Compare And Contrast: Hillary, Obama, And Lieberman's Votes On Iraq
Here's a new-and-improved version of our massive chart comparing the Iraq war votes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — this time we've decided to throw in Joe Lieberman's votes, so you can compare his votes to those of Hillary and Obama.
The chart is very revealing: It demonstrates Lieberman's increasing trend of voting with the GOP on everything from detainee treatment, to military commissions, to regime change in Iran, to resolutions on Iraq, to the recently-passed timetable for withdrawal, and even procedural motions on whether or not to debate the subject at all.
Another interesting pattern: Lieberman's breaking ranks with Dems has steadily grown much more frequent over time as the war progressed — and especially after his 2006 reelection as an Independent. Since then he's voted with the GOP on war-related questions far more frequently than he did in the past. Check out the full chart after the jump.
|
VOTE |
CLINTON |
OBAMA |
LIEBERMAN |
DESCRIPTION |
|
SR38, #4, 02/07/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
A resolution commending the people of Iraq on the January 30, 2005, national elections. |
|
HR1268, #89, 04/12/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Waive Sec. 402, S. Con. Res. 95 (108th) "Emergency designation" Re: Murray Amdt. No. 344, As Modified; To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans. |
|
HR1268, #90, 04/12/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Waive C.B.A. Re: Murray Amdt. No. 344, As Modified; To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans. |
|
HR1268, #93, 04/13/05 |
N |
N |
N |
Byrd Amdt. No. 367; To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for "Military Construction, Army", with the amount of the reduction to be allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. |
|
HR1268, #96, 04/18/05 |
Y |
Missed Vote |
Y |
Byrd Amdt. No. 464; To express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. |
|
HR1268, #103, 04/19/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke cloture on HR 1268, As Amended; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 |
|
HR1268, #104, 04/20/05 |
N |
N |
Y |
Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 471; To reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later. |
|
HR 1268, #109, 04/21/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H.R. 1268 As Amended; EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 |
|
HR1268, #117, 05/10/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H. R. 1268 Conference Report; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 |
|
S1042, #199, 06/21/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Warner Amdt. No. 1314 as Modified; Toincrease, with an offset, amounts available for the procurement of wheeled vehicles for the Army and the Marine Corps and for armor for such vehicles. |
|
S1042, #205, 07/26/05 |
N |
N |
N |
Motion To Invoke Cloture On S. 1042; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 |
|
HR 2862, #228, 09/14/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion To Suspend Paragraph 4, Rule XVI RE: Dorgan Amdt. No. 1670; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. |
|
HR2863, #247, 10/05/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Is the Amendment No. 1955, as modified,germane to H.R.2863; To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. |
|
HR2863, #248, 10/05/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Waive C.B.A. re: Bayh Amdt. No. 1933; To increase by $360,800,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Other Procurement, Army, for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to increase by $5,000,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for industrial preparedness for the implementation of a ballistics engineering research center. |
|
HR2863, #252, 10/05/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 2863;Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 |
|
HR2863, #254, 10/07/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H.R. 2863 As Amended; Department ofDefense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 |
|
HR3058, #259, 10/19/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Suspend Rule XVI, Paragraph 4 Re: Dorgan Amdt. No. 2078; To establish a special committee of the Senate on war and reconstruction contracting. |
|
S1042, #309, 11/08/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Levin Amdt. No. 2430; To establish a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001. |
|
S1042, #316, 11/10/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Dorgan Amdt. No. 2476; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. |
|
S1042, #318, 11/10/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Kerry Amdt. No. 2507 As Amended; To require reports on clandestine facilities for the detention of individuals captured in the global war on terrorism. |
|
S1042, #319, 11/10/05 |
N |
N |
Y |
Graham Amdt. No. 2516; Relating to the review of the status of detainees of the United States Government. |
|
S1042, #322, 11/15/05 |
Y |
Y |
N |
Levin Amdt. No. 2519; To clarify andrecommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq. |
|
S1042, #323, 11/15/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Warner Amdt. No. 2518; To clarify andrecommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq. |
|
S1042, #324, 11/15/05 |
Y |
Y |
N |
Bingaman Amdt. No. 2523; To provide for judicial review of detention of enemy combatants. |
|
S1042, #325, 11/15/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Levin Amdt. No. 2519; To clarify andrecommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq. |
|
S1042, #326, 11/15/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
S. 1042 As Amended; National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 |
|
HR2863, #359, 12/19/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Proceed to the Conference Report toAccompany H.R. 2863; Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 |
|
HR1815, #360, 12/19/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Proceed to Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1815; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 |
|
HR2863, #364, 12/21/05 |
N |
N |
N |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2863; Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 |
|
HR2863, #366, 12/21/05 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H.R. 2863 Conference Report; Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 |
|
HR4939, #101, 04/27/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Byrd Amdt. No. 3709; To express the sense of the Senate on requests for funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal years after fiscal year 2007. |
|
HR4939, #103, 05/02/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 4939;Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 |
|
HR4939, #112, 05/04/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H.R. 4939 As Amended; EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 |
|
S2766, #168, 06/13/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Frist Amdt. No. 4208; To express the sense of Congress that the United States Armed Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies, as well as the coalition partners of the United States and the Iraqi Security Forces should be commended for their actions that resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist organization and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq. |
|
S2766, #170, 06/14/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
McCain Amdt. No. 4242; To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations. |
|
S2766, #172, 06/15/06 |
N |
N |
Y |
Santorum Amdt. No. 4234; To authorize, with an offset, assistance for prodemocracy programs and activities inside and outside Iran, to make clear that the United States supports the ability of the people of Iran to exercise self-determination over their form of government, and to make enhancements to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. |
|
S2766, #174, 06/15/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. 4269; To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit. |
|
S2766, #176, 06/20/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Dorgan Amdt. No. 4292; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. |
|
S2766, #177, 06/20/06 |
N |
N |
N |
McConnell Amdt. No. 4272 As Modified; To affirm the Iraqi Government position of no amnesty for terrorists who have attacked U.S. forces. |
|
S2766, #178, 06/20/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265; To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States. |
|
S2766, #181, 06/22/06 |
N |
N |
N |
Kerry Amdt. No. 4442; To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror. |
|
S2766, #182, 06/22/06 |
Y |
Y |
N |
Levin Amdt. No. 4320; To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on Iraq. |
|
S2766, #183, 06/22/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2766; JohnWarner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
|
S2766, #186, 06/22/06 |
Y |
Y |
Missed Vote |
S. 2766 As Amended; John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |
|
HR5631, #225, 08/03/06 |
Y |
Y |
Missed Vote |
Boxer Amdt. No. 4858; To prohibit the use of funds by the United States Government to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject members of the Armed Forces to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or punishment under Iraq law. |
|
HR5631, #233, 09/06/06 |
N |
N |
Missed Vote |
Motion to Table Kennedy Amdt. No. 4885; To include information on civil war in Iraq in the quarterly reports on progress toward military and political stability in Iraq. |
|
HR5631, #236, 09/07/06 |
N |
N |
Missed Vote |
Motion to Table Menendez Amdt. No. 4909; To prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East and create a database of news stories to promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq. |
|
HR5631, #237, 09/07/06 |
N |
N |
Missed Vote |
Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 4897; To make available up to an additional $700,000,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and trade of opium, and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to designate the additional amount as emergency spending. |
|
HR5631, #239, 09/07/06 |
Y |
Y |
Missed Vote |
H.R. 5631 As Amended; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 |
|
HR4954, #243, 09/13/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Waive CBA Re: Reid Amdt. No.4936;To provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror. |
|
S3930, #254, 09/27/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Levin Amdt. No. 5086; In the nature of a substitute. |
|
S3930, #255, 09/28/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Specter Amdt. No. 5087; To strike the provision regarding habeas review. |
|
S3930, #256, 09/28/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Rockefeller Amdt. No. 5095; To provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. |
|
S3930, #257, 09/28/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Byrd Amdt. 5104; To prohibit the establishment of new military commissions after December 31, 2011. |
|
S3930, #259, 09/28/06 |
N |
N |
Y |
On Passage, S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006 |
|
HR5631, #261, 09/29/06 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
H.R.5631 Conference Report; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 |
|
Petraeus Conf., #33, 01/26/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Confirmation Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army, to be General |
|
SCR2, #43, 02/01/07 |
N |
N |
N |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed to S.Con.Res.2; A concurrent resolution expressing the bipartisan resolution on Iraq. |
|
S470, #44, 02/05/07 |
Y |
Y |
N |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq. |
|
Casey Conf., #45, 02/08/07 |
N |
Y |
Y |
Confirmation Gen. George W. Casey to be Chief of Staff, U.S. Army |
|
S574, #51, 02/17/07 |
Y |
Y |
N |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed to S.574; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq. |
|
SJR9, #74, 03/14/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed to Consider S. J. Res. 9; A joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq. |
|
SJR9, #75, 03/15/07 |
Y |
Y |
N |
S. J. Res. 9; A joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq. |
|
SR107, #76, 03/15/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
S. Res. 107; A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or impact their ability to complete their assigned or future missions. |
|
SCR20, #77, 03/15/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
S. Con. Res. 20; A concurrent resolutionexpressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission. |
|
HR1591, #116, 3/27/07 |
N |
N |
Y |
Cochran Amd. No. 643; To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. |
|
HR1591, #117, 3/28/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1591; U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007 |
|
HR1591, #124, 3/29/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Biden Amdt. No. 739; To appropriate an additional $1,500,000,000 for Procurement, Marine Corps, to accelerate the procurement of an additional 2,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for the Armed Forces. |
|
HR1591, #125, 3/29/07 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Is Section 431 of the Senate Language to H.R. 1591 Germane?; In the nature of a substitute. |
|
HR1591, #126, 3/29/07 |
Y |
Y |
N |
H.R. 1591, As Amended; U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007 |















Thanks for the updated compilation. The missed votes, of course, were right during the heat of the election following the primary where Joe got summarily shown the boot by Democratic voters here in Connecticut. This allowed him to further hoodwink the voters about his hawkery and subservience to the Bush Administration.
He's a weasel.
I'd like to say "But he's OUR weasel", but even that no longer works.
Again, thanks for pulling together these votes. It's informative.
March 30, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the Edwards' comparisons with Hillary and Obama?
March 30, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards and Obama have not served together in the Senate. Edwards left the Senate after the 2004 election, the same time as Obama entered, so we just can't know.
March 30, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First rate work, Greg. Should remain essential for the campaign ahead.
March 30, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nitpicking: The vote on the amended military commissions act isn't in bold...
March 30, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fixed. Thanks for spotting it.
March 30, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there ever any doubt on why Clinton and Obama never could make time to come actively campaign in CT against Lieberman during the general election? They could have muscled open the wall the CT media had created to protect Lieberman and his image from the electorate's investigation. All that we received for the entire campaign was the Lieberman narrative. Clearly, they chose to abandon Lamont and the progressive majority of the Democratic Party.
March 30, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am as appalled as you sound over the lack of support Lamont got from Clinton and Obama (and that late e-mail from Obama doesn't count too much as support). But even had they appeared in person to support Lamont, I still tend to think the local media would have focused on Clinton and Obama, and ignored Lieberman's issues. Those missed votes were critical for his ability to portray himself as tortured over the war.
The local media probably still would have allowed that theme to prevail, no matter who showed up.
I'd love to see the Hartford Courant focus on these votes.
But it ain't going to happen.
Ever.
March 30, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm honestly one of their defenders on this point. While I certainly would have voted for Lamont if I lived in Connecticut, there are only so many hours in a day and so many dollars in the bank. Since Lieberman pledged to organize with the Democrats, it was a better use of time, money and political capital to go campaigning in races where Democrats were running against Republicans — Virginia, Montana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, etc.
Let me put it this way: Given finite resources for campaigning, would you rather have had Ned Lamont win in Connecticut, but George Allen beating Jim Webb in Virginia, or vice-versa?
March 30, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be easier to understand these data if they were converted to monthly percent desirable values and put on bar chart. I have done this, but have no website to post it. There could be two different versions, one where "not present to vote" leaves a gap, and the other where that is converted to an undesirable vote. Of course, there could be some debate over what is desirable on some of these votes. For example, I consider the confirmation of Petraeus undesirable...
If someone has a place to put my bar chart, I would be happy to supply it.
March 30, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Somehow Kerry and Clark found the time to help out Lamont. Edwards came right after Lamont's primary victory, but Kerry and Clark were excellent advocates for Lamont even at the end, when many abandoned Lamont. That's called being decent and loyal, and fighting for certain ideals. It also makes more sense now than ever what with Lieberman having taken Swift Boat donor Sam Fox's money (the now withdrawn nominee for Ambassador to Belgium) and Lieberman supporting him knowing full well that Fox had funded smears against a veteran and fellow Senator. I doubt Kerry OR Clark regret taking some of their time out to campaign for Lamont. I was particularly disappointed with Obama on this, because he was supposed to come to CT, and then cancelled on him, which I think was wrong. (For the record, I'm undecided for '08)
March 30, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given limited resources, yes, it's better to have Lieberman in CT and Webb in VA than Lamont in CT and Allen in VA. Yes. But Lieberman is so close to the Republicans on the major issue facing our country that it's frustrating to realize that it might have been prevented.
Bill Clinton's visit on behalf of Lieberman before the primary got wall to wall coverage for Joe from the loca media. The same visit for Lamont would have had the same effect and highlighted how isolated Lieberman is from the party. I understand the point about Hillary Clinton and Obama (but I guess I missed when Hillary did all that campaigning for Webb--when Hillary donated significant money to other campaigns)but there were other nationally known Democrats (Hello, Bill!) who could have stepped in and didn't.
March 30, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Eric. Very informative.
March 30, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you provide links to the overall roll calls on each of those votes? It would be nice to know where the Democratic hawks and doves (if those words still make any sense in the early 21st century) stand on each of these votes.
March 30, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main page for Senate roll calls is right here.
March 30, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
pffft. Anyone can see that focusing on a narrow yes/no approach fails to capture the difference in the quality of the votes.
wink wink nudge nudge.
Nice work.
March 30, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can e-mail it to me at eric.stepp (at) projectlucidity (dot) com.
I'll host it on my site for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
March 30, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find most interesting is the apparent lack of difference between Clinton and Obama voting. Certainly doesn't seem to show any real ideological difference between the two, vis-a-vis, their voting records.
Also, I'm interested that between Clinton and Obama, the only differing vote was on confirming General Casey (other than missed votes). For some reason, the supposedly "pro-war" Clinton voted against confirming Casey, yet Obama did.
[Edit] Oops. I guess just ignore this. I didn't see Eric's original post stating pretty much exactly what I did.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
March 30, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can tell ya we could have used Obama out here in the IL-06 too. He was all over the country last year making appearances for other candidates. He made a TV commercial for Duckworth early in the primary and then one appearance at a GOTV rally the day before the Nov. election but that was about it.
Same with Bill Clinton. One appearance in Chicago for all our candidates. Hillary probably would have hurt as much as helped out here though she and Kerry did pony up dollars to air those commercials Obama made for the primary.
March 30, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because these are monday morning QB votes. The difference between HRC and Barack are in the JUDGEMENT and DECISON making process to GO to war. HRC voted with conviction to give the President carteblanche authority to wage war whereas Barack said NO WAY would he have voted for the war. He called this a DUMB WAR, while he was campaigning in the primaries for the US Senate. He stepped out and took the risk.
HRC's votes now, simply reflect her common sense approach to cleaning up the disaster she helped create. Whereas, Obama's reasoning reflects the judgement to AVOID getting into such a debacle.
Who cares? Hillary is overcompensating for a huge error in judgement. She now wants credit for holding a shovel to clean up Mt Everest mess. If she had read the NIE report or voted with the ranking Dem member of the Senate Intelligence committee she wouldn't need the friggin shovel. It is too little too late.
March 30, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I was particularly disappointed with Obama on this, because he was supposed to come to CT, and then cancelled on him, which I think was wrong."
Please provide details.
March 30, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman would have won even if both Clintons and Obama had spent three months campaigning for your boy from the Round Hill Country Club in Greenwhich whose idea of public service experience was to volunteer teaching for a couple of months at Harding High School in Bridgeport. You would know how little big-name endorsements mean to most voters if any of you had ever spent time in gritty Derby and Seymour and Ansonia and Waterbury (whose Democratic Mayor campaigned for Lieberman AFTER the primary), or if you ever spent a day in tony Wilton, Darien and Weston (where few people care whom the Clintons endorse) whose voters turned out in droves to make sure a tax-raising liberal like Lamont never got to the Senate except for the visitors gallery. What saved Joe was Republican Schlesinger's joke of a candidacy and Harry Reid's understandable reluctance to knife someone whose vote was very likely to be crucial to his becoming Majority Leader.
Go ahead and blame the local media like George Allen did for his loss. The fact is Lamont didn't know how to make the media make him into more than a one-issue candidate.
March 31, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was never a vote on whether to go to war. Clinton opposed Bush's war from the beginning. But the main stream media isn't going to tell you about that.
Had Obama been in the Senate in October, 2002, he'd probably have sided with Bush on Iraq.
March 31, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Big name endorsements" probably do matter to most voters, because most voters are low information voters--. The comment about "gritty" places voting for Joe seems odd in light of the fact that Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford all went big for Lamont.
"your boy from the Round Hill Country Club in Greenwhich" does a very nice job of echoing the "millionaire Ned Lamont" theme that the local media was stuck on for months.
What saved Joe was his successful camouflaging of his true positions, made possible by the irresponsible pieces done by media outlets like the NY Times, and the total lack of critical examination of Lieberman by the news print media in CT. And, yes, Alan Schlesinger.
March 31, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, the chart is up at:
http://www.projectlucidity.com/docs/clinton_obama_lieberman_vote_compare.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
March 31, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want Hillary vs Edwards, there's this series of diaries at Dailykos. Link goes to the last entry in the series which has links to parts 1 and 2. It covers *every* vote on which Hillary and Edwards differed.
March 31, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank G-d smug little liberals like you--with your disgusting condescension towards "low information" voters-- are stuck with him until 2013.
March 31, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This really isn't a zero-sum game. For the most part, campaigning in Connecticut would have had nothing to do with campaigning in Virginia, Montana, Ohio, etc. What was particularly galling was to see so many establishment Dems not simply refuse to campaign for Lamont, but to openly endorse Lieberman's plan to run against the Democratic nominee.
I have to say, it's really quite disappointing to see the party leaders ignore the will of the party electorate. It kind of makes one question what the purpose of a political party is. It is anti-democratic when the party leaders decide to substitute their own judgment about who they should support in the place of the judgment of the body of the party.
Really, the entire process sickened me, and has turned me off from giving any money to national party institutions.
April 1, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This race had nothing to do with money, Lamont proved he was willing to fund his own campaign. Nothing would have been taken away from allen or any other Dem.
And it was the MESSAGE that Lamont would have projected nationwide that was important.
The MAIN irritant in both Clinton and Obama not coming here to stand beside Lamont, is Clinton was an hour drive away , and Obama not only was in PA and MA, but drove through CT on his way to MA. ONE lousy hour of their time was all we asked.
April 1, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong! The image of Bill or Hillary Clinton or Obama, the latest hero, standing next to Ned Lamont would have gone a long way towards 'selling' him to the 30% Dems who chose Lieberman, and the 54% of Independents. The Democratic leadership, DCCC, DSCC, etc all backed away from Lamont, giving the impression that even the leadership was not supportive of him. Standing 13 hours at the polls, people were telling me "Joe is still a Democrat". These were the naive, gullible, un-informed masses who never went so far as to check out Joe's voting record and what those votes, like Energy really meant. They BELIEVED it when Joe said HE saved Groton submarine, when it was an entire TEAM of all politicians who did it.
Anybody who ever had the opportunity to go and hear Ned speak, knew he was far more than a one-issue candidate.
NOW we have Lieberman wanting to ADD another tax strictly for his illegal occupation of Iraq, called a War Tax. Not bad enough 70% of the people don't even want this occupation, but he wants us to PAY for it specifically now too.
I can only assume there are lots of CT voters who now moan over the decision they made last November when they colored in Joe instead of Ned.
April 1, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indulging in the creation of an urban legend?
You are apparently referring to Obama's book tour which started in New York at noon. His plane was delayed by weather on a New York to Boston flight and he missed the Mass Democratic candidate for governor's fund-raiser; went to the JFK library for an event; made up missing the previous fund-raiser with one that was arranged for the next morning; and then flew on to Philly. After his events there, Obama flew on to the rest of his book tour.
No driving going on at all. Weather seemed to have been an issue at the time. And his events were booked months in advance with "wiggle room" to make up for inevitable delays and "missed" events.
If Lamont's campaign wanted an appearance, it should have been scheduled well ahead of time. It wasn't. Too bad. Learn how to schedule campaign events and do better next time.
April 1, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmm... flog my book or work towards a Democratic Senate majority? Guess I'll do some signing. What a disappointment of a Demcorat.
April 1, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"October 5, 2006: Independent Joseph Lieberman Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) has increased his margin over Democrat Ned Lamont by eight points. He now leads the antiwar candidate 50% to 40%."
What a disappointment of a Democrat Lamont was. Followed by his campaign manager and the folks responsible for scheduling folks to appear at rallies. No magician could have pulled the rabbit out of the hat for Lamont. Get over it.
April 1, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Red Herring. Lamont's faults have nothing to do with Obama (and loads of other Dems) failing to do the right thing, i.e. support their party's chosen candidate.
April 1, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I used the term "low information" to refer to those who aren't obsessed with politics. You interpret it to mean a negative. It's not. It's an objective fact--most voters don't pay extremely close attention to primaries or elections until a few weeks before voting day.
If you can't argue the points, could you at least keep your adhominem to a minimum?
April 2, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the chart... I know most people have moved along. The bars show that, except where Obama missed a vote, he and Clinton are essentially identical (people have figured this out by now). The gaps reflect either a value of zero, no votes that month, or missing a vote (so values could not be assigned).
April 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, it is still nice to have.
April 4, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice to be able to upload an occasional graph, here! I really appreciate Eric's help.
April 4, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink