I would like more analysis of votes. In watching senators vote lately, I notice how some seem to make what I would call "safe" votes. For example senator Clinton voted to keep funding the Iraq occupation until she was running for president. She did not speak out but did vote against the appropriations in May. Strictly on looking at a vote, it would seem she had changed her mind, but it is not consistent with her policy on staying in Iraq with combat troops nor her vote to support the Lieberman-Kyl amendment.
Similarly votes that may pass or fail can be made strategically in order to have a good record for progressives in the party if you know in advance that you will be running for higher office. This diary at Dailykos has such an assessment to consider Hillary's voting record. It is not extensive but it points out the problem of looking at voting records out of context.
I am now more wary of using voting statistics unless I know the context and the actual impact of the vote. I still think that Hillary Clinton is more in tune with the corporate agenda at the expense of the average American. I do think she would do small things that are helpful for people but I think she IS a "corporate Democrat". Is this an accurate assessment? I don't know. However when I look at history at the first Clinton administration, I think Bill and Hillary (2 for 1) came in with high expectations of change for the better for average workers. Once the health care initiative collapsed we got NAFTA, DADT, DOMA and media consolidation that has been very problematic.
My final unease has been elevated by the Clintons association with Bush Sr and Murdoch and the approach of getting lobbyists funding. The company you keep DOES affect your thinking.
Posted by Rene at October 8, 2007 08:11 AMGood Christ, eriposte, I thought I had seen everything. Congratulations. Soon you will be able to post under your real name. A lucrative job awaits you during the Clinton Administration. Time magazine pays big bucks for hacks.
Posted by Copeland at October 8, 2007 08:23 AMRene,
I agree that more analysis of voting records is needed and I welcome it. I made it clear in my post exactly what voting records and information my assessment is based on. If someone produces data to show that the specific data I used from Progressive Punch, ADA, AFL-CIO and SEIU are not really adequate to assess Sen. Clinton's record, then I'll be happy to review their feedback or data. Thanks for the Daily Kos link - I will take a look at it later this week.
Copeland,
I could be as easily flippant and wonder whether you are looking for a position in the Edwards or Obama (or fill in the blanks) administrations, but I won't since this is not a game to me. One of the reasons I undertook this effort is because I don't want the blogosphere to be reduced to the point where whoever speaks the loudest gets heard and any countervailing data gets buried. If you have anything substantive to argue against the data in this post, I'll be happy to review and respond. For example, Rene's response strikes me as a thoughtful one.
Posted by eriposte at October 8, 2007 08:40 AMWhere does Hillary stand on Blackwater? cleve
Posted by cleve at October 8, 2007 08:49 AMI'm sorry, but is this a coincidence?
DM Register today, after it announced Sen. Clinton is leading in the polls in Iowa:
Anamosa, Ia. - Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Sunday that Iowans who view her integrity and morality as weaker than some of her fellow candidates' may be basing their opinions on false impressions.
. . those surveyed rated Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama stronger on integrity and morality, at a time when Edwards and Obama have sharpened their attacks of Clinton as corrupted by special interests.
"In a democracy, you can make a judgment based on anything," Clinton said in a Des Moines Register interview in Anamosa. "But I'm gratified that a lot of people are really coming around to support me after they really get to see me as who I am."
And on Penn . .
[Edwards] recently attacked the indirect association of Mark Penn, a top Clinton adviser, with Blackwater USA, the private security firm under investigation for the deaths of civilians in Iraq, as an example of Clinton being a "corporate Democrat."Posted by idiosynchronic at October 8, 2007 08:58 AMPenn, Clinton's pollster and senior strategist, is president of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, whose sub- sidiary BKSH helped prepare Blackwater officials for congressional testimony last week.
Clinton dismissed the criticism, saying Penn was never personally involved with Blackwater activities.
"Once the health care initiative collapsed.."
Even there, Rene, I always felt that there was something gamey going on. She got credit for trying on national healthcare, but somehow it felt like she had deliberately, secretly sabotaged the effort by allowing all those foxes in the chickenhouse, as if she never intended for it to pass. But you're right--there can be a lot of strategic manipulation in those votes. Look at the pattern, fine, but then focus on the changes in the pattern, then look at the context for relevance. Now I'm wondering about her role in the disastrous Medicare pharmeceutical plan. That mess smells to high heaven. The reason I ask is that I think her plan for healthcare insurance will look a lot like that when/if it gets passed.
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 09:00 AMA few general observations...
1) your post doesn't get into trade and a lot of the backlash against Hillary Clinton is related to NAFTA passing under President Clinton
2) I saw Sen. Lieberman use these scorecards to great effect in the '06 Senate race to "prove" he's a good Democrat. On issues from Social Security protection to abortion rights Sen. Lieberman has a solid voting record but his efforts up until the actual vote has always been to diminish and dilute progressive initiatives. I'm not saying Sen. Clinton is or is not guilty of this behavior -- I'm saying take these scorecard ratings with a grain of salt. Sen. Lieberman got a perfect score on some progressive legal and choice scorecards for voting against Alito for SCOTUS, scorecards that ignored Lieberman's central role in making the Gang of 14 deal and vote for cloture on the Alito nomination. Things aren't always as they appear in these scorecards.
3) Sen. Obama has a much broader small donor base than Sen. Clinton. You can indirectly argue this discrepancy relates to corporate support.
- - -
That said, great post.
Is Hillary corporate? If she was any more corporate, she would be named Hillary Halliburton...
Hillary wants to keep corporate greed in our health care. Hillary wants to keep troops in Iraq. Heil Hillary.
Posted by james k. sayre at October 8, 2007 10:35 AMeriposte,
Your thesis that Hillary Clinton is not a corporate democrat is little more than a joke, an Orwellian inversion of reality. Perhaps it has escaped your notice that Clinton's goal in Iraq is to "change the mission", not end the war. Perhaps you have lost track of who her consultants are, or how her campaign funding breaks down. Maybe you just don't get it when fucktard corporate shills like David Brooks are making goo-goo eyes over her, or when old Rupert, the media mogul sidles up to her, or when numerous corporate mice in the MSM are telling you what a darling of big business she is.
Have you taken leave of your senses? She's onboard to use the war machine against Iran. She will probably let Big Business run the NAFTA/CAFTA juggernaut that aims to to make utter slaves of people in the third world. She won't do anything to cut back the weapons industry that has transformed our country into a military state. The perpetual war is, as of now, inextricably bound to Militarary Keynesianism and the hogs in the Wall Street trough.
I'm running a little low in the hope department, if we can't do better than the Dynasty, the Bushes and the Clintons with their golden handshakes.
Posted by Copeland at October 8, 2007 10:44 AMNo...
She is pro-business, pro union! you need both for balanced economic environment.
As for Blackwater, she has said there should be no no-bid contracts!...and proper oversite.
The guilty party in the blackwater are its CEO, some of its employees who alleged opened fire without cause/danger, BUT it is COLIN POWELL/CONDI in the state dept , and RUMSFELD in the defence....Gates is now cleaning up.
And BLAME the chairmen of the foreign relations and armded services during 2003-2006; namely John warner, duncan hunter, lugar and whoever that repug was on the house foreign (maybe that woman from florida whose name I cannot remember and the counterpart of waxman in the 109th congress on the oversite committee.
John warner is still dancing around this area....he recently opposed an amendment by McCaskill/webb for a bi-partisan commission looking at war contracting!...he only relen
ted and approved it when they said there would be no report coming out the commission UNTIL FEB 2009!
AND of course BUSH/CHENEY.
Its quite possible for Hillary Clinton to be a progressive and still be a corporate shill. If you take a careful look at the legislation passed during the progressive era, you will find that most of it was written or influenced by the very corporate interests the legislation was supposed to address. There is no paradox here. What better way for corporate interests to protect their markets than by passing legislation that makes it more expensive or difficult if not impossible for the upstart competitor to enter the market.
The politicians do not write legislation. Either lobbyists write it or revolving door staff members do. Most of the objects of regulations are highly technical - where are you going to get the expertise? Most likely from the industry being regulated.
Finally, we should all be aware that most of the 1000 page bills are not read before being voted on. The only one who really knows what devil is in the details are the staffers and lobbyists.
Hate to bust your bubbles but thats reality.
Posted by skeptic at October 8, 2007 12:01 PMEven if she did turn out to be the next Dick Cheney – hell, even if she's strong and smart enough to nuke the whole middle east and send my job to china – she'll STILL always be Hitlery Klintoon to me!
/wingnut
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 8, 2007 12:04 PMAnd the truth shall set you free, thanks Eriposte for a well researched write-up. Some on this blog do not care about the truth; they are full of hatred because their candidate is not doing well.
In the face of undeniable evidence that Hillary is on the side of the people, they closed their eyes and attacked the messenger. Really Sad.
Eriposte, please keep-up the good work, some of us appreciate the truth.
Posted by New Age at October 8, 2007 01:06 PMThis country is sustaining itself on Military Keynesianism; it is running on the looting and borrowing; there's nothing in the tank but fumes, weapons systems and military jizz in the combustion chamber. You better free your mind. The Clinton presidency will allow the country to drift to the right. It won't be as fast or as horrendous as it would be, under another republican administration, but it will be awful. I hope the voters are smarter by the time they vote in the primaries.
I find it simply incredible that those who are so gung-ho about Hillary don't even remotely seem to appreciate her stance on Iraq (Iran!) or particularly seem to care about permanent bases or perpetual puppet-mastery of that unfortunate country. Oh well.
It is one thing to go into the voting booth, cognizant of Clinton's failings and corporate annointment and still vote for her out of conviction; and quite another to enter the booth blindfolded, pretending she is something she isn't.
Posted by Copeland at October 8, 2007 01:59 PMCopeland is on the right track. A much more important question: "Is Hillary a Neocon"? It often appears she is and the DLC is full of them. If the Neocon foreign policy continues the rest of the stuff won't really matter.
Posted by Ron In Portland at October 8, 2007 02:39 PMnote: didn't intend on this being a rant. Ignore if you'd like, I rarely have much of significance to add to the discussion
Not just in this post, but in all references to "voting records" to support an argument, I have to raise an eye to.
Looking simply at voting records is simliar, to me, as the "up or down" argument. It doesn't take into account the subtleties:
- What was the finally tally in each vote
- Was the vote a gesture in some sense (voting yea, when knowing it wasn't going to pass)
- What amendments were attached to the bill that could've affected the vote decision.
Today's congressional and senatorial politics are far too complicated and subtle to simply use straight voting records to get the real story.
I realize that it quickly becomes a mess and we do need some sort of "simple" measure to reasonably evaluate our representatives. But I simply do not trust straight "voting record" as a evaluative measure.
Yes, I'm in the Hillary "corporatist" camp Maybe I should be a bit clearer. She is more of a pure politician than I would prefer. I would prefer a statesmen guided by a reasonable degree of ideology in the WH. As I see it, Hillary has a great sense of moral values that I identify with, however, I think she is too willing to sacrifice those values for political gain.
While I'd like an ideologue like Jimmy Carter in the WH, I'm not so ignorant to think that someone like that would make any significant progress in social/foreign/economic policies.
I want a significant shift back to the New Deal/progressive policies. Any tiny shift is portrayed as a "huge shift to the left or center" while ignoring how obscenely right we have gone in the past 8 years. It is clear that it is not where the American public, as a whole, wants to be.
Hillary is NOT the person that will affect enough change to bring us back to a true "middle" position. She is simply too compromising.
I know the campaign is always very different from the presidency, but I simply do not trust a purely political Clinton presidency. I trusted the last one and I got NAFTA, Telecom act of 1996, and a government afraid to impeach for valid reasons.
Posted by Simp at October 8, 2007 02:39 PMGood post Simp.
Posted by Judith at October 8, 2007 03:56 PMThoughtful comment Simp, thanks.
I'd rather dislike Hillary or any other candidate based on proven facts than urban myths. The myths generate hatred that replaces debate so thanks Eriposte for bringing some light to the debate here.
Can anybody with honesty say that there is a politician that is not a corporate democrat or republican. In democrcy like ours, it is going to be corporations trying to influence the government one way or other. That is why we have lobbies. Now all coporations are not evildoers and in some cases there influenc is necessary.
Therefore I would not hold against Hillary if she is willing to listen to coporations.
Posted by suresh at October 8, 2007 04:37 PMIt is reported on the News Hour today that candidates in the democratic presidential race (Obama and Edwards included) are pounding on Clinton for her recent vote in the Senate, which declared the Iranian armed forces (Revolutionary Guard) a terrorist organization. This supportive vote is yet another instance where Bush's deranged worldview is validated in Congress. This Senate declaration is another incremental step on the path to a wider war.
Posted by Copeland at October 8, 2007 04:44 PMCan anybody with honesty say that there is a politician that is not a corporate democrat or republican
I'm not absolutely sure, but yes, I can say with all honesty that there may be one person, who has learned through an incredible school of hard knocks, that is NOT a "corporate Democrat". Even though he is currently a member of several boards, a friend to many billionaire moguls and personally successful AFTER the most remarkable political assassination in living memory, I truly believe that Al Gore Jr. has been made aware of the dangers of Corporate democracy and is willing to fight for American Constitutional values.
Whether he can be convinced to run once again after his experiences and his recovery to a useful and rewarding life, I don't know. But, based on his work, I believe that no other American politician has the ability and the circumstantial credibility to take on the sick political system we suffer under and LEAD the current venal and repulsively obsequious "Democrat" leadership in Washington.
I believe that Al Gore is in a unique and solitary position to restore the rule of law. He certainly seemed to bow to it when he was the President of the Senate and refused to let the black caucus register their objections. Al Gore for the Presidency he has already won!
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 8, 2007 05:28 PMI swiped some points from a commenter over at TPM Election Central regarding a dust-up between Hillary and a member of the audience in New Hampton, Iowa, some of which I think has some relevance to this discussion about Hillary. It's fine to try to scientifically anal-yze Hillary's very short voting record, but it totally lacks context, which is why I found this commenter's points of interest, since Hillary has deliberately taken steps to shroud the context in secrecy:
..."1] Actual paper records re: Hillary as First Lady-off limits
2] Actual donors to Clinton Library-off limits [until Hill should get elected, anyway, says Bill C]
3] Actual income tax records-off limits
4] Actual earmark requests submitted by Hillary [some 2+billion worth]-off limits
5 ]Actual lack of leadership success in the Senate -78% of Hillary's 'success' is comprised of fluff legislation like naming post offices, and the facts thereof arereplaced by tons of fluff accounts and her non-leadership-determining voting record.....
6] Hsu bundlees-off limits [I heard the hint that the Hill campaign will find a way to never disclose these names, not on Oct 15th as required, or even before the end of the whole campaign season]
7] Actual record of Hillary requesting import tax alleviation for foreign manufacturers-Hillary, at least 19 times, hid her involvement by hiding her name behind Schumer's"
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 05:55 PMJulie,
You said:
Even there, Rene, I always felt that there was something gamey going on. She got credit for trying on national healthcare, but somehow it felt like she had deliberately, secretly sabotaged the effort by allowing all those foxes in the chickenhouse, as if she never intended for it to pass. But you're right--there can be a lot of strategic manipulation in those votes. Look at the pattern, fine, but then focus on the changes in the pattern, then look at the context for relevance. Now I'm wondering about her role in the disastrous Medicare pharmeceutical plan. That mess smells to high heaven. The reason I ask is that I think her plan for healthcare insurance will look a lot like that when/if it gets passed.
Again, I'd like to argue based on facts rather than innuendo and baseless speculation. It is common knowledge that one of the main reasons Hillary's 1990s-era healthcare reform effort failed is because she tried to accomplish the holy grail of progressive healthcare (complete change of existing system) and tried to exclude industry interests from the crafting of the Bill. Secondly, there is no need to wonder about her role in the disastrous Medicare Bill. She voted against it - at a time when many other Democrats - including Senators like Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer voted for it. She also spoke about the perils of the Bill at length.
One of the principle reasons for this post is to turn the debate about Sen. Clinton from a purely opinion/faith based discussion to one where we can start examining some facts.
Posted by eriposte at October 8, 2007 06:25 PMJoejoejoe,
Your points are well taken. I am aware of these constraints and I am going to continue to look at the data to see how we can get better insight. It's not easy sifting through mounds of data - so, I appreciate your patience as I try to find some time in the coming weeks to do so.
That said, I don't like the idea of cherry-picking - which you did inadvertently by bringing up NAFTA. If we talk about NAFTA, we should also, in the same breath point out that the Clinton administration produced 22 million jobs and had one of the longest stretches of prosperity in modern American history. It also does not take into account the fact that we don't know if Sen. Clinton would have passed NAFTA in a different era, especially given her no vote on CAFTA. It is precisely to minimize that kind of cherry-picking that I'm trying to look at a broader range of votes and statistics.
Posted by eriposte at October 8, 2007 06:31 PMSimp,
You said:
I realize that it quickly becomes a mess and we do need some sort of "simple" measure to reasonably evaluate our representatives. But I simply do not trust straight "voting record" as a evaluative measure.
I think we are in agreement that interpreting voting records is sometimes challenging. That's why I tried to expand my assessment to cover multiple groups. It is much harder to make the case that the AFL-CIO and SEIU, and longtime progressive group ADA as well as Progressive Punch can all miss the most significant or important votes (on Bills and Amendments and cloture motions) for the progressive movement and rate her record at an average of >90% overall. Again, this doesn't mean one has to support her or believe she is the most progressive, but this data means something and it means she's not the caricature she is made out to be.
I will continue to look at the data and see if I find issues.
Posted by eriposte at October 8, 2007 06:41 PMYou can call it baseless speculation if you want, I call it speculation. Do we have a public record of the process of that negotiation, or just names and postions of the people involved? I'd be interested in seeing the links.
.."and tried to exclude industry interests from the crafting of the Bill..."
Cough!
And yes, she should be given credit for voting against the Medicare bill. What a fuck-up that is. I'm noting extra points to her for that position in my little book. Is she planning on fixing that if she becomes President? It's a Class I disaster.
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 06:43 PM"Is Hillary a Neocon"?
No. Look at her first health care initiative and you'll understand that she is neo-liberal. Actually much worse than a neo-con.
Posted by phidipides at October 8, 2007 06:48 PMCan anyone help me out? Who were the people on the panel of Hillary Care back in the early ninties? There were supposed to be over 500 people. Who were they? What do we know about the minutes of that panel? SOMEBODY here must have that info.
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 07:19 PMeriposte, since you said,
"Again, I'd like to argue based on facts rather than innuendo and baseless speculation. It is common knowledge that one of the main reasons Hillary's 1990s-era healthcare reform effort failed is because she tried to accomplish the holy grail of progressive healthcare (complete change of existing system) and tried to exclude industry interests from the crafting of the Bill."
perhaps you will back that up with more detail about who was excluded from this ninties Hillary Care panel and who was included, and what the minutes were, because I sure can't find this information. I've tried, and I can't find it. I'm no goolging genius, but should it be all that hard to find that information?
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 07:38 PM"Can anybody with honesty say that there is a politician that is not a corporate democrat or republican?
Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich. Mike Gravell.
But they can't win so let's just ignore them.
Posted by skeptic at October 8, 2007 07:49 PMTell you what. Eliminate Corporate Personhood and I'll support, wholeheartedly a Clinton presidency.
:)
Posted by Simp at October 8, 2007 08:19 PMJulie,
I've included some links below. None of them use the specific words I did, but it is straightforward to infer that industry hated the original healthcare bill and they did not get much of a say in the original Bill and worked like hell to defeat it in the paid and unpaid media, working with conservatives. Hillary's approach to the issue was to start from the left and not overly compromise but try to accommodate some changes demanded by centrists. That approach was not appreciated by the forces on the right and the industry.
Posted by eriposte at October 8, 2007 08:20 PMSorry, eriposte, but your links are so UN-straightforward that they boggle the mind. Please, just give me a list of the 500+ participants in the original Hillary Care forum, and maybe we can start from scratch. Or did I miss it? Having a bit of trouble with my computer today.
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 09:03 PMeriposte, I am so FUCKING tired of secrecy. There are times when PRIVACY is not only appropriate, but essential. You know, like in cases where victims of incest are minors, that kind of thing. But when it comes to government and those who participate in governing, that information should be public, period. This is OUR government, not THEIR government. I want to know WHO the participants were in the Hillary Care process. Until I have that information, the rest doesn't matter. When I have that information, then we can discuss the rest.
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 09:20 PM"....straightforward to infer...." ARRRRRRRRRGH!
Posted by Julie at October 8, 2007 09:54 PMI don't think anybody has suggested that Hillary Clinton votes in lockstep with corporate interests.
For me, the problem with Mrs. Clinton is not that she is a DLC compromisor or a corporate shill. My problem is that she isn't sufficiently anti-corporation.
Which is what this country and the world desperately needs, somebody who will take on the whole corporate domination of this nation.
She was the first candidate to opt out of the publicly funded campaign system, she sent the signal that money will be number one on her list of priorities. And given her DLC background, and knowing the DLC Terry McCauliff DNC funding paradigm, get big money from a few versus Dean's get a little money from a lot, you can see where people might get the impression that corporations are going to be her friends, or at least get a sympathetic ear.
Wherein lies the problem, and the charges of corporatism. And why she is not the preferred answer for what ails this country.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 8, 2007 10:48 PMHillary is a phony like the rest of the muthafuckin' NeoCons; but could she be ANY worse than Bush?
Yes....like Myra Hindley of the Moors Murders back in the sixties, "But how can a woman be so evil?"
Democracy doesn't exist anymore, don't you all get it? Do you really think it's worthwhile to even muse over the candidates when we know good and well there ain't gonna be an election come 2008?
All of you are really, really young.
Posted by Mal Feasance at October 8, 2007 11:04 PMDear Eriposte,
Congratulations on an intelligent, systematic analysis. Is it 100% accurate? Hard to say, and I look forward to digging more. But it's the most systematic look I've ever seen anywhere. Good (and apparently thankless) work.
It is indeed startling to see some of the "netroots" foamers go after you, and HRC, in such mindless, knee-jerk fashion. For me, the leftist Hillary-hating has been a jarring lesson in baboon sociology. Previously I thought such simplistic, knuckle-dragging hatred was the province of suggestible AM ralk-radio listeners. I was incorrect.
I think it's important for some uber-lefties to realize that the 2008 Democratic presidential ticket will probably include two out of the following three: HRC, Edwards, Obama - assuming that any one of them can lay aside ego and take a VP slot, which remains to be seen.
Most other Democratic candidates could, or should, end up with important cabinet positions, assuming they're qualified for said post and can likewise lay aside ego. If, as predicted, Democrats end up with both houses of Congress and the Presidency, we'll be leaving Iraq post-haste, and beginning the long crawl back up toward fiscal, environmental and corporate responsibility, Constitutional restoration, and smarter economic structuring.
But a predicted Democratic victory in 2008 could still be derailed by 'principled' leftist voters flocking to write-ins, or last-minute third parties, thus allowing G-G-Giuliani, R-R-Romney or F-F-Fred Thompson to goose step into the White House...which is the REAL scary scenario.
And to the inevitable responders: I already 'woke up,' and I 'get it.'
Thanks again for elevating the level of internet politics
Posted by Atlas Spanked at October 8, 2007 11:27 PMAnother stellar effort, eriposte, thanks. I look forward to the next installment.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 9, 2007 05:15 AM