Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[shawneeeb]

This misleading blog piece has been proliferated throughout the internet. First of all, it compares apples to oranges. It attempts to understate Clinton's accomplishments by citing the number of bills she authored and passed into law. And then it attempts to over-inflate Obama's record by citing the total number of bills he sponsored (BOTH in state and federal congress).

If you look up the information for yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html) you can compare apples to apples:
- In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills (26 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 427 (12 were signed into law). Clinton sponsored 177 (21 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 720 (19 were signed into law).

- In the 110th Congress Obama sponsored 113 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 375 (3 signed into law). Clinton sponsored 150 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 477 (4 signed into law).

- Grand Total Authored - Clinton 327 sponsored / 1197 co-sponsored vs. Obama 265 sponsored / 802 co-sponsored

- Grand Total Passed – Clinton 44 vs. Obama 41

THE FACT - During the time that Obama and Clinton were in Senate together, Clinton authored 23% more bills and co-sponsored 49% more bills. Clinton helped to pass 7% more bills than Obama. In addition, Clinton sponsored 299 bills and co-sponsored 1183 from 2001-2004 while Obama was not involved in national politics.

[SummerChild]

Shawneeeb,

What about the work that he did during his 8 years as an IL senator? That's a long time in the legislative business. As a past IL resident, I can say that he was instrumental in bringing and getting passed many pieces of legislation that were very significant in IL - statewide.

Additionally, I can personally vouch for his knowledge of our government and the processes therein as I was in his Constitutional Law class while in lawschool. He taught three classes each year while also serving as an IL legislator and working the process in Springfield. I had the pleasure of learning about Brown v. Board from this man (our class dealt with the portion of Con Law addressing separation and equality issues - women's rights, voting rights, etc.) and many, many other pivotal constitutional law cases - as did many other students. Each quarter, he would allow students to override into his classes, even given his busy schedule, b/c there was that much interest in taking Constitutional Law from him. At that time, he was not in the U.S. senate nor running for the U.S. senate. Students wanted to take his class b/c he was a great professor and knew his stuff. He also engaged the class in a way that made everyone feel as if they had something to contribute...which can be a rarity in law school classes. Finally, his classes were challenging and very thought-provoking. Further, I can say that the man actually is as genuine and down-to-earth as he appears to be on television. He could have acted any way that he wanted to with us as students - and many professors did - but he was always genuine and down-to-earth.

8 years in the IL legislator (which is quite some time) in addition to those year in the U.S. senate, I would wager to say, probably gives him more legislative experience.

Whether you agree or not. I think that it's safe to say that Obama has significant legislative experience - dispelling the incorrect rumors of the media.

SC

Originally Posted by shawneeeb

This misleading blog piece has been proliferated throughout the internet. First of all, it compares apples to oranges. It attempts to understate Clinton's accomplishments by citing the number of bills she authored and passed into law. And then it attempts to over-inflate Obama's record by citing the total number of bills he sponsored (BOTH in state and federal congress).

If you look up the information for yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html) you can compare apples to apples:

- In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills (26 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 427 (12 were signed into law). Clinton sponsored 177 (21 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 720 (19 were signed into law).

- In the 110th Congress Obama sponsored 113 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 375 (3 signed into law). Clinton sponsored 150 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 477 (4 signed into law).

- Grand Total Authored - Clinton 327 sponsored / 1197 co-sponsored vs. Obama 265 sponsored / 802 co-sponsored

- Grand Total Passed – Clinton 44 vs. Obama 41

THE FACT - During the time that Obama and Clinton were in Senate together, Clinton authored 23% more bills and co-sponsored 49% more bills. Clinton helped to pass 7% more bills than Obama. In addition, Clinton sponsored 299 bills and co-sponsored 1183 from 2001-2004 while Obama was not involved in national politics.

[mccoyred]

I totally co-sign! The state level is much more hands on and grass roots level than the Senate so I think the experience is more than relevant, it is essential to understanding the common problems of ordinary people, something that this next president MUST have.

Also, I may add that while both hold law degrees, the causes they undertook with that credential are very different....

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Shawneeeb,

What about the work that he did during his 8 years as an IL senator? That's a long time in the legislative business. As a past IL resident, I can say that he was instrumental in bringing and getting passed many pieces of legislation that were very significant in IL - statewide.

Additionally, I can personally vouch for his knowledge of our government and the processes therein as I was in his Constitutional Law class while in lawschool. He taught three classes each year while also serving as an IL legislator and working the process in Springfield. I had the pleasure of learning about Brown v. Board from this man (our class dealt with the portion of Con Law addressing separation and equality issues - women's rights, voting rights, etc.) and many, many other pivotal constitutional law cases - as did many other students. Each quarter, he would allow students to override into his classes, even given his busy schedule, b/c there was that much interest in taking Constitutional Law from him. At that time, he was not in the U.S. senate nor running for the U.S. senate. Students wanted to take his class b/c he was a great professor and knew his stuff. He also engaged the class in a way that made everyone feel as if they had something to contribute...which can be a rarity in law school classes. Finally, his classes were challenging and very thought-provoking. Further, I can say that the man actually is as genuine and down-to-earth as he appears to be on television. He could have acted any way that he wanted to with us as students - and many professors did - but he was always genuine and down-to-earth.

8 years in the IL legislator (which is quite some time) in addition to those year in the U.S. senate, I would wager to say, probably gives him more legislative experience.

Whether you agree or not. I think that it's safe to say that Obama has significant legislative experience - dispelling the incorrect rumors of the media.

SC

[darling1]

what i don't get is how she is counting her role as first lady into her 35 years of experience.

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Shawneeeb,

What about the work that he did during his 8 years as an IL senator? That's a long time in the legislative business. As a past IL resident, I can say that he was instrumental in bringing and getting passed many pieces of legislation that were very significant in IL - statewide.

Additionally, I can personally vouch for his knowledge of our government and the processes therein as I was in his Constitutional Law class while in lawschool. He taught three classes each year while also serving as an IL legislator and working the process in Springfield. I had the pleasure of learning about Brown v. Board from this man (our class dealt with the portion of Con Law addressing separation and equality issues - women's rights, voting rights, etc.) and many, many other pivotal constitutional law cases - as did many other students. Each quarter, he would allow students to override into his classes, even given his busy schedule, b/c there was that much interest in taking Constitutional Law from him. At that time, he was not in the U.S. senate nor running for the U.S. senate. Students wanted to take his class b/c he was a great professor and knew his stuff. He also engaged the class in a way that made everyone feel as if they had something to contribute...which can be a rarity in law school classes. Finally, his classes were challenging and very thought-provoking. Further, I can say that the man actually is as genuine and down-to-earth as he appears to be on television. He could have acted any way that he wanted to with us as students - and many professors did - but he was always genuine and down-to-earth.

8 years in the IL legislator (which is quite some time) in addition to those year in the U.S. senate, I would wager to say, probably gives him more legislative experience.

Whether you agree or not. I think that it's safe to say that Obama has significant legislative experience - dispelling the incorrect rumors of the media.

SC

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by shawneeeb

This misleading blog piece has been proliferated throughout the internet. First of all, it compares apples to oranges. It attempts to understate Clinton's accomplishments by citing the number of bills she authored and passed into law. And then it attempts to over-inflate Obama's record by citing the total number of bills he sponsored (BOTH in state and federal congress).

If you look up the information for yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html) you can compare apples to apples:

- In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills (26 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 427 (12 were signed into law). Clinton sponsored 177 (21 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 720 (19 were signed into law).

- In the 110th Congress Obama sponsored 113 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 375 (3 signed into law). Clinton sponsored 150 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 477 (4 signed into law).

- Grand Total Authored - Clinton 327 sponsored / 1197 co-sponsored vs. Obama 265 sponsored / 802 co-sponsored

- Grand Total Passed – Clinton 44 vs. Obama 41

THE FACT - During the time that Obama and Clinton were in Senate together, Clinton authored 23% more bills and co-sponsored 49% more bills. Clinton helped to pass 7% more bills than Obama. In addition, Clinton sponsored 299 bills and co-sponsored 1183 from 2001-2004 while Obama was not involved in national politics.

What query parameters did you use? On first blush, I did not arrive at any of the numbers you used. Please advise.

[mccoyred]

Clinton http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...p?can_id=55463

Obama http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...hp?can_id=9490

Originally Posted by shawneeeb

This misleading blog piece has been proliferated throughout the internet. First of all, it compares apples to oranges. It attempts to understate Clinton's accomplishments by citing the number of bills she authored and passed into law. And then it attempts to over-inflate Obama's record by citing the total number of bills he sponsored (BOTH in state and federal congress).

If you look up the information for yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html) you can compare apples to apples:

- In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills (26 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 427 (12 were signed into law). Clinton sponsored 177 (21 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 720 (19 were signed into law).

- In the 110th Congress Obama sponsored 113 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 375 (3 signed into law). Clinton sponsored 150 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 477 (4 signed into law).

- Grand Total Authored - Clinton 327 sponsored / 1197 co-sponsored vs. Obama 265 sponsored / 802 co-sponsored

- Grand Total Passed – Clinton 44 vs. Obama 41

THE FACT - During the time that Obama and Clinton were in Senate together, Clinton authored 23% more bills and co-sponsored 49% more bills. Clinton helped to pass 7% more bills than Obama. In addition, Clinton sponsored 299 bills and co-sponsored 1183 from 2001-2004 while Obama was not involved in national politics.

[Blacksocialite]

I have grown absolutely exhausted by the in-fighting and 'poison pen' emails of the Democrats in this recent primary. My jaw drops every time a read something negative about a Democratic candidate or the party sent by registered Democrats.

The last election should have been a 'lay up' for the Democrats given Bush's record. Either Clinton and Obama will be better than a continuation of the Republican Party's leadership in The White House. I fear that if the in-fighting doesn't stop, John McClain will become President.

I am soooo tired of the Democratic Party now (after being active in it for literally half of my life), that after I vote in my state's primary - I'm becoming Independent.

[AKA2D '91]

Welcome to the land of Independents!

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T....ya'll know the rest!

[WenD08]

TonyB06, i was going to say the same thing Obama, the economy and Iraq are getting folks to the polls. those same three AREN'T getting Repubs to the polls or at least to vote for Repubs. w/McCain saying, in effect, that we may stay in Iraq for years to come may very well hurt his campaign. in 2004, people were ready to follow bush and stay the course. as has been shown in previous elections, the populace tends to stick w/the sitting president. detrimental or no, unpopular war or no, folks tend to go w/what they know. Kerry and Dems weren't able to change popular thinking. is it the Dems fault? um...i tend to blame the voters and the non-voters who talk mess. people believed that just as in 2001, bush will lead them through the war mess, just like we were led out of 9/11. plus bush is such the Christian and we need a Christian leader to fight these Muslims, blah, blah, blah. smart thinking would've said bush led us into this mess and he needs to go. instead, folks voted for another 4 years of nonsense. hence, there was no "lay-up", history and misplaced fear kept bush in. i daresay, no party can go up against them.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by Blacksocialite

I have grown absolutely exhausted by the in-fighting and 'poison pen' emails of the Democrats in this recent primary. My jaw drops every time a read something negative about a Democratic candidate or the party sent by registered Democrats.

The last election should have been a 'lay up' for the Democrats given Bush's record. Either Clinton and Obama will be better than a continuation of the Republican Party's leadership in The White House. I fear that if the in-fighting doesn't stop, John McClain will become President.

I am soooo tired of the Democratic Party now (after being active in it for literally half of my life), that after I vote in my state's primary - I'm becoming Independent.

Being a registerd anything doesn't automatically tie you to the party line even when you go to the voting booth. I have been a registered independent since I first registered to vote on my 18th birthday over 20 years ago. I USUALLY vote Democrat but I have voted for an Independent party or Republican on occasion. Being an Independent has its pros - no 'guarantee' of my vote and no party crap - and its cons - not being able to vote in a closed state primary.

Besides, how do you know that the people sending the information are actually registerd Democrats? The only way you would know for sure is to look at their voter registration card! Heck some very venomous things about the candidates could be coming from the other party or even a so-called third party or other special interest...

[Blacksocialite]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Being a registerd anything doesn't automatically tie you to the party line even when you go to the voting booth. I have been a registered independent since I first registered to vote on my 18th birthday over 20 years ago. I USUALLY vote Democrat but I have voted for an Independent party or Republican on occasion. Being an Independent has its pros - no 'guarantee' of my vote and no party crap - and its cons - not being able to vote in a closed state primary.

Besides, how do you know that the people sending the information are actually registerd Democrats? The only way you would know for sure is to look at their voter registration card! Heck some very venomous things about the candidates could be coming from the other party or even a so-called third party or other special interest...

I'm OK with not voting in the primary elections for the time being. In terms of the comments that I received via emails - they are coming from people who identified themselves as 'card carrying Democrats.'

So, I don't have to look at their voter registration cards.

[mccoyred]

I ran across a site that seems to do the research on truth vs fiction and appears to be referenced by BOTH Democratic candidates (maybe the Republicans too but I don't know). Take a look at http://www.factcheck.org/ to get the scoop and analysis, especially regarding the latest flack on campaign flyers.

[Blacksocialite]

I know that he owns his own business now.

But I'm curious as to why the Republicans never elevated him to run for President?

He appeared to have all of the right credentials and was elected from Oklahoma (which is very conservative from what I understand). He also appeared to be the Black 'poster child' of the party at one time.

I think it would have been quite the interesting race to see him and Sen. Obama discuss various topics.