Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, Clinton Battle for Hearts of Hispanics
RIO GRANDE CITY, Texas -The sagebrush scrubland and sun-blighted arroyos of Starr County, home to more Hispanics per capita than any other county in Texas, have become the scene of an ardent and unlikely political courtship.
The area's population is a shade over 98 per cent Latino and the county seat of Rio Grande City (pop. 12,000) has more in common with Mexico City than Dallas - with the choice of radio stations mostly limited to salsa, country and Spanish-language country.
Hugging the banks of the Rio Grande River, the sprawling county is also a transit route for Mexicans sneaking into the country.
Signs here are primarily in Spanish, and largely rural Starr County is one of the poorest places in the United States while nonetheless standing near the top of the nation's per-capita beer sales.
In a state where whites - or Anglos, as they are usually known in Lone Star country - are now a minority, Hispanic voters like those of Starr County have become a crucial constituency for Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It's a reversal of fortune for Latinos in Texas, who once were written off as a bitter and disfranchised community with little political clout.
Clinton has strong appeal among Texas Hispanics and the New York senator ceaselessly points out that one of her first political jobs was registering voters in west and south Texas. Then there's the fact her husband Bill became the first president to appoint an Hispanic cabinet secretary.
The attachment, born out of loyalty, is analogous to the support the federal Liberals enjoyed among immigrants as a result of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's multiculturalism policy.
Old-style political patróns no longer hold sway over south Texas, but Starr County Judge Eloy Vera, a staunch Clinton supporter, may well be the next best thing.
In his dark-panelled office at the Hacienda-style county courthouse the rotund, silver-haired Vera reclines in an overstuffed burgundy leather chair with the county seal embossed in gold leaf on the headrest.
"I don't think we've ever had this much attention in a presidential race," says Vera, a courtly fourth-generation politician who is perhaps the most influential Democrat in the county.
"We have a very strong regional identity here. This isn't Mexico ... but I eat Mexican food and do Mexican activities and listen to Mexican music."
Even if he remains a distant second in Starr County, Obama has roared back from a double-digit deficit in the polls to take a slim lead in what remains a close race in Texas.
The Illinois senator has done it by winning over Democrats from all demographic groups and has bitten into Clinton's huge lead among Hispanics statewide.
At a recent rally in San Marcos, a college town near the state capital of Austin, Obama took the stage at an evening rally in a park on the campus of Texas State University.
Standing under backlit, soaring pecan trees, Obama whipped the crowd of more than 20,000 into a rock-show frenzy with his trademark oratory.
The lengthy queue outside the rally demonstrated the breadth of Obama's appeal: large numbers of college kids of all races, middle-aged couples, seniors.
It also included people like José Reyes, who is precisely the type of voter Obama has targeted.
"I've never been to a political event, but he's creating a new political stir. People are getting excited about him ... I think Obama draws you to him," says Reyes, 37, a factory office manager who attended with his extended family. "When you're a minority and have a candidate who looks like you and lived through some of the same things, it's another reason to support him."
At another rally, this one at the University of Texas in Austin, about 2,500 students gathered under the infamous clock tower from which deranged student Charles Whitman shot and killed 14 students in 1966.
The crowd was waiting to hear former president Bill Clinton deliver a stump speech and exhort them to vote in the advance polls, which have drawn record turnouts.
One of the warm-up acts included a troupe of Hispanic dancers, and there were scores of Latinos in the crowd (Hispanics are a sizable minority on campus).
"I'm going to be voting for the first time, and I think this election is really, really important ... I would love to vote for a woman, I think Hillary's got it all," said Gillian Ramirez, 19, a second-year psychology student who sported a Clinton T-shirt.
But if the main Democratic contenders and their surrogates have spent long hours wooing voters in the state's major cities, perhaps the fiercest fight has been taking place in regions like Rio Grande City.
The heavily Hispanic areas of south Texas have drawn considerable attention from high-wattage personalities like Senator Edward Kennedy stumping on behalf of Obama, and former first daughter Chelsea Clinton rallying support for her mother.
According to the William C. Velasquez Institute, a Texas think-tank that studies Latino voting behaviour, the Hispanic electorate has doubled since 1996.
"We're like an iceberg - y'all don't notice until it pops above the surface," says institute president Antonio Gonzales.
Obama held a prayer vigil in nearby Brownsville on Friday, an event seen by the Texas media as a last-minute appeal to strongly Catholic Hispanic voters.
"This is something I've never seen before, all of a sudden we're front and centre," says Gonzalez.
While no minority electorate is monolithic, Gonzalez thinks the Hispanic vote will become more influential over time because "there are trends, and the Latino vote is democratic leaning, and there is a swing element to it."
Another thing about Hispanic voters: they're young; in some districts, more than half the voting-age population is under 30.
Only about one in four Hispanic Texans is foreign-born, a much lower percentage than in some other states, including California. Surveys indicate that those new Tejanos are among the staunchest left-wing Democrats in the state. That's also the case in other states with large Hispanic populations, at least five of which - California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Florida - will be crucial battlegrounds in the November election.
Though George W. Bush was able to win broad swaths of support from Hispanic voters - who tend to be socially conservative - they have since turned away because of restrictive border policies and the war in Iraq.
"Hispanics are doves. We love the warrior, but hate war - especially wars where young Latinos die," says Gonzalez. "We see the military as a way to give our children middle-class jobs."
Gonzalez and other leading figures in the Hispanic community also hope the current election season will explode some of the myths about the Latino electorate.
Like the supposed rivalry between blacks and Latinos.
Gonzalez says the idea that Hispanics won't vote for a black candidate is a canard originally perpetrated by a Latino pollster with strong ties to Clinton.
"I think he was trying to make another argument for supporting Clinton ... but to say Latinos won't vote for a black is stupid; it's just wrong," he said, pointing to municipal, congressional and gubernatorial races won by blacks in primarily Latino districts.
Indeed Ron Kirk, a former mayor of Dallas who nearly became the state's first black governor on the strength of Hispanic votes, is one of Obama's strongest supporters in the state.
In Starr County, the question is academic, the black community being small to the point of non-existent. And because of the influence of local heavyweights like Judge Vera, there is little prospect that Clinton will lose here.
"Hillary Clinton has done a lot for us, and so has her husband, people recognize that," says Vera.
Though the era of the patróns is gone - which Vera notes almost wistfully - many of the area's older voters still tend to follow the advice of the party establishment.
"We call it la palanca ... that still happens, especially among our elders," Vera said.
At the Texas Cafe in Rio Grande City's historical district - the town dates back to the 1750s and is one of the oldest settlements in the region - the servers wear Clinton buttons on their green smocks.
In the quaint, wood-panelled interior, a Puro Mexicano decal competes for wall space with a "Support our Troops" sticker, a U.S. flag and a sign that reads: NOTICE: TWO BEERS PER PERSON.
"We're 100 per cent Hillary here," laughs Bertha Chaco, a 29-year-old server. "What's not to like about electing a woman?"
Choco cuts the conversation short as her boss looks over warily. An Obama supporter perhaps?
"Not around here," she smiles.
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
36 Comments so far
Show AllEnough with the Hillary bashing, Obama bashing or even Ralph bashing - the important thing is that for the first time in my adult life, I see this country engaging in that thing called "democracy" that I have heard about so many times over the years. Yes, there is all kinds of corporate control, media manipulation and backroom dealing going on, but this article is about people that aren't even on most of our maps getting engaged, getting excited and turning out in record numbers to vote. So let's ALL be careful of the words we use now - we know we want a change and after Tuesday it should be pretty clear who is going to lead us to that change - kick out the Republicans and maybe even throw some of them in jail. Whoever gets the nomination, and eventually becomes president, will have this force of engaged, empowered Americans that no other president has seen. Change is coming, but not from Hillary, Barack, or Ralph, it is coming from us. We're going to make it happen.
The entire Fox News panel endorsed Hillary Clinton today following the lead of William Kristol who praised her for being a hawk. Her campaign of deception and fear plays well with bigots including older latinos and other reactionary elements of the democratic party. She is scaring poor older women and rallying white racists as well. She is anything but a liberal. She is not even Bush lite. She is worse.
Hillary is a female Joe Lieberman.
I agree with these posts. Here in South Texas, H.C and her supporters are using pure bush tactics. Bigots seem to be a big part of her support here, both white and hispanic. At least most of the younger voters see through this. And by the way, Who is stil watching SNL. I was hoping that show had been cancelled already.
nelson March 2nd, 2008 10:21 am
"kick out the Republicans and maybe even throw some of them in jail."
And replace them with what? Democrats? What have the Democrats done in the last eight years to oppose the Republicans? The Democrats have caved on EVERTHING Bush has wanted. From wars to waterboading. You must must be really naive to think that Obama is going to bring us anything new. If that was the case he would have met with the same fate as Kucinich, Nader, Edwards or even Ron Paul. Any threat to the establishment will lead to your elimination.
Obama's is a product of a marketing campaign by the elites that are concerned with the damage to imperialism that has been done by Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. Obama is simply the latest "Man of Hope" formerly incarnated in the form of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. His job is to put a kinder gentler face on imperialism. He isn't the product of the civil rights movement. Obama has more in common with Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They have been groomed by the elites to carry out their policies Oreo style.
On one of the biggest concerns of the majority of the American people is the war. Obama plans to not only continue it, but actually expand the forces by 100,000 troops, and of course increase military spending.
Obama's website: "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
If Obama really cared about what people want why doesn't he commit to shutting down the Iraq Criminal Enterprise? The US cannot leave the middle because of its stategic importance to US imperialism. It doesn't matter at all what the people want.
If the people really counted why didn't it matter when we marched by the millions before the war? Obama cannot stop the war because the job of the president to to perpetuate our empire and make the wars
.
The Democratic Party's function is to provide an outlet for those opposed to war and dissatisfied with the redistribution of wealth in the direction of the wealthy. They are there to keep us from flocking to third parties by offering the illusion they are opposed to the Republican policies they always seem to vote for. Both Republicans and Democrats are funded by Big Business Inc. and are incapable of bringing any real change because they are beholden to their masters.
Nelson wants us to bury our collective heads in the sand, stop "bashing" and fall in lock step and jackbooted with the pro-war, pro-big business, pro-status quo candidates that are the only ones offered and the only ones we can have. Our only "hope" is breaking with the illusionary men of hope and dumping the Dims. We will lose some elections but we will build a party to replace the party of big business with a party committed to the people.
Why any human being, regardless of race, would vote for a human slime like Hillary utterly escapes me.
Simple... Because most humans are slime!
Oddly enough, hispanics are more conservative and consequently more racist than we think. And they tend to think of their mothers as saints. Hillary being a mother gives her that advantage.
Obama steadily stood up for fairness in the case of drivers licenses for illegals - forcing them to flee the scene is dangerous. Hillary waffled and then threw illegals under the bus because that was the popular thing to do. That's how it is this campaign.
If you are a Democrat or Independent, please consider voting for Barack Obama.
This is not a case of Obama's judgment versus Hillary's experience. It's judgment versus weaker judgment AND weaker experience. Hillary Clinton has run a nasty low blow campaign. Her latest fearmongering "red phone call" ad really takes the cake. When her thug in chief Marc Penn was asked to name one "red phone call" moment he couldn't. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
But Obama did. Her Iraq war vote. That was her test. She failed with flying colors. And she has the nerve to fearmonger on Obama about his experience! She can't win on the merits so she'll try anything, including winning by scaring people. She said that Obama is like Bush, and once again it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Contrary to her claims, America doesn't need experience like Hillary Clinton's. Everything big Hillary Clinton has done has been a failure (except covering for Bill's indiscretions, that is):
1. Health care non-reform in the early 1990s. Funny how she claims to be such an expert at this when she failed at it so badly that the crisis is still snowballing 15 years later!
2. Her support of Bush's war in Iraq was a huge mistake. She picked up the red phone and said sure Mr. Bush, you can take us to war before the inspections process finished and before we finish our business in Afghanistan. Her mistake on Iraq extended way past her vote in her ongoing support for the war until November 2005, long after most Democratic politicians who voted for the war woke up to what was going on. Now she says Bush duped her. Nice spin. Last Fall, once again she voted for another warmongering Bush bill, this time against Iran. Is that the experience we need? Heck no!
3. Hillary Clinton's current campaign is another example of her underperformance. The Clintons were the clear favorites. Yet they ran out of money. They had no plan B after not winning on Super Tuesday (reminds me of Iraq). She has had to fire a string of people for low blows and poor performance. They change their message every two weeks.
Obama, in contrast, has been level headed and steady in his positive message of bringing people together. He knows that the fight fight fight attitude will work no better than last time Hillary tried it at health care reform. Obama is tough, but knows how to use his toughness to lead rather than divide. He has fought and passed ethics reform in Washington, as well as transparency in government. He exposed the atrocities in health care for our veterans and passed laws to address it. Obama is the steady performer with better judgment who can get things done.
nelson March 2nd, 2008 10:21 am
I reread your post and want to apologize for misrepresenting your positive message. You are actually saying that change will not come from leaders but from us. Excellent point Nelson. Sorry about that.
ezeflyer, that is especially true on Cubans who have done better than most Hispanics financially. I am one myself. We have black blood but ironically a lot of Cubans with black blood are racist. Most Cubans are rabid Republicans and hate Democrats because of the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco initiated by that saint of the Dims, J.F.K.
barely human
I doubt whether rural Texas Hispanics are slime. More likely they are children, and base their political decisions on one or two simple talking points or just pure loyalty of some kind. (The Clintons are rumored to have been nice to them at one time.) They don't read the NY Times or listen to political talk shows. Most election issues (not that any are being presented) are complete abstractions to them. They are not contrarians. They would rather agree with one another than argue. Like small town Anglos, they are especially susceptible to one-liners, and the trick to getting their vote is to zap them with a pep talk a couple of days before you need it.
What a patronizing comment you just made, voxclamantis. They aren't children. They have a different culture but just because you don't understand it doesn't entitle you to mislabel it. Actually in many ways I admire their culture. Many people have views from which we all could benefit if we can dismount from our holier than thou attitude.
I'm sorry that barely human sees the human race in such negative terms. And much as I disapprove of Hillary's behavior, I don't approve of calling her slime. I think if she had higher self esteem she would set higher standards for her actions.
nelson, that was a great post, and I fully agree that Obama makes us feel we can take control of our lives, including the political decisions of our country.
kathyodat
"...but this article is about people that aren't even on most of our maps getting engaged, getting excited and turning out in record numbers to vote. So let's ALL be careful of the words we use now - we know we want a change and after Tuesday it should be pretty clear who is going to lead us to that change - kick out the Republicans and maybe even throw some of them in jail. Whoever gets the nomination, and eventually becomes president, will have this force of engaged, empowered Americans that no other president has seen. Change is coming, but not from Hillary, Barack, or Ralph, it is coming from us. We're going to make it happen."
Good points, nelson.
While I haven't gotten to the excitedly optimistic stage, I am hopeful that Obama will capture the energy that is in his campaign and be able to inspire young people to make things happen. Too many of us oldies are tired and cynical. We see "reality" through our hardened lessons.
Be that as it may, the only real and lasting change that can come from any of this is if individuals start picking themselves up off the ground and start acting. Nothing can stop the energy of a pissed-off and energized movement that has a clear vision. If Obama can fine tune that vision, I think we'll start to see the Great Turning really come to life.
iammyself, you perfectly articulated where I am and how I feel. Thank you for expressing it so well.
Perhaps you aren't so hardened and cynical as you think you are since you are also expressing hope. That's where I am too. Not excitedly optimistic, but hopefully, cautiously optimistic. And more by the masses rising up than by Obama himself. Synergy.
kathyodat
One of the many things i like about Obama is that he wants to talk with our enemies to try to make peace, rather than arrogantly refusing to talk with them - and Hilary criticises him for it, saying that he's too naive. The man is not naive, he's just sane. Something I can't say for his status quo supporting enemies.
Sorry for using an explitive -- but what is this shit with calling Hillary Clinton, "slime"? Shame on you, NRA, shame!
(unless, of course, youse is a troll, then pizz on you!!!)
I second Chuck Cliff on the slime thing. Demonization is never good. Never.
As someone who has been in and around Starr County for many years now (family in the suburbs there), it is important to understand that many Hispanics in the region have supported the Mexican PRI for decades, and the Democratic Party Clintons are very much seen as kind of an American version of that.
This is an area that is truly bi-national in culture, and as such is distinct from both Mexico and distinct from US culture, too. It is a border culture that oftentimes combines both the best and worst of both countries in its localized mix.
The candidate who expresses him or herself most eloquently in Spanish will obviously get the Latino vote.
In Canada >ahem< every politician, and anyone working in civil service, even western conservatives, know they have to speak both official languages, French and English, to get anywhere. French make up 1/5th of the population.
American politicians should make more effort than just stuffing a few tacos down their throats once every four years.
Hey Bama Oh Bama
Bama Bama Oh
Xcessively hyped
www.myspace.com/silentchurch
I've been wondering where Obama stands on supporting Roe vs. Wade. Has anyone heard him take a stand on this issue? Knowing this information will help clarify to John Q. Public the type of person a President Obama will likely nominate for the Supreme Court, if a vacancy opens up while he is in office.
I've been calling Texas for the Obama campaign and now logged 400 plus phone calls--result--Hispanics are not prejudiced against Blacks and Hispanics are inuitive and they do not want to vote for a person who will give pedantic boring speeches for 4 years- that is why Obama is uplifting to them and us-- difference is that some of us are trying to rationalize our answer with use number of issues etc- be selfish- vote for the one who you enjoy listening to and will actually pay attention to. How else can you lead anyway. Got to have people paying attention for starters.
As far as Roe vs Wade let it be said right here that McCain will nominate more conservative judges and that of course Obama will nominate a pro choice judge- maybe Hillary herself!!! Who knows- I certainly have no inside track and would not want to spread that rumor since it will only lead to Obama loosing votes.
I will say that the Hillary campaing sent me numerous misleading tracks that Obama was against pro choie which is a lie.
I was very dissapointed in NOW and other prochoice organizations participating in that lie which was done because these ladies are so set on electing a female President and don't care who it is - why they might even approve of Condi Rice- getting too desperate about gender......
What exactly did SHill do for Latinos? Lend her presence?
Clinton Admins pushed NAFTA thru Congress and signed it
Immigration Laws have remained as is.
This benefits employers like Walmart not to mention her friends in Wall Street. She likes to say how she goes toe to toe with the big industries and their lobbyists. She started in 92 fighting for universal health care She is still fighting 15 years later. Thats her experience All fight no results. That is not "toe to toe"; that is footsie. She is corrupt up to her eyebrows. Forehead still ok.
Back when Iowa was the only thing on the radar, I read an online article in a major Iowa paper discussing Clinton's appeal. There was an opportunity to post comments following the article and I left a message imploring Iowans to put the brakes on the Clinton coronation...
If only to not hear her puffed-up pontification or her shouting lectures in the years to come, endure her divisive Rovian tactics, her cynical lying political ploys or her mocking Bush-like nastiness she portrays as humor, please Latinos, crush the DLC beast once and for all.
Thanks.
Billary is slime and I have NO problem stating it.
Do you have a problem referring to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and the NeoCon horse as worse than slime? Than what about the DLC stalking horse than provided cover for, enabled and triangulated off and CONTINUES to triangulate off the worst aspects of Bush strategy of fear and division? I call that the slime that reeks the most and needs to be jettisoned into the dustbin of the most shameful periods in our history. Shut the door on the Clintons and their hawk-like strutting that actually sabotages Democratic chances.
Slime is the word.
Google "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out," and you get 2,320 hits. It's all over the Internet. But, it's blacked out here on CommonDreams.
No working class/middle class person should vote for Obama over Hillary, and especially not the working poor.
Bob K:
what a joke. Folks used to bemoan those who voted for the Right at the expense of their own economic interests and this is just more of the same.
Those who better educated oppose Clinton. Logically, it would follow,that it would be in Clinton's best interests to keep people under-educated considering Clinton's DLC was willing to throw the poor and working classes under the bus as part of the "New Democrat" approach.
Vern,
You obviously haven't read the article I mentioned above, "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out."
The "economic interest" of ordinary people is exactly the point. A vote for Obama is a vote against the economic interests of the working class, middle class and working poor.
Clinton's campaign is starting to reach the level of outrage that almost defies articulation--much in the same way that one doesn't know where to start when listing the charges against the Bush administration.
Those who post on CD are not naive and are not new to the political landscape, but here is one insurmountable point:
The Republican party is at a dispirited low point--but there is one thing that rallies their base: Hillary Clinton. In addition, her strategies sabotage the Democratic message and she triangulates on the Right's fear-mongering and hawkish world view. I detest her with a scope that you can not begin to imagine so don't try to peddle your Hillary song and dance here, especially since the article is by Matt Gonzales, Nader's running mate-surely not endorsing Clinton.
Silly article. Some silly and mean spirited comments. Beforekids, Thank you for being a beacon of light.
Vern, you can detest Hillary all you want. The article is not about Hillary. It's about Obama.
Google: "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out."
brand recognition
ho hum
A whole article about the Hispanic vote with not one mention of NAFTA, or how the candidates stand on this issue. How are people going to vote properly if they are not even informed about the basic issues that affect us? Shame on the bad journalism.
CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED (updated March 4, 2008)
What is more important, image or substance? Rhetoric or record?
Candidates' campaign speeches change from week to week. They pander to one group, then they pander to the next group. So, how do we know what they really stand for? Check their voting records!
Right now, Clinton and Obama are promising to fix NAFTA and other trade deals. But, how did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? They are promising to end the war in Iraq. How did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? Corporate welfare, environmental protection, social justice, public health, consumer protection — they've voted on all these important Progressive issues, and more!
Clinton, Obama and McCain have all been U.S. Senators for the past three years. Here's how they voted:
(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State (vote taken 1/26/2005)
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) (vote taken 2/10/2005)
Analysis: Opposed by more than 68 consumer, civil rights, environmental and labor groups, it was described as the "final [Republican] payback to the tobacco, asbestos, oil and chemical industries, at the expense of ordinary families whose health has been compromised."
Clinton: No Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(3) Dayton Amendment (S.Amdt. 31) to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act (vote taken 3/3/2005)
Analysis: Would cap credit card interest rates at 30%. Senator Dayton provided examples of predatory lenders charging vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton: Yes Obama: No McCain: No
(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (vote taken 7/29/2005)
Analysis: A corporate-welfare bill called "bad policy" by Public Citizen because it gives "billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries," rollbacks environmental regulations for the oil and gas industry, and "repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
Clinton: No Obama: Yes McCain: No
(5) Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill (vote taken 9/15/2005)
Analysis: Would prevent future trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers), by prohibiting the Commerce Department from weakening current countervailing duties and antidumping laws.
Clinton: Yes Obama: No McCain: No
(6) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court (vote taken 9/29/2005)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No Obama: No McCain: Yes
(7) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (vote taken 1/31/2006)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No Obama: No McCain: Yes
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization (vote taken 3/1/2006)
Analysis: Allows the government to spy on citizens in "fishing expeditions" without probable cause or a court order, including listening to telephone calls, intercepting emails, accessing private medical records, library records and bank records, and searching homes and businesses without permission or knowledge.
Clinton: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(9) Feinstein Amendment (S.Amdt. 4882) to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 9/06/2006)
Analysis: Outlaws use of cluster bombs in most cases, in order to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Clinton: No Obama: Yes McCain: No
(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal (2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act) (vote taken 3/29/2007)
Analysis: Provides that, "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq."
Clinton: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: No
(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (vote taken 9/26/2007)
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy).
Clinton: Yes Obama: NV McCain: NV
(12) Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 10/3/2007)
Analysis: Requires the President to safely redeploy all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, except for those needed for al Qaeda operations, security and training.
Clinton: Yes Obama: NV McCain: No
A good Progressive would have voted as follows:
(1) Condoleeza Rice: NO
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) Prevent unfair trade deals: YES
(6) John Roberts: NO
(7) Samuel Alito: NO
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization: NO
(9) Outlaw cluster bombs: YES
(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal: YES
(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NO
(12) Iraq withdrawal timeline requirement: YES
Here are the candidates' Progressive vote totals:
Clinton score: 8 of 12
Obama score: 4 of 12
McCain score: 1 of 12
Bob K: Some of us have not been asleep at the wheel through the DLC monopolization of the Democratic party which brought us NAFTA, deregulation of the media and welfare reform. We have witnessed a passive and compliant Democratic party sell our country out and enable the most damaging administration in our times. We watch now as Republicans, seemingly demoralized sit back with pleasure and watch Clinton run a negative, deceptive and unethical campaign, referring to it as a "soap opera". Rush Limbaugh encourages Republicans to go out and vote for Hillary as the candidate they would chose to run against. He mentions how she is "bloodying Obama". Pundits shrug off her fear-mongering tv ad saturating the airwaves like the Dean scream as typical of any campaign. But isn't she a Democrat? Why is she fueling the Right-wing battle front by triangulating on the Right's pattern of fear and hawkish sabre-rattling? She will stop at nothing even if it means damaging the Democratic party case for her own selfish ambition--and the Clinton DLC has monopolized the party for far too long making it irrelevant and ineffective. First things first--in order for the Democratic party to be a force to be reckoned with --the Clintons have to go--and they deserve to be run out of town on a rail.
Vern, campaign tactics is another discussion, but your "Clinton is bad" argument is persuasive, be it Hillary or Bill. And the reason they are bad, as you point out, is that they are too Republican.
That said, the question remains, how do the candidate's compare? If Clinton is bad, is Obama less bad or more bad? It turns out -- based on a straight-up comparison of their voting records, and ignoring their rhetoric -- that Obama is worse than Clinton. And the reason he is worse is that he is even more Republican than Clinton.
Obama supporters always want to point out Clinton's flaws, but they ignore Obama's even-bigger flaws.
Why elect someone who is more Republican than Hillary? It doesn't make sense.
And for those who think "image" is the important thing, let me remind you that image voters gave us that charming Texan who told us he was a "uniter, not a divider" in 2000, George W. Bush. And, before that, image voters gave us that lovable "optimist" who told us it was "Morning in America" again, back in 1980, Ronald Reagan.