Organizing for America | This is just how Lulu rolls: Here's another reason why I am an Obama supporter!

Here's another reason why I am an Obama supporter!

By Lulu Ward - Apr 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: senate record

Okey-Dokey. Here are links to two different blogs that take a look at Senator Obama’s senate record. One of them goes a step further and examines both Clinton and Obama with regards to their Senate performance and compares their approach to solutions for America’s challenges. First, the links are:

Blog #1. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Blog #2. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

Obama’s senate record is quite impressive. He has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress. He has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law since he joined the Senate in 2005. He has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate. Those stats are at the beginning of Blog #2.

In Blog #1 I found several things of interest when comparing the legislation each of them has authored. Here are a few comparisons:

Clinton’s bill (touted on her website) to deliver health care to every child, “A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to insure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage” had not a single co-sponsor. Quoting this blogger, “Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? I honestly don’t know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors.” This bothers me. Will she get anything done even if she does make it to the White House? Sounds to me like she has trouble getting people to join her team, politically speaking. Or maybe it’s just with this one issue, which of course is pretty sensitive territory considering her failed attempt in 1993 to provide universal health care.
Regarding the need to keep the public safe from lead-based paint. First, Hillary’s bill. She offers tax credits to building owners who clean up lead paint. (Obama co-sponsored this bill.) S.1793: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards. Obama introduced two bills addressing this problem (Hillary co-sponsored both), S.1306 directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children’s products containing lead as banned hazardous substances and S.2132 prohibits the interstate transport of children’s products containing lead. So they both want to protect children from lead. But the difference is in the scope and the approach. Obama’s bill shows that he thinks big – do everything you can to make sure that lead-painted toys don’t get into the hand (and mouths) of our children. Hillary’s bill encourages people to clean up lead pain from old buildings by offering tax credits to building owners. As the blogger states (and rightly so), “People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up the best way to protect kids from lead? Obama’s bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary’s risks nothing.”
Dealing with the forclosure crisis. Hillary’s bill is S.2114, A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhances disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers. Again, no co-sponsors on this bill. Obama’s bill is S.1222, A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse and under-development. His bill is co-sponsored by Dick Durbin. Obama’s appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.
On the energy crisis. Obama has introduced four bills including: S.1151 to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more enerby-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil, S.115 to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of fthe Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry, and S.133 to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology. This bill was co-sponsored by Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Lugar (R-IN)and Ken Salazar (D-CO). On the same issue Clinton introduced S.701 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives. Again, this bill had no co-sponsors. Obama wants to “repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry” which, to me, is very straightforward, very direct. Clinton’s approach is a “temporary oil profit fee” and to “expand certain energy tax incentives” for alternative energy.
On Health Care. Obama has introduced ten bills/amendments on this issue including one amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 (Kennedy’s FDA Revitalization Act) to improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues in his proposed health care legislation were AIDS research (S1873), hospital report cards (S.692 – the V.A. and S.1824 – Medicare), better emergency care (S.1873) and drug price controls (S.2347). Clinton introduced many bills on the issue – this blogger lists 11 here so I won’t re-type them all. The blogger mentions that they “didn’t impress me much.” I noticed she did not introduce anything regarding AIDS research. Also, there were co-sponsors on some of the bills she introduced but none of her bills passed.

Obama has introduced a massive number of really important bills – on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbysists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education. I thought the one regarding voting was really good, S.453 to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. It passed out of Committee and was on the Senate Calendar for 2/22/08 but I can’t find any record of a vote. You can read the bill for yourself here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c1100t039w
The title pretty much says it all but read the “findings” section. Really interesting. This bill is about preventing voter suppression, reporting false election information (the prevention of), and establishing a Voting Integrity Task Force.

Finally, in the blogger’s conclusion; “Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate of getting his bills and amendments passed than Clinton does.”

Okay, if you managed to read this far, CONGRATULATIONS! ;-)

I am still very disappointed in the negativity going on in this race for the Democratic nomination. The red phone ad, to me, harkens back to EXACTLY the kind of fear-mongering that Bush used. It is most definitely Rovian. I think Arianna Huffington reported on it very well here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/democratic-scorecard-the_b_90258.html

David, one of my problems with Hillary Clinton is that she is playing the game of politics. I think even in her Senate proposals she is careful not to risk anything that might damage her political career. She refuses to just run this race on her record but instead tries to convince voters that Obama is unworthy of the nomination. Why? If she is the best one for the job, wouldn’t she win without having to tear him down – either directly or through surrogates. (Obama needs to get him some of those.) With surrogates she can act as if she is above the fray and send others out to say nasty things about him. Yes, I heard about Samantha Power calling Hillary a “monster” (off the record) to a journalist for The Scotsman. Well, I think a lot of folks agree with Power but you notice that she resigned within hours of that story breaking today. I really do believe Obama wants to have a different kind of politics in America and I think this shows his commitment to that. It was an unfortunate remark but he is expressing zero tolerance. That says something to me.

As far as run-ins you have had with Obama supporters, I am truly sorry for that. I have not experienced anything like that at any of the political events I have attended – even at the caucus Tuesday night. People do feel very strongly about their candidates. I think it is extremely harmful to the Democratic Party and to the country when this commitment to a campaign turns nasty. I know you probably don’t believe it but I believe that this division is not accidental. I believe it is by political design perpetrated by the Clinton campaign. Because they know that Obama inspires people and that motivates them to go to the polls and vote and attend their caucus. Knowing that Hillary’s message isn’t nearly as inspiring they have settled to motivate voters another way. First, to scare them with that fearmongering ad and saying things like She and McCain have experience while Obama “gave a speech in 2002.” Second, by planting the seeds of hate. If Hillary supporters hate Obama supporters then they too will be extremely motivated to make it to the polls for her. It may sound like conspiracy theory but these guys running her campaign don’t mess around. She pays them millions of dollars to get her elected and they’ll do whatever it takes. It’s not her personally that I think is underhanded but she has to take responsibility for her entire campaign staff. They are playing dirty, divisive political games and it stinks. I hate it and I can’t support it.

Yes, I read The Observer article on Barack Obama. I liked it. I’m glad to know that he does have some spunk. He is a pretty smooth guy. He doesn’t look like he ever loses his cool but that wouldn’t be human. I don’t hold it against him simply because he IS human. As far as his report that Obama was paid favors by his mentor or that there are people in the black community that dislike him, well I don’t think we have any way of knowing all there is to know about that. I don’t want to base my opinion of the man on what any one reporter claims. I also know that Chicago politics is extremely rough-and-tumble. I’ve heard it’s one of the roughest in the nation. Maybe that’s why he is so against that kind of campaigning. You know, Oprah changed the kind of programming she was doing back in the 80s because she knew it wasn’t serving a greater purpose. When she did that, her popularity skyrocketed and that is why she is where she is today. Perhaps Obama too say that the old way of doing things wasn’t going to work for a better future and decided to blaze a new trail. But back to the temper thing. I’ve heard much the same (actually much worse) about both Hillary and John McCain. I’ve heard that both of them have terrible tempers and scream at their staff. I’ve learned from watching all the pundits that most reporters do not like to cover Hillary because her staff are rude and not well-liked. On the other hand, they say the the staff in the Obama campaign are really upbeat and positive people. I realize we can’t substantiate that but if it is true, it doesn’t strike me as all that surprising. I know that Hillary is a tenacious fighter. I get that. Maybe I’m just really tired of fighting. Maybe fighting, just like war, is not the answer if we want a brighter tomorrow.

That’s why I am an Obama supporter.

Show 2 Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.