutting down the government, other than it was a totally idiotic power play. It wasn't like he was trying to end a war or something. He was throwing a tantrum.

The Democrats control the Congress.

[CreekDog]

28. Bush controls the veto (67 votes to override)

Now when you say what difference does 67 senators make and that Democrats control the congress, you might as well hire a plane for yourself over the upcoming World Series with a banner that announces that you have yogurt for brains.

"What difference does 67 senators make?"

Ask an 11th grader.

[Usrename]

34. Your argument seems to be that Bush will not comply with the law.

If that's true, what difference does a veto-proof majority make? It's sounds like nonsense to me.

[CreekDog]

35. That's not my argument at all (though it certainly could happen)

My argument is that you have to make the war end or make not funding it a part of the law first and I mentioned the obstacles that stand in the way of that. They seem insurmountable unless significant numbers of votes shift in that direction.

Read my post again to see what I mean.

[TheUniverse]

37. Shes running for president.

I want her to prove to me she would end the war if she were president. Certainly, the president has the power to end it. By saying she would leave troops at least until 2013, she hasn't proven anything to me. And don't justify it by saying "neither would Obama" I know, and Ive already criticized him on it.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Well, let's see .... she can vote for the Dem position or the Repub position.

Loyalty ... such crap, huh? <---- sarcasm

On edit, I forgot ..... she could also abstain.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. What about her other term? this one is being done based on her running

[Rhythm and Blue]

4. In the 109th, she voted with party an abysmal 93% of the time.

See that URL bar? Change the "110" to see scores for different Congresses.

[CreekDog]

31. wow, only 93%, she must heart Bush

[Stinky The Clown]

12. When making an argument, never ask a question to which you don't know the answer.

109th - 93%

108th - 94.7%

107th - 93.6%

Ya see a pattern here?

[Yukari Yakumo]

36. Hmmm...

Edwards...

108th - 95.9%
107th - 92.7%
106th - 92.2%

[Clintonista2]

19. Hmm, so much for your "Hillary is a Republican" meme eh Illinoisprogressive?

Your guy voted with the pigs more than Hillary did.

[William769]

40. And lets not foget his GAY BASHING TOUR, he's about to embark on!

[RC]

5. 97% with the Democratic party huh? Would that be the

DFL or the DLC Democratic party?

[Rhythm and Blue]

6. Since she's not a Minnesotan, what do you mean by DFL?

Anyway, what that means is that she voted along with the majority of Democratic Senators 97% of the time.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. It would be **THE** Democratic Party

The one that is in Congress, not the non-official think tank/leadership (hahahahaha) group that is known as the DLC. FYI, the DLC doesn't set the agenda. They'd like to, but they don't.

[TwilightZone]

7. Wow, somehow she managed to enable Bush by voting with him 3% of the time.

:sarcasm:

(As if that was needed....)

[cascadiance]

8. Too bad they don't want to vote on things like public campaign financing!

THEN what the Democratic Party votes on would be a true measurement of progressive values.

Meanwhile they continue to vote on things like supporting ripping away FISA, prolonging the war, censuring Moveon.org, and "useful" crap like that!

[Stinky The Clown]

14. She doesn't set the agenda. That bark needs to find it way up another tree.

Just sayin' ......

[cascadiance]

16. But her enablers DO set her agenda...

Rather convenient for her to try and dismiss responsibility for that. If she felt strongly about these issues as many of us voters do, why isn't she lobbying the leadership TO DO something about putting it on the agenda, as folks like Kucinich are doing with the impeachment bill, etc.! Now THAT would be leadership I'd like in a president. Haven't seen it yet though!

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You know that's a silly statement, right?

Her enablers?

Oh jeeez ..... :rofl:

[cascadiance]

18. AKA the DLC!

Who also help control the DSCC and the DCCC

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Whatever ......

.... check under the bed before you climb in tonight ....... 'k?

We worry aboutcha ......

[IndyOp]

9. So, keep her IN the Senate. I like her there just fine. Mostly. (n/t)

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I could not agree more. She's done a mostly good job for NY.

I really prefer she not be a candidate for President. There are others who I would prefer. Further, I will not work for her in the primary. If it happens she wins the nomination, I will vote for her and maybe, just maybe, might even work for her. For sure I'll be working for down-ticket races. just not sure yet about the presidency. There's not one of them that gets me going. Not one. I like them all well enough, but one fire me up.

[JackRiddler]

11. Lies, damned lies and statistics...

Did she vote yes on the Be Nice to Your Pets Act of 2007? Bully for her.

How did she vote on funding the Iraq war?

If you think this is an argument to anyone other than total party wonks trapped inside a black box divorced from the world, well go for it.

[Rhythm and Blue]

23. Funding for the Iraq war? She voted the same way the American people wanted her to.

The majority of Americans support a phased withdrawal. The highest number I've seen for an immediate defunding of the war is 15%--which is about as high as the "leave 'em in there forever" guys.

If you want to see what she was voting on, look here:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Honestly, read through those and tell me that the overwhelming majority of her votes were not correct.

[JackRiddler]

24. She represents New York, not "the American people"

And we will vote her out in 2012.

She didn't vote for a "phased withdrawal" - she voted to continue funding the war. Spin it as you like.

She also voted to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization - which is an authorization for war, given prior resolutions on terrorism and the explicit Bush policy of attack terrorists anywhere.

Stop making picayune excuses - other Democrats showed they were willing to do the right thing and voted against war funding. To hell with HRC and the cheap rationalizations of her partisans.

[Rhythm and Blue]

25. Well, there's a whole pack of wrong in there.

First, I'll start with your strongest point. I haven't seen New York polling on the war, so I'll admit that there is a chance that New Yorkers have a completely different view of the war than do, say, Californians, Illinoisans, and Minnesotans. However, I think it's unlikely.

Second, I don't need to spin it. She voted against defunding the war; that vote is supported by 85% of Americans. She has come out in favor of a phased withdrawal. Do you deny either of these?

Third, her Iran vote is not an authorization for war. Don't be stupid. Seriously. This resolution in no way expands Bush's war-making powers. The IWR doesn't help here, and Bush's post-9/11 authorizations don't require Congress to pass anything like this.

Fourth, I'm not a pro-HRC partisan. I'm an anti-partisan. I'm just as willing to defend Obama against unsubstantiated attacks as I am Clinton. I support Clinton more often than I do Obama, but that's because anti-Clinton people here are, well...they're a lot like the Right was during the Clinton years. For some reason, that name makes people fucking unhinged.

[JackRiddler]

26. Your "85 percent of Americans"

What a crock. Where's a poll showing 85 percent for the vote? Not some alternate phrase - for the Congressional vote to continue funding the war?

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. Well, I don't recall there being polls for every single vote.

So let's look at the closest thing--the support for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which is what a "no" vote would have meant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-18-poll-iraq_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

60% support a timetable for withdrawal. Among those supporting a timetable for withdrawal, only 30% support an immediate pullout. That would be 18% of Americans rejecting Hillary's vote to continue funding the war, and 82% supporting continued funding of the war.

[JackRiddler]

29. Sophistry

Defunding the war gets a timetable for withdrawal. Funding it guarantees no timetable until the next vote.

[Rhythm and Blue]

30. An accurate depiction of your position, yes.

A vote to completely defund the war is not a vote for a timetable for phased withdrawal, it is a vote for just that--completely defunding the war. And that is a position which is rejected by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Meanwhile, she has come out clearly for a phased withdrawal.

[JackRiddler]

32. Yawn

You're so clever - I'll have to go to sleep now utterly defeated.

One more time before bed: the only way to get a "timetable" is to vote no when a bill comes up to fund the criminal prosecution of a criminal war.

Propose "timetable" = veto, no effect.
Defund war = timetable.
Vote for funding = no timetable.

Criminal, criminal, criminal, and Hillary doesn't care, she pretends an obvious war of aggression - the worst of all crimes possible - was somehow well-intentioned and just went wrong somehow due to "incompetence."

[Rhythm and Blue]

33. Even if you believe that's the political reality,

that still is not a course of action that most of her constituents support. While it may be evidence of moral cowardace (you won't get any argument from me there) it is certainly not evidence that she is not a solid Democrat.

[JackRiddler]

38. Good morning. I don't care what a "solid Democrat" is -

it's no more meaningful than any other calcified abstraction. It presents no standard for allegiance. Politics is not a team sport.

Polls that ask more valid questions than the one you cite (in the sense of asking meaningful questions that properly represent the alternatives) have found that majorities of Democrats support impeachment proceedings and a majority of New Yorkers support a new criminal investigation of 9/11. Where's Hillary on those issues? You can't hide selected rationalizations with some polls and ignore others. Polls can be spun, they are never final.

What do you think is right and why? How well do you understand realities, including "inconvenient truths" of all kinds, and communicate them to your constituents? How well do you represent their interests and their political wills? Do you go along with the excuse du jour or do you take a stand for what is right? These are important questions. "What is a solid Democrat" is not. How you met the party line on 100 questions, of which 10 may be the important or actually disputed ones, is not.

[here_is_to_hope]

21. Yeah, like our party has done

just , oh, a bunch of stuff. I finally registered here last year, either before or just after the election. My user name came about because I was sincerely hoping that the nightmare was ending.
I get waffles and lots of bacon instead. Meaningless resolutions, "strongly worded letters" and the war persists. Oh I know, it aint over yet, things do take time.
But I have to say Hillary voting with the party-is that the DLC part of the party? The Corporate part of the party? Progressive? GBLT? Center?
I wish her well, it will be by the skin of her teeth that she wins the GE even with my measly vote.

Now, her supporters are making threads look funny for all of the posters on "the shine".

Attacks against any candidate are silly.

Facts brought to light without vitriol and snark, I appreciate.
The rest, not so much.

[Froward69]

39. Granted she has voted along party lines

more often than most. that shows how divisive she really is or will be. The Winner will be the candidate who best crosses over the isle. Garners support of the independents and crossover Dem's. With integrity and respect from those that oppose as well as support. Thats Joe Biden