Some information you may not have had
Please, please vote tomorrow. It's an enormous power we should not ignore or take for granted.
That said, I know a lot of people who are voting in the democratic primaries tomorrow and trying to decide between a vote for Hillary Clinton and one for Barack Obama. I'm sure by now you've all heard the press rhetoric (and candidate rhetoric) about experience vs. hope vs. blah blah blah. I don't think more spouting of campaign slogans is really going to help anyone.
But I spent some time on votesmart.org today, checking out voting records against something a friend said to me, and thought I'd share what I found with you.
First, a disclaimer: It's not much information at all--their voting records (when they both actually *voted*--I'm not counting times when one of them was absent) are almost identical. Out of hundreds of votes, the two candidates differed on six. Two of them were unsubstantial, in my opinion--a first draft of an enormous energy bill in 2005 (they both voted for the one that was eventually passed), and part of an amendment to the FEMA replacement bill (which was eventually passed 100-0). The remaining four differences are:
One more little tidbit--one of the votes I was most interested in was the vote on the status of detainees at Guantanamo. Obama was missing (which irritates me, honestly, although his statement of record indicates a position and can be found here), but Clinton voted to keep detainees at Guantanamo and deny them transfer to detention facilities on American soil. This surprised the hell out of me, so I thought others might not know, either.
I'm interested in hearing about how you all go about deciding for a candidate. I think we all pay a lot of tribute to issues-driven voting, but I'm not actually sure many people make decisions that way. It seems to me that the tenor of our national races has become much more about character and style than positions lately. So what's more important to you? How do you decide what knowledge about the candidates or positions is trustworthy?
That said, I know a lot of people who are voting in the democratic primaries tomorrow and trying to decide between a vote for Hillary Clinton and one for Barack Obama. I'm sure by now you've all heard the press rhetoric (and candidate rhetoric) about experience vs. hope vs. blah blah blah. I don't think more spouting of campaign slogans is really going to help anyone.
But I spent some time on votesmart.org today, checking out voting records against something a friend said to me, and thought I'd share what I found with you.
First, a disclaimer: It's not much information at all--their voting records (when they both actually *voted*--I'm not counting times when one of them was absent) are almost identical. Out of hundreds of votes, the two candidates differed on six. Two of them were unsubstantial, in my opinion--a first draft of an enormous energy bill in 2005 (they both voted for the one that was eventually passed), and part of an amendment to the FEMA replacement bill (which was eventually passed 100-0). The remaining four differences are:
- Appointment of Thomas Griffith to be US Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia circuit. Clinton voted no, Obama yes. Honestly, I'm not sure this is substantive, either. Wikipedia gives me no real clue as to why his nomination should have been controversial--his credentials seem sound, and he forgot to pay his bar dues at one point.
- Funding for exploration of "mineral resources" in the Gulf of Mexico. Clinton voted for the funding, Obama against.
- Firearm Confiscation Amendment: This would prohibit homeland security funds from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. Clinton voted against the prohibition, Obama for.
- Cluster Munitions? This would prohibit funding for cluster munitions unless it was made explicit that they wouldn't be used near civilian populations. Clinton voted against the prohibition, Obama for.
One more little tidbit--one of the votes I was most interested in was the vote on the status of detainees at Guantanamo. Obama was missing (which irritates me, honestly, although his statement of record indicates a position and can be found here), but Clinton voted to keep detainees at Guantanamo and deny them transfer to detention facilities on American soil. This surprised the hell out of me, so I thought others might not know, either.
I'm interested in hearing about how you all go about deciding for a candidate. I think we all pay a lot of tribute to issues-driven voting, but I'm not actually sure many people make decisions that way. It seems to me that the tenor of our national races has become much more about character and style than positions lately. So what's more important to you? How do you decide what knowledge about the candidates or positions is trustworthy?