Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes

Expand Messages
  • binstock@peakpeak.com
    Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes Records Can Be Baggage In Bids for White House By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes

      Records Can Be Baggage In Bids for White House

      By Shailagh Murray
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Monday, January 1, 2007; A01
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004.html


      The attack ads practically write themselves: Hillary Clinton voted against
      ethanol! Barack Obama wants to increase taxes!

      Such are the perils of running for president as a senator. The two
      front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the
      chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they
      have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to
      mine, and even misrepresent.

      Of the eight senators pondering presidential runs, Clinton (N.Y.), who is
      completing her first Senate term, and Obama (Ill.), sworn in two years
      ago, have the briefest voting histories. The Senate has held 645 roll-call
      votes during their shared tenure, and more than 90 percent of the time the
      two senators stood with other Democrats. They opposed John G. Roberts
      Jr.'s nomination as chief justice, supported increased funding for
      embryonic stem cell research and backed the same nonbinding measure that
      urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq.

      But other votes reveal important differences between the Democratic rivals
      that distinguish them as they prepare to launch their anticipated
      candidacies. The areas of dispute include energy policy, congressional
      ethics and budget priorities, relations with Cuba, gun ownership, and
      whether a senator can hold a second job.

      In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating
      process, Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast on June
      15, 2005. The senator recently softened her stance, but she is on record
      opposing a large federal boost for the grain-based fuel.

      And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business
      breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton
      voted for the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in
      the legislation's final form.

      As Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.)
      discovered in previous campaigns, the Congressional Record is a minefield
      for White House contenders, a catalogue of provincial concerns, convoluted
      logic and compromised principles.

      "A senator is called upon to vote on almost everything," said former
      senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who recently decided against a 2008
      bid. Legislative records become "an inviting target for any political
      opponent," he said, because so few votes speak for themselves, much less
      reflect a lawmaker's true ideals. The Senate's unofficial motto: Don't let
      the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's hard to explain in a debate,
      Daschle noted.

      One of the sharpest substantive divides is over ethanol, an issue of
      particular potency in Iowa. The vote in question was an effort to block a
      proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that would have established an
      ethanol mandate for refineries. "If there were ever an onerous,
      anti-competitive, anti-free-market provision, this is it," said Sen.
      Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who led the effort and who warned that
      non-farming states could face spikes in gasoline prices because of supply
      limitations. Clinton at the time was campaigning for reelection and was
      one of 28 senators to support her colleague's failed bid.

      At the time, New York had no ethanol industry. Iowa has more ethanol
      plants than any other state. "If someone voted or has a position against
      ethanol, it will be used by their opponents and it will be another issue
      they need to overcome" with voters in the Iowa caucuses, said Steffen
      Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University.

      Over the past year, Clinton has warmed to ethanol. Buffalo has decided to
      build a big ethanol plant, making the issue a home-state concern. In May,
      Clinton said current ethanol production is "a long way from helping us
      deal with our gas problems" and added: "We need to be moving on a much
      faster track."

      Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. "As a senator from a corn-growing
      state, Obama will have no problem on the ethanol issue and can tout his
      credentials on this score with a clear conscience," said Peverill Squire,
      who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.

      The two Democrats differed on other energy-related issues. In August,
      Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of
      Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama
      backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton
      opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was
      stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation
      because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.

      Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on
      several high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including
      a widely criticized Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a
      railroad line along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was part of a
      Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton voted in favor of the
      projects.

      One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have
      stripped funding for TV Marti, which beams television programming to Cuba,
      though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain
      that the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort
      and have targeted the program year after year.

      Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported
      maintaining it. Those votes will have resonance in Florida, which is a key
      primary state and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to
      February.

      Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was
      primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population,
      one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's
      stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a
      younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and
      more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing. Clinton "is going with
      the status quo," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who
      specializes in Hispanic voters. Obama, he said, "is with the position of
      change."

      The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the
      confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response
      to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after
      Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16
      senators opposing the restrictions.

      In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an
      exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue
      practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change,
      an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a
      second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two
      best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request.

      In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they
      supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton
      opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
      that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the
      Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Bill Clinton,
      her husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics
      reform, but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at
      tightening lobbyist rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton
      supported the initiative.

      "You're voting for so many things that can be misconstrued," said Steve
      Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist and former campaign adviser to
      presidential candidates Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a House member for
      nearly 30 years, and Kerry, a four-term senator. "It's great if you're the
      opposition."

      Post a Comment

      *

      The material in this post is distributed without
      profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
      in receiving the included information for research
      and educational purposes.For more information go to:
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
      http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
      If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
      email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you
      must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.