Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

Now don't get me wrong. I am no friend of the DLC. Nor am I a fan of Joe Lieberman. I particularly resent some of his resent absurd comments about the War in Iraq and Democrats who oppose Bush's war policy. And I am definitely NOT a Hillary in 2008 supporter. But, when some earnest people describe Joe and Hillary as being Republicans, I think that is just plain intellectually dishonest. But don't take my word for it. Compare their records on a broad range of other issues. Let's just compare the records of Lieberman, Clinton and Mr. Moderate Republican himself, John McCain

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2003-2004.
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 8 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004."

______________________

for McCain link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

for Clinton link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

for Lieberman link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

generally speaking, yeah, sure.

thanks for the reminder of why this is.

vote smart is a wonderful way to verify this

I needed that !
The numbers don't lie.

http://www.uaw.org/cap/05/rollcall/vote01.cfm

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wgt
Clinton, Hillary ( D ) + + + + + + + + + + 110 %
Schumer, Charles ( D ) + + + + + + + + + + 110 %



** Those Senators who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus in their UAW Support Percentage.

If you publish a typo from a source you use (sic) to indicate that it is as it was in the source. Nothing like that in this list.

110% should be a mathematical impossibility. It raises the question of how many of the other organizations are calling percentages something that is more like a grade school blue book score?

There is nothing like sending me back to check every source to lose my interest.

You raised a concern about one of the numbers. That concern has been put to rest. It turns out that the number was correct, and was taken directly from the UAW website.

Furthermore, it wasn't a typo. Note the part above in bold italics:

** Those Senators who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus in their UAW Support Percentage.

** Those Senators who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus in their UAW Support Percentage.

* Issues #2 (Overtime Pay) is highlighted because it was a priority UAW issues. Because of its importance, this vote is given double weight in this Voting Record.

Not good. Disappointing, really, it raises doubts that mean the entire list has to be vetted to the original sources to be trusted.

The UAW gives out scores based on whatever criteria they want. Calling it "manipulated" is only correct in the sense that *all* these interest groups hand out scores using whatever criteria they want.

The UAW score from the which was listed on project vote smart has now been shown to be correct. I fail to see what the problem is here.

But, thanks for being interested enough to respond.

I am not speaking about geometry so mathematical definitions of obtuse can be set aside. My point isn't clouded in any way; it is as obvious as one might make it. Neither is it very difficult to understand: the data presented as percentages isn't percentage data (And that is before any consideration of whether sample sizes warrant the use of percentage or interpretations of comparisons are justified).

Running down into the lesser used definitions of obtuse, I didn't think it showed a particular lack of intellect as in the sentence "Obtuse may be used to indicate something which lacks evidence of intellect, or is stupid"

I think perhaps you meant orthogonal. Which is to say, more or less perpendicular to another axis. That might be a word choice as in "I think your comments have little to do with the main direction of the thread."

To that criticism, I suggest that any argument based on "data" hinges on that data passing a critical (which is to say considered judgement) evaluation. An _a priori_ assumption of any critical thinker should be that an advocacy group has reason to be biased in its generation of data. If we aren't critical of information we get misled--as in a Congress full of members believing Saddam had WMDs, though the original post under consideration hasn't such import. Interest groups have the potential to mislead just as surely as any other political organization.

But, to reiterate my point in the earlier replies...plain and simple, the UAW score isn't a percentage as it purports to be.

It includes a 10 point bias (a 10 point extra credit much like might be seen as a gift to a favored student on a grade school exam). Also, the UAW score also has weighted an issue, so the final sums don't reflect equal contributions of the component issues.

Now, IMHO and I think all statisticians involved in producing valid polls, providing extra credit and weighting are manipulations of the data. "Manus" is the Latin root of the word manipulate. Manus means hand. Manipulated means handled, which includes such activity as the shaping of clay, and the shaping of issues that result in shaped data.

Of course the UAW can score how ever they want. Each group can do that; and, therein lies the rub.

By reporting scores that aren't what they appear to be, the comparisons unfortunately can't be trusted to be what they purport to be, either. A post that includes one such piece of bad information may include others. Doubt gets raised, or perhaps should be raised for critical thinkers which I hope many DUers are.

Each of the rating agencies cited by the OP chose topics because they are of interest to their organization and possibly their support of one or more political factions or agenda (How will we know, unless we critically attempt to understand each agency?) Such choice is its own sort of weighting and beyond this weighting n making some questions be of greater worth is becomes a privileging of opinions that favor the agency (_nothing_ precludes them from doing that indeed we ought to expect it). In the end, each assessing agency may have applied their finger to the balance by adding extra credit, as in the case of the UAW data, until we check we can't know...as in so many cases, how many people bother to do that checking?

Evenso, generally educated, usually critical, thinker might expect that comparisons done by each rating group are comparable. But the UAW's weren't, because of the bias and weighting of particular issues. How many of the other agencies suffer similar problems? The reader can't know until every basis of all the comparisons are critically evaluated. Who wants to spend that time? Not most of us.

Clearly the OP went to a lot of trouble. And I was much appreciating the thread until I caught the scent of the intial data problem.

IMHO a thread based on data is subject to the scrutiny of that data. One problem, found on a cursory read, is a warning flag that others may exist. The data in the post may or may not be what it seems to be. One misrepresentation causes all the all the data to be suspect. That is the nature of critically thinking about data.

we learn something new every day

But getting back the the issue at hand: The UAW gave hillary a 110% score, which you considered a "red flag." The 110% score has been checked, and it has been established that the 110% score is in fact the score which Hillary was awarded by the UAW.

So, all the data is not suspect. We can now feel fairly confident that Project Vote Smart has correctly and faithfully copied the interest group ratings from the various groups which awarded them.

If your beef is with the 110% score, you should take it up with the UAW. But you are completely missing the point if you really believe that the inclusion of one score -- a score which later was shown to be correct -- would somehow throw the entire data set into doubt.

We're not measuring the atomic nucleus here; these are interest group ratings. Each rating is a rough measure of the degree to which a particular officeholder has supported the agenda of that interest group. Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds here, but I can't help wondering if perhaps your concern is not with the accuracy of the data itself, but rather with trying to perpetuate the characterization of certain Democrats as being no different from Republicans. The picture painted by these interest group ratings could not possibly be more clear, and shows that there is indeed a significant difference.

I think we need to be careful when we compare Lieberma or Clinton to the Rethugs in power. No, they are not the best people to represent us but to say there is no difference between them and the extreme members of the Republican party is a bit much. I wish more people would check into actual voting records before spouting off on how neocon this or that Democrat is.

some of Lieberman's links to groups searching for "unAmerican" activities among it's citzenry? The war, and it's questions and the question's about the way this country is conducting itself concerning international law is a little issue the ratings might not be taking into account, but can't be dismissed. No, they are not republicans just as some "moderate" republicans aren't democrats. However, I as a voter, can take issue with some things they agree with republicans on no matter how few. I'm not against Hillary Clinton, but I can't say the same about Lieberman. He is helping the most dishonest administration I have lived through.

before you start slinging out innuendo and slander?

concerning this here a time back. I will try and find information and/or links for you.

There are all sort so "threads," and as we've seen some of them are utter horseshit.

and some others in government were trying to form, I was wondering what you thought about The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman group that put out a blacklist concerning colleges and universities and professors?

what does Joe Lieberman have to do with it EXACTLY.

This report puts the onus squarely on Lynne Cheney alone.....

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=16

And another group noted it was founded as a non-partisan organization that was hijacked by Lynne Cheney....

http://www.nas.org/affiliates/virginia/troublstate/vaspress9802.htm

Nobody that I've seen suggests Lieberman has anything to do with its recent activities.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12355


You will notice the group itself makes no claim that its efforts are "bipartisan" or "supported by both Democrats and Republicans" or any such malarkey.

It doesn't even come close to meeting your claim.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While I disagree with her pandering of as late as unhelpful, I would say you definitely come under the banner as anti-Hillary.

The rule is always true - even when Joe is involved.

from vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC031069

"2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 20 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 24 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 4 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 100 percent in 2004. (my hat off to Sen.Chuck Hagel on this one--I almost didn't want to post it-but that would not be fair since I posted it for the others)

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 9 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Family Research Council 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 87 percent in 2004."

2003-2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004.

That in itself almost cancels any sane views on war he might have.

Apparently you people want to talk about political stuff...


:P

Not really. I knew it all along.

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004"

Heh. The UAW team coach is proud, I'm sure.

In fact on core Democratic value issues they are well in the mainstream of the party.

I certainly hope he isn't mainstream in my party. That means I'm out I guess.

In a race of a centrist Democrat vs. a centrist Repub for the Presidency, how will the "indecideds" vote?

I choose Sen. Collins because she is regarded-not as a moderate Republican-but as a LIBERAL pro-choice Republican; and almost certainly the most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate


This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 20 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 56 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 45 percent in 2004.

__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 50 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 18 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Education Association 55 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 42 percent in 2003-2004
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 32 percent in 2003-2004.


_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 40 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Family Research Council 17 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 66 percent in 2004
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 68 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 8 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 43 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

for Collins link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC032786

for Clinton link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

for Lieberman link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

I am not a fan of either Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton. I just think that criticism of anyone should be at least somewhat factual and taken in context.

Please let me plug vote smart again. It is easy to look up any member of Congress and almost any candidate of significance:

link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

of the time. So one would normally expect similar results on the ratings. But let me tell you something. Anyone who allows radical justices to take the bench without a fight WILL NOT GET MY VOTE OR SUPPORT. For instance, if you vote for reproductive rights, but allow justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, do you support or are you against Roe v. Wade since the end result could be to end Roe v. Wade? Also, anybody who condones or allows without a fight breaking international law and the Geneva conventions WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. Anyone who supports degradation of our constitutional liberties WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. These are the issues of our time and our generation. Voting with the dems on every other issue becomes muted or somewhat less effective.


It's a process of weight and balance. How much harm is this vs. what positives. It's not that cut or dry of a situation for myself on such major issues of such major proportion. Myself, I support Clinton for her senate seat though I have issues with her, but not president and I do not support Lieberman for his senate seat or president. It's my perogative. I'm not less of a democrat for that position.

I simply want to point out that even Sen. Lieberman is far, far more progressive than Mr. Moderate Republican himself Sen. McCain and even far more progressive than Ms. Liberal Republican herself Sen. Collins.

I feel that for all those votes that occur on lots and lots of issues, most of which get little attention at the time but still affect countless millions of lives, it is still worth it to vote for the most progressive electable candidate. Even Noam Chomsky admitted voting to reelect President Clinton back in 1996. Because he felt that when all was done and said, electing the most progressive electable candidate was still worth it.

For me it is the primaries that gives the opportunity to totally vote ones conscience and apply whatever limit test we have to the candidates.
I recall the story of the late Senator Al Gore Senior. When someone said to him, "you would vote for Satan himself if he was a Democrat". The old Senator smiled and replied, "yes, but not in the primaries".

and also hold onto weighted historical questions. I also look at the overall voting pattern of congress to determine risk on issues.

according to her track record of her votes on all the issues. About the only Senators who ranked higher as far as voting progressively, and as far as people regularly discussed here at DU, were names like Kennedy, Boxer, and Obama. Hillary's record shows her to be way more progressive than even Kerry who ranked about halfway among Democrats, at #24, one notch above #25 Joe Biden.
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=49&y=12

I think it's absurd how she gets labeled all the time around here as a "rightwing neocon" or as "pandering to the right" or something similar. Yet the rightwing neocons themselves label her as the exact opposite. Figure that.

I certainly am not happy with a number of positions held by the former President. There are positions held by Sen. Clinton I am not happy with.

However, any criticism should be kept within reality and context.

The right wing hates her for a reason.