cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:00 pm
au, Thanks for your opinions concerning Obama. I'm also one of those on the side-lines waiting to see what bombs drop during the next eight months before I decide who my vote goes to - be it democrat or republican. I will end up picking the candidate I feel fulfills the best interest for our country.

I know exactly what you mean about performing at 60 percent and keeping your job. When I worked, I thought 100 percent was too little.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:00 pm


I can only surmise from that the democratic party has conceded the state of Florida to the republicans in the general election.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:05 pm
Au:

Have you been reading this thread? Do you know why he voted "present" in Illinois for many of the votes? Illinois senate procedures require that if you want a motion to stay in contention that you vote "present" if you disagree with part of it but want it to stay in play and be discussed and amended.

Barack Obama is not an empty vessel. You may think he is...but many here do not. You have your opinion and it may be influenced by many factors. But that he does not have significant policy ideas is not one that I see as a factor in my decision to back him. He has more often shown that he is the level headed one in each and every situation that Hillary has thrown at him (including the proverbial kitchen sink! Laughing )

Hillary's ties to corporate money, vote for the Iraq War, even voting for a venture with Iran are enough to make me think twice about her. When she allows her surrogates to mess with race, I get very angry. This didn't have to happen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:17 pm
Vietnan Nurse, I have always had high regards for you on many fronts, and I appreciate your input concerning the state legislature voting by Obama as "present."

I have a brother who is also a state legislator in California. He has written and co-sponsored many legislations in this state.

Also, why has Obama voted for only 40 percent in the Senate? Is there a reasonable explanation why it's so low?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:37 pm
What Vietnamnurse said.

Meanwhile, in other Obama-related news, this encouraging case study. It's about the mayor of Newark and his relationship with Obama, but it's also about the role the Obama campaign plays in encouraging the rise of a new generation of young black politicians. And equally interesting, it's about how there is a whole new generation of black politicians, with a shared outlook, which is markedly different from that of the previous generations.

Quote:
Newark's mayor Booker among politicians boosted by Obama's rise

Associated Press New Jersey
March 16, 2008

This Ivy League-educated, African-American politician who talks a lot about hope and is seen as a rising Democratic Party star has spent time in the last few months on the campaign trail in places like South Carolina and Ohio.

Barack Obama?

No, Newark Mayor Cory Booker.

He's an occasional Obama campaign surrogate and a man at the center of an emerging generation of black leaders who political insiders expect to have clout for decades, whether Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, wins the White House or not.

"To me, it's just a natural evolution of the country," the 38-year-old Booker said in a telephone interview. "My father grew up in a very segregated world. I grew up in a very integrated world."

Largely because of the successes of the civil rights movement, Booker and the rest of the cohort of black politicians grew up in diverse communities and were able to attend elite private colleges and universities rather than the historically black colleges that produced previous generations of black political leaders.

Experts say many politicians in this group tend to do well among non-black voters in elections.

"They're idealistic enough not to be carrying the luggage of the older generation," said Rhine McLin, the 59-year-old mayor of Dayton, Ohio, who met Booker recently.

Others considered part of the group include Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, and current U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois and Artur Davis of Alabama.

Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University law professor, who has written extensively about race and politics, says the rise of Obama and the others on his heels isn't a surprise to her. She says they have figured out how to do what she suggested black politicians do more than a decade ago: frame issues in terms of economic class, rather than race. [..]

Booker's connections to Obama go beyond their skin color and hopeful, spirited campaign style.

They met in 2005, introduced by Oprah Winfrey and her friend Gayle King, the editor of Winfrey's "O" magazine.

At the time, Obama was a newly elected U.S. Senator from Illinois who had risen quickly to national prominence because of a forceful speech at the Democratic National Convention the year before.

Booker, a former tight end for Stanford's football team, Rhodes scholar and Yale Law School graduate, got widespread attention because when he moved into public housing in Newark to try to help the city's downtrodden.

He lost his 2002 campaign for mayor, but gained friends like Winfrey and a starring role in a documentary film about the election.

By the time Obama announced his candidacy for president early last year, Booker was in office as mayor and was spending his free time lecturing at colleges across the country, giving him the sort of attention that mayors of a city Newark's size - it's the nation's 64th largest - rarely get.

With the personal connection, Booker endorsed Obama almost immediately.

The mayor has hosted the candidate in Newark and stumped for him around the country. He even sent a busload of his supporters to go knock on doors on Obama's behalf in Cincinnati on the eve of last week's Ohio primary voting.

Among insiders in New Jersey, Booker is seen as a major force - the kind of politician who could be elected statewide before long.

"If he desires to dedicate his life to public service, I think he will be going places," said Bonnie Watson Coleman, a member of the state Assembly and the former chairwoman of the Democratic State Committee. [..]

McLin, the mayor of Dayton, said that Booker's work for Obama helps the younger politician in a few ways. For one, it raises his profiles among the Democratic party loyalists who go to the rallies where he speaks.

It also gives him an inside line to a powerful Washington insider in Obama _ whether he's president or remains in the Senate.

And if Booker does not become a player on a national stage, says G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., other African Americans who have similar characteristics will follow Obama.

"It's about the onslaught of a new generation that can't be denied its place," Madonna said.

Booker thinks so, too.

"We are a far more diverse nation than many people realize," he said. "When you see Obama, there are hundreds of others forging a similar path."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:39 pm
Where does that number come from? I couldn't find any corroboration. I'm also curious as to how it compares with other senators. What's normal, in other words?

I did look up the one vote that's mentioned -- vote 284 -- and it's clear that Obama did miss that vote. The bill passed overwhelmingly and Obama did vote on the earlier Senate version (S.4). I assume that this version was merged from H.1 and S.4 which both passed with veto proof majorities.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:43 pm
Vietnamnurse wrote:
Au:

Have you been reading this thread? Do you know why he voted "present" in Illinois for many of the votes? Illinois senate procedures require that if you want a motion to stay in contention that you vote "present" if you disagree with part of it but want it to stay in play and be discussed and amended.

Barack Obama is not an empty vessel. You may think he is...but many here do not. You have your opinion and it may be influenced by many factors. But that he does not have significant policy ideas is not one that I see as a factor in my decision to back him. He has more often shown that he is the level headed one in each and every situation that Hillary has thrown at him (including the proverbial kitchen sink! Laughing )

Hillary's ties to corporate money, vote for the Iraq War, even voting for a venture with Iran are enough to make me think twice about her. When she allows her surrogates to mess with race, I get very angry. This didn't have to happen.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
why has Obama voted for only 40 percent in the Senate? Is there a reasonable explanation why it's so low?

Well, for one you've got to notice that the 40% number refers to a very carefully selected timeperiod: "In the last 500 Senate votes dating back to September 2006".

I have no idea why they chose September 2006 as starting point, rather than, say, January 2005, when his term started.

Well, I do: it's to make him as look as bad as possible. After all, it was just a few months after September 2006 that Obama declared his Presidential candidacy. So the author neatly picked exactly that part of Obama's membership in the Senate, in which he was waging the most intensive election campaign that exists in the US. Of course he was often absent from the Senate in the last year or so - he was running for President.

Now, give me a number for his attendance between January 2005-December 2006, say, and I will be more willing to assume good faith...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:49 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Where does that number come from? I couldn't find any corroboration.

The post Au quoted was from here:

NorCal Conservative: Right on the Left Coast

Because why would one actually look up information onself if one can rely on a conservative blog?

FWIW, a Google search for <500 Senate votes September 2006 Obama 40%> yields nothing about this number except for this one blog post.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:49 pm
Found some of what I was looking for here. Apparently he missed 37.5% of the votes for the current congress. I noticed John McCain missed 56%. Interesting resource -- I'm still looking.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:49 pm
nimh wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
why has Obama voted for only 40 percent in the Senate? Is there a reasonable explanation why it's so low?

Well, for one you've got to notice that the 40% number refers to a very carefully selected timeperiod: "In the last 500 Senate votes dating back to September 2006".

I have no idea why they chose September 2006 as starting point, rather than, say, January 2005, when his term started.

Well, I do: it's to make him as look as bad as possible. After all, it was just a few months after September 2006 that Obama declared his Presidential candidacy. So the author neatly picked exactly that part of Obama's membership in the Senate, in which he was waging the most intensive election campaign that exists in the US. Of course he was often absent from the Senate in the last year or so - he was running for President.

Now, give me a number for his attendance between January 2005-December 2006, say, and I will be more willing to assume good faith...


Or maybe you could compare Clinton and Obama during the same time period. Her results may even be worse, which would give you one more thing to bless Obama with.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:59 pm
maporsche wrote:
nimh wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
why has Obama voted for only 40 percent in the Senate? Is there a reasonable explanation why it's so low?

Well, for one you've got to notice that the 40% number refers to a very carefully selected timeperiod: "In the last 500 Senate votes dating back to September 2006".

I have no idea why they chose September 2006 as starting point, rather than, say, January 2005, when his term started.

Well, I do: it's to make him as look as bad as possible. After all, it was just a few months after September 2006 that Obama declared his Presidential candidacy. So the author neatly picked exactly that part of Obama's membership in the Senate, in which he was waging the most intensive election campaign that exists in the US. Of course he was often absent from the Senate in the last year or so - he was running for President.

Now, give me a number for his attendance between January 2005-December 2006, say, and I will be more willing to assume good faith...


Or maybe you could compare Clinton and Obama during the same time period. Her results may even be worse, which would give you one more thing to bless Obama with.


Oh, I guess Clinton missed fewer votes. Can't use that one to favor Obama.

Current Congress
Obama missed 37.4%
Clinton missed 26.8%

Obama has the 3rd most missed votes in ALL of the current congress. And is the highest Democrat (except for Johnson who had a brain hemorrhage and hasn't returned to congress in 1.5 years).

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:01 pm
In the 109th Congress Obama missed 11 votes, Clinton missed 16 so he did beat her there.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:02 pm
From the same source, he missed 1.7% in the last congress.

I'm not convinced, though, that these numbers mean much. A cursory glance of his missed votes show that many if not most of them were on issues where there was bipartisan agreement, which means his vote wouldn't have swung either way. I'm more concerned with close votes where his vote might have made a difference on important legislation. The Gonzalez vote, for example, seems important.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:03 pm
For more perspective, during the last presidential run.

Kerry missed 77.3% of the vote.
Edwards 45%


http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/108/senate/vote-missers/
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:04 pm
Ah, jinx, maporsche. It's a pretty cool resource, eh?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:12 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Found some of what I was looking for here. Apparently he missed 37.5% of the votes for the current congress. I noticed John McCain missed 56%.

maporsche wrote:
Oh, I guess Clinton missed fewer votes. Can't use that one to favor Obama.

Current Congress
Obama missed 37.4%
Clinton missed 26.8%

[..] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

maporsche wrote:
In the 109th Congress Obama missed 11 votes, Clinton missed 16 so he did beat her there.

FreeDuck wrote:
From the same source, he missed 1.7% in the last congress.

maporsche wrote:
For more perspective, during the last presidential run.

Kerry missed 77.3% of the vote.
Edwards 45%

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/108/senate/vote-missers/


-----------------------------

OK, interesting info. Thank you both for doing the digging. (I'm a little embarassed now for not looking anything up myself, beyond where Au's quote came from.).

So, if I may summarise:

  • The people who are running for President missed a lot of votes while they were running for President. (McCain the most, Hillary the least, but all of 'em rather many.)
  • This is no different from what usually happens (see Kerry and Edwards)
  • Back when they werent running for President yet, they didnt miss many votes at all.
  • It seems like votes they missed were often "safe" ones.
Is that it?

Au1929, what relevance does this have, then?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:12 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ah, jinx, maporsche. It's a pretty cool resource, eh?


It is, I wish it were easier to sort the missed votes (based on importance).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:18 pm
What bothers me more is that the conservatives use these numbers to show only Obama's voting record while ignoring McCain's. That's part and parcel of dirty pool in any campaign, but most Americans will not doe the necessary research to learn the "truth," and mark Obama down as lazy or nonperforming his responsibility as a senator.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:21 pm
maporsche wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ah, jinx, maporsche. It's a pretty cool resource, eh?


It is, I wish it were easier to sort the missed votes (based on importance).


It is really hard to determine which votes are important. Some of them look procedural and some look important, but the votes don't necessarily directly correlate to the passage of legislation, so it's hard to tell.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 624
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 02:38:29