What's In a Voting Record

Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld conducted a side-by-side comparison of votes cast by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since Obama joined the Senate in January 2005 and discovered that their records are essentially identical. Max Blumenthal opines in The Nation that "In no way does Sargent and Kleefeld's study negate the importance of Obama's oppositon to invading Iraq, but it does add some nuance to an otherwise simplistic debate."

I think a better thing to say was that the Sargent/Kleefeld study demonstrates what anyone who follows politics for a while will quickly see -- voting records don't tell you all that much about where politicians' stand. In the contemporary world both parties remain overwhelmingly united on the overwhelming majority of votes; the Democratic leadership tries to outline positions that all its members will support and the GOP leadership tries to outline positions that mainstream Democrats will oppose in an effort to put pressure on a handful of vulnerable members representing "red" areas. What's more, to really add nuance to the debate, you'd need to produce some example of Obama being less neoconnish than Clinton and I've never seen that. Obama appears to have an advisory team drawn disproportionately from the ranks of Iraq War opponents whereas Clinton is the reverse; Obama's AIPAC speech was somewhat less fanatically devoted to the cause; etc., etc., etc.

Not to level any particular charges at Blumenthal, but it does seem to me that at some point the Clinton camp needs to stop trying to blur the differences between her foreign policy views and Obama's and, instead, defend her views as better superior to his.

Comments

I agree that Dems voting with Dems isn't earth-shattering. More to the point, for me, is the fact that by the time Obama got to the Senate floor the war was less popular. Hillary had moved a bit left along with most other Democratic Senators.

Her general hawkishness aside, I don't have much of a problem with Hillary's votes on the Iraq war for the last couple of years. Her votes in '02 and '03 are more bothersome. Plenty of Democrats in the Senate voted against the Iraq authorization bill. None of them are running for President.

Posted by Gwendy | April 3, 2007 9:26 AM

What's more, to really add nuance to the debate, you'd need to produce some example of Obama being less neoconnish than Clinton and I've never seen that. Obama appears to have an advisory team drawn disproportionately from the ranks of Iraq War opponents whereas Clinton is the reverse

That's a sufficiently weird thing to say that I'm wondering if you somehow misspelled every word available, and misspelled each in a way as to yield a coherent but unintended thought.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 3, 2007 9:26 AM

"it does seem to me that at some point the Clinton camp needs to stop trying to blur the differences between her foreign policy views and Obama's and, instead, defend her views as better superior to his."

Why does she need to do that?

If, as you imply, (and as I also vaguely agree), HRC has a somewhat more hawkish tone than Edwards or Obama, why would she need or want to highlight that for the Democratic primaries?

She's been positioning herself with a more hawkish tone in order to mask her weaknesses in a general election. Blurring that difference in tone for the primaries is precisely what she is doing, and precisely what she needs to be doing.

Posted by Petey | April 3, 2007 9:30 AM

"That's a sufficiently weird thing to say that I'm wondering if you somehow misspelled every word available, and misspelled each in a way as to yield a coherent but unintended thought."

Interestingly, Matthew was trying to write that sentence about Caron Butler. But his keyboard dyslexia made it come out with a slightly different focus.

Posted by Petey | April 3, 2007 9:32 AM

Matthew was trying to write that sentence about Caron Butler.

Initially I thought MY must have meant to write (or, per Yglesias, "right") "more" instead of "less" in the following sentence: What's more, to really add nuance to the debate, you'd need to produce some example of Obama being less neoconnish than Clinton and I've never seen that. But I've come around to the idea that this is but a fragment of some HRC/Obama slash fic he's working on. Should be interesting, and I'm curious as to what he's going to do with Bill.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 3, 2007 9:45 AM

Good suggestion Tim but I think that Matt didn't write "less" when he meant "more" as they are exact opposites but rather confused "neoconnish" and "dovish" which are ...
never mind.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | April 3, 2007 10:13 AM

"I think that Matt didn't write "less" when he meant "more" as they are exact opposites but rather confused "neoconnish" and "dovish"

Matthew thinks Caron Butler is neoconnish?

Posted by Petey | April 3, 2007 10:23 AM

I still think it's hilarious that Clinton's main smear against Obama is that he's just like her.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 3, 2007 10:58 AM

I think a better thing to say was that the Sargent/Kleefeld study demonstrates what anyone who follows politics for a while will quickly see -- voting records don't tell you all that much about where politicians' stand.

I think an even better thing to say is that voting records don't tell you much about how a legislator will act as an executive. Congress passes appropriation bills and votes on symbolic gestures crafted by their party leaders. The President actually gets to set the foreign policy agenda.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 3, 2007 1:01 PM