The definitive accounting of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments. It's not a Ted Kennedy-esque list of things, but it shows that Obama's career in the Illinois State Senate and then the US Senate has been brief, but action-packed. I think it stands up perfectly well to Hillary Clinton's record (unless you accept the view that she deserves credit for everything Bill Clinton did that you like, but didn't agree with any of the stuff you don't like) or John McCain's. Remember -- don't go on TV as an Obama surrogate without it!
« Lessig Interview | Main | A Real Story »
Obama's Legislative Record
21 Feb 2008 09:22 am
Comments (33)
How did the brilliant always-prepared Obama campaign screw up like that? Accomplishments may have been hard to find but you'd think they would have provided Watson with some sort of ammo.
I wonder if it's a tactic by the Obama campaign - we'll let our opponents perpetuate this idea that Obama is an empty suit and then, at some point, some journalist will actually do some research and discover that Obama has actually been churning out bills left and right in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. Same with Rezko. We'll just let people think this is going to be a big deal, and then a few months later we'll leak the correspondence with the owners of the house who've stated that we were the highest (and only) bidder. Nothing to see here, sorry you wasted all your time and energy counting on that to be a big scandal. The idea being let your opponents get all lathered up in attacking something you know is a strength because ultimately their alarms will be proven false. Now, it could very well be that the Obama campaign is monstrously slow in countering these attacks, or it could be that they simply don't want to give any attention to things that do not benefit the Obama campaign, and are sticking to a forward-looking, consistent message. But it could also be a rope-a-dope strategy of letting opponents take shots at something you know is really one of your strengths. There is really a nice kind of confidence in not touting your record and just letting people find out about it on their own.
How did the brilliant always-prepared Obama campaign screw up like that? Accomplishments may have been hard to find but you'd think they would have provided Watson with some sort of ammo.
Dude, they're humans; they made a mistake. And accomplishments aren't "hard to find;" read the linked material:
* Ethics Reform: Obama was the Senate's point person on ethics reform, and sponsored or co-sponsored the bills that made up what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." I'm also a fan of this bill, which I think of as the Journalists, Bloggers, and Citizens' Muckraking Empowerment Act: it creates a searchable database of recipients of federal grants and contracts.* The Lugar-Obama initiative to strengthen the Nunn-Luger framework for securing loose nukes, and to extend it to securing and destroying stockpiles of conventional arms. (For instance, shoulder-fired missiles that could be used against passenger airlines, fired at our forces, or used to make any number of ongoing conflicts more deadly.)
* Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an amendment putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters, requiring planning for the evacuation of people with special needs and senior citizens, creating a National Emergency Family Locator System, etc.
There are also a lot of good bills he worked on that did not make it, including the compromise immigration bill and a proposal to create an independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, and some that are on the Senate calendar now, like a bill to criminalize various deceptive election tactics, like deceptive robocalls, providing misleading information about where to vote or what conditions you have to meet to be eligible to vote, etc.
There's a lot more . . .
I [compiled Obama's record] because I had heard one too many people like Chris Matthews talking about Obama's alleged lack of substance, and I thought: I know that's not true, since I have read about Obama's work on non-proliferation, avian flu, and a few other issues. And if people are saying he lacks substance, then surely I, as a citizen, should try to find out whether I just hallucinated all this interesting legislation, or whether this talking point was, in fact, completely wrong. So I sat down with Google and Thomas and tried to find out.But I'm just an amateur. I have a full-time job doing something else. Chris Matthews, by contrast, is paid large sums of money to provide political commentary and insight. I assume he has research assistants at his disposal. He could have done this work a lot more easily than I did. But he didn't. He was more interested in gotcha moments than in actually enlightening the American people.
Or if you don't like that, read Watson's follow-up.
Chris Matthews gets paid to be a jackass and ignore the substance of the matter; what's your excuse?
What I thought was weird was Christopher Beam's attack on Obama supporters, because most of them couldn't recite the details of his ethics reform bills and don't know much about what he did in the Illinois state Senate.
While probably true, it strikes me as extremely unfair when you think about Clinton or McCain supporters.
I'm not sure I've noticed many people talking up HRC's or McCain's legislative accomplishments... and from what I can tell, said accomplishments are no larger than Obama's unless you like naming post offices.
Here's the problem: Obama waltzed into the Senate as a universally well-liked and unpolarizing political rock star. Outside of Hillary Clinton and Maj. Leader Bill Frist, he drew more press coverage (specifically TV cameras) than anyone else in the senate.
Other senators were lined up around the block trying to get him to sign-on as a co-sponsor of their pet pieces of legislation. Because suddenly fairly boring legislations becomes very sexy to the press when you tack on Obama's name to it. One great example: the "fatherhood crisis" is a notorious '90s-esque Clinton-era DLC issue that among Senators Evan Bayh has become tightly identified with. Hardly headlining fare. Unless Barack Obama signs on to it.
The Ethics Reform bill that Obama likes to trumpet was drafted and floor managed by Russ Feingold.
There's a reason that Lugar-Obama is titled in that sequence.
Further, while its convenient now to pound away at Hillary Clinton for her lack of defining signature legislation passed, people often forget that outside a narrow and rickety 18-month window from 2001-2002, no Democrats passed any signature pieces of legislation throughout the first six years of the Bush administration.
Citing co-sponsorships is pretty thin gruel, and hilzoy admits there's difficulty in figuring out just how much work Obama actually did on this stuff.
Co-sponsorships usually mean little. There are bills that have literally 50 or more co-sponsors.
I'm less interested in the legislative statistics than a demonstrable willingness to prove oneself before seizing center-stage. I remember 2001 when Hillary entered the Senate and pundits were wondering aloud whether she would be a show-horse or a work-horse. The fact is she did not attract a lot of attention, she focused on representing the state of New York. And she won over lots of Republicans in the process (and winning a lot of majority Republican counties in her bid for re-election).
Barack Obama, in contrast, barely kept his head down for a year before grabbing headlines. Within less than two years he was planning his run for the White House. It's not just hope that has a lot of audacity.
dry_fish:
He wasn't much of a rock star in the Illinois Senate, yet managed to get quite a lot accomplished there.
I don't think the point is to say that Obama is the most amazing Senator ever, rather it's to point out that Obama is not inexperienced, he's not uninformed, he's not ineffectual, he's not an empty suit. Especially if you compare his record to Clinton's. And if we can't compare his legislative record to hers, what pray tell can we compare?
dry_fish,
So you argument is that Obama may not have written great material, but people just wanted him on board because having him involved in the process makes it more likely to pass? We Man, if only we could that man President where he could use that power repeatedly. Oh wait, we already are.
Tim K:
I agree! What an uppity fella!
For what it's worth, this is one reason why McCain absolutely despises Obama. G-damn li'l upstart don't know his place I'll show him stupid young'un.
dry_fish,
It's also pretty thin gruel for Hillary and she's the one whose trumpeting her accomplishments.
Obmerman's what the fuck take was spot on. The best a Democratic senator could do in the past 7 years is play goalie.
socratic_me,
but people just wanted him on board because having him involved in the process makes it more likely to pass
Strike the word "pass" and replace it with "attract attention" and I'd agree.
I would add that Obama cites this as one of the more compelling reasons for why people should vote for him. People (ie the press and the public at-large) actually listens to and pays attention to him. It's his great differentiator and is an accurate estimation of why he might be a good president despite his comparative lack of time in Washington. I genuinely think that there are many policy ideas that would receive more in the way of popular following if endorsed by a President Obama than would be the case with a President Clinton or McCain. My only point is that Matt goes a bit too far for my taste in saying that Senator Obama is -- in the context of the Senate -- the equal of Senators Clinton and McCain in terms of legislative influence and effectiveness, and frankly, work-product.
dry_fish,
I saw the argument for why you are underwhelmed by Obama's work. I haven't seen the argument for why Clinton's is better. If you look at the lists hilzoy compiled, the workloads really do seem equivalent. I have a hard time seeing this as purely a byproduct of his popularity. For instance, I can't see Coburn thinking how great it would be to have Obama on board for ethics reform (full disclosure- as an Oklahoman, I can't see Coburn thinking). And that is one of my favorite pieces of legislation that he has passed.
Craig, good points, but if we're going to compare records let's just incorporate more of the full record beyond just co-sponsorships and also place it all into something like recent historical context.
How did the brilliant always-prepared Obama campaign screw up like that?
Actually, that was a state senator from my hometown of Austin, Texas.
He was probably stoned.
.
dry_fish,
Obama was in fact initially frustrated in the Senate and initially (like most rookies) couldn't get much done--as his profile increased and he built relationships he started pushing out the legislation. And that's consistent with his prolific Illinois record where he fought many uphill battles.
More on how I think how Illinois toughened him up for the current campaign: http://ketchupandcaviar.com/2008/02/20/obamas-legislative-record-and-how-its-related-to-hillarys-defeat/
Wes
How did the brilliant always-prepared Obama campaign screw up like that? Accomplishments may have been hard to find but you'd think they would have provided Watson with some sort of ammo.
Maybe everyone thought that Matthews would ask about things he always asks about, like horse race and "character" issues, and didn't think there would be the "his speech made a chill run up my leg" backlash.
Now they know better, and this will be long forgotten by the time Obama does much better than anyone anticipated in Texas.
But to think this is anything close to the type of million dollar meltdowns and firings that have occurred in the Clinton camp is, well, laughable.
socratic_me, i dunno, Obamania seems to have hit Coburn earlier than most:
He is also movie-star handsome, with a 6ft 2in frame, engaging smile and ready wit that has won him many personal admirers in the Republican party. His closest friend in the Senate is fellow newcomer Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican. He has embraced the internet, podcasting from the Senate and being known to post entries on political blogs.
I haven't done the research on Clinton's record to know if it is superior to Obama's or not. I have followed her career in the Senate enough to know that her colleagues all generally are impressed with her committee work, the depth of her engagement on serious policy, and her surprising ability to get along with her GOP colleagues (many of whom simultaneously send out fundraising letters to base partisans loudly attacking her).
If Obama would have simply kept his head down and his nose to the grindstone for another 8-10 years there wouldn't have been an issue. The fact that he has the audacity and self confidence to run for President at his relatively young age after accomplishing essentially nothing bothers me greatly.
If Obama would have simply kept his head down and his nose to the grindstone for another 8-10 years there wouldn't have been an issue.
I dunno, he seems to be doing alright for himself.
he seems to be doing alright for himself.
Yes, and it's killing McCain's newest (formerly Hillary's) campaign advisor, Tim K.
The poor boy has Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The fact that he has the audacity and self confidence to run for President at his relatively young age ... bothers me greatly.
I am wondering if this isn't the beating heart of the Obama hate.
I am wondering if this isn't the beating heart of the Obama hate.
Doesn't it just strike you as soooooo uppity.
Of course, Bill Clinton was younger when he ran and won in 1992.
do people not realize practically the exact age bill clinton was when he ran in 1992?
do people not realize that obama's practically the exact age bill clinton was when he ran in 1992?
Tim K reminds me of that old rusty saw on my garage floor: not the sharpest tool in the shed.
do people not realize practically the exact age bill clinton was when he ran in 1992?
People do. But this is just standard Tim K operating procedure.
Blast Obama on something totally made up, only to find out that the same charge he's leveling applies to the Clintons.
And then he moves on, attempting the subject looking for another phoney bogeyman (which usually applies equally to the Clintons).
And when he's not slamming Obama on something phoney and/or something that applies equally to Hillary, he makes stuff up about her out of whole cloth (i.e. Rick Lazio was a tough Republican opponent and everyone thought it would be a close race throughout; Hillary didn't run for president in 2004 because she felt she needed more experience in the Senate) to turn her into something she is not.
Tim K has issues. It's pathological.
The weird thing is, he's convinced no one. Rather, he's only made people feel better about their electoral decision.
The one opinion I did see him change was that of another die-hard Clinton supporter here, Andruw - who learned last night how "off his rocker" Tim K was, when Tim started on his pro-McCain platform.
Tim seems incapable of learning. He's not helping his candidate out one bit.
If liking someone is Obamamania, then the term has lost what little bit of meaning it once had.
Also, and I mean this completely without snark, did you read the piece Matt linked to? I ask because I am a regular reader of the Obsidian Wings, which is where hilzoy usually posts and so I recognized a lot of the links she provided.
Specifically, I would draw your attention to the 4th paragraph from bottom of the page, which includes two excellent summaries (one from 2006, when the "Obama has no accomplishments" meme was just starting) as well as hilzoy's attempt to sort through the legislative record and find all meaningful amendments, sponsored bills and cosponsored bills for Obama and Clinton through their sessions in Congress.
Whoops. The above was, of course, all directed toward dry_fish.
All of you can burn in hell.
Even me? I am hurt.
Blast Obama on something totally made up, only to find out that the same charge he's leveling applies to the Clintons. And then he moves on...
No, first he says "Doesn't it bother you that you can't defend Obama without tearing down Hillary?"
I think it's great that Obama's relatively young. Compare pictures of Bill Clinton in 1992 and 2000. Even W who doesn't work very hard has aged far more than 8 years during his time in the White House. Constant attention, stress, pressure, and little sleep.
The job of President sucks the life out of you. We should choose a President who has more life to be sucked.
Comments closed March 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hilzoy's post is exhaustive, as she often is to her credit.
Nice Dailykos diary here
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
comparing Clinton's and Obama's legislative records.
Posted by riffle | February 21, 2008 9:33 AM