Media: Obama Supporter Can't Name One Legislative Accomplishment

Funniest moment on tv last night. From Hardball. TX state senator Kirk Watson gets grilled by Chris Matthews:

< Obama as Muhammad Ali? | Hillary's Youngstown Speech and NAFTA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    FFAT Act of 2006 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    No one should be allowed to be in front of a camera without being drilled on how to answer that.

    He should have read Hilzoy first. (none / 0) (#10)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    Awesome.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    I would love for people to see an African American woman standing up for Hillary and another mediocre white guy, being that mediocre. But then again, mediocrity among men in public office is the standard.

    Now, I'm as mediocre as the next guy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    But that doesn't mean I'm not good at it.

    Come on now, at least we try.



    He's all about building coalitions (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    to win what?  Not only did he not address past accomplishments, he did not address future priorities.

    But this campaign is bringing people together.  So what?  So do the raves in my town -- with a lot of the same people.

    Togetherness (none / 0) (#76)
    by piezo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    If I were a Republican and could see that McCain was a shoe-in, I would cast my vote for the easiest one to beat in the other party's nomination. How many of Obama's voters are in this category? We'll see. One thing is for sure, his supporters really hate Hillary as much as any back-stabbing right-winger.

    Leave it to the Dems to cock-up everything with these stupid election rules that allow open elections. It does looks like the Obama worshipers are going to get that pony they always wanted. Yeeehaaaa!


    No MEN (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    I will insist on that.  Mediocre white men is the number one protected class in America.  In public office they dominate.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    Older keeps inching older, though.

    Now it's over 65s that she wins.


    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    60 is the new 40.  

    He should have read Hilzoy (none / 0) (#7)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST

    Some of the most intelligent policy posts (dating back to 2006) about Obama and Clinton are present on that site.

    That's WHY I never really Understood the (none / 0) (#12)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    idea that Hillary was the best candidate?
    With all do respect.....what is her greatest accoplishment?
    At least Biden (and Richardson, Dodd) it would seem, were light years ahead of Hillary and Barak, in terms of "accomplishments"-

    SCHIP, for one (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    Let me know if you need to know what the initials mean.

    Actually (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    that's one of Bill Clinton's accomplishments.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by notableabsence on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    it was passed during the Clinton admin. but it was the first lady, HRC who worked with Sen. Kennedy and others to create smaller initiatives from her 1993 health care plan (how's that for vision, universal health care 15 yrs before it was "in") that could garner bipartisan support.  In other words, HRC was INSTRUMENTAL in creating this program.  This may come as a shock, but HRC did more than just have tea parties as first lady.

    I agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    To be clear, I give Hillary lots of credit for her experience working on SCHIP.  But to my mind, a "legislative accomplishment" is an accomplishment as a legislator.  You've got to compare apples to apples, is my point.

    let's do a comparison (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    From the Fact Hub:
    There is an email circulating that grossly misrepresents Hillary's legislative record, as well as the record of Sen. Obama. (Various versions appear on the Obama campaign website here, here, and here.)

    The email only gives Hillary credit for bills where she was the original sponsor and have also been signed into law. Here are the facts. In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:

    -- a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.

    -- a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.

    -- a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:

    -- Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.

    -- Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.

    -- Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available over the counter.

    Meanwhile, the email gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law. The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the email applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:

    -- a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    -- a bill that named a post office.


    did his "experience" do for the country?

    problem was (none / 0) (#93)
    by sas on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    with Bush the media gave him a free pass.

    So they do with Obama.
    Lite and charismatic wins the day.

    Wanna have a beer with Obama or Hillary?


    heh (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:50:43 PM EST
    Good grief.

    You call that a choice??


    Because (none / 0) (#24)
    by magisterludi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST
     the GOP blocked Clinton at every move. Don't think that won't be the case for Obama, either. The fact is that BHO has been as much or more calculated than HRC in his short political career, he won't be willing to put up a fight if he feels it would tarnish his magical unity pony image. A muppet as president is a thought I find frightening.

    What are Clinton's legislative accomplishments? (none / 0) (#15)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    Naming a courthouse?  Supporting Kyl-Lieberman?  Trying to ban flag-burning?  For all their talk of experience and competence, Clinton supporters don't really talk specifics about her actual record.

    SChip (none / 0) (#20)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    She got that talking point out there so it's at the tip of my brain.

    He needs to do the same.


    SCHIP (none / 0) (#25)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    Was passed during Bill Clinton's presidency when Hillary was not in elected office.  She worked on it, but she can't really claim it as her legislative accomplishment.

    Yes she can, if she worked on it (none / 0) (#27)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:06:59 AM EST
    Yes and no (none / 0) (#31)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    It's relevant experience but it's not the same as getting a bill passed in your own right.  

    It's legislative experienced (none / 0) (#34)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST
    can you name a single bill that someone passed single-handedly?

    Please. I am an Obama supporter, but the woman deserves credit for what she worked on.

    She also deserves responsibility for supporting the war in Iraq. That's what her "experience" told her was the right thing to do.


    And where were Obama's principles... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    ...during this interview?

    MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton's campaign will say since you've been a senator there's been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you've not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of '04, Barack Obama, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of '04. And this: "I think" there's "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war." It doesn't seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

    SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

    While hindsight tells me she was very wrong, I believe she made a decision based on the information available to her. To apologize or recant seems to me ineffectual and useless. What should she say? That she was stupid, that she should have voted the other way? That wouldn't help her politically (it didn't help Edwards). It wouldn't mitigate the fact that she did vote for Iraq. Shouldn't her actions now demonstrate her desire to make up for her vote?

    I hate this picture of Obama as a consistent opponent of the war. He wasn't. Indeed, he was perfectly happy to sacrifice principle for politics. And he is the great unifier? The transcendent figure of politics who hasn't been tainted? Please.


    Yet being a community organizer (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    counts, we're told.

    and it should (none / 0) (#48)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    I don't have a double standard. If a candidate worked on an issue, they deserve credit for it.

    I know you do, and that's good (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    and good thinking.  Let's see what AF says.

    Everything counts (none / 0) (#64)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    But some things count more than others.  Obviously, Hillary's work in the Clinton administration is far more important than Obama's community organizing experience.

    Being a partner at a big corporate law firm (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    apparently counts too.

    The people who talk for her on CNN (none / 0) (#26)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST

    There should be similar quick responses with Obama.

    That's all I am saying.


    That is one sorry statement. (none / 0) (#28)
    by magisterludi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#32)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    And it might even be true.

    then look it up (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    and don't post misinformation here.

    I'm sorry, but... (none / 0) (#70)
    by LarryE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    ..."look it up?" Look what up? Someone says "what are Clinton's legislative accomplishments" and you say "look it up?"

    Sorry, that won't fly. I'm not saying she has no accomplishments but "look it up" is no answer at all.

    And what "misinformation?" Saying she "doesn't talk about her record" while attached to mention of certain actual votes is political boilerplate. If it's "misinformation" to say a candidate is "not talking about their record" when they don't mention unpopular votes it's equally misinformation for a candidate to say they are talking about their record when they mention only the popular ones.

    Which would seem to leave very little information to talk about.


    That goes both ways. (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    The common refrain from Obama supporters regarding perceptions of him not being wonkish enough:  "look it up."  

    This is a great resource.
    Library of Congress - Clinton


    Okay (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    That goes both ways

    I'll accept that. "Look it up" is not an adequate answer from either side. Look it up? Uh, no, if you want to convince me, you have to do the work.

    And it's still true that it's no more "misinformation" to mention Kyl-Lieberman without mentioning SCHIP than the other way around. (I'm sure there is an equivalent comparison for Obama, but none springs to mind at the moment.)


    Oh, another thing (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    Your Thomas.loc link is busted. Because of the way Thomas works you have to go to the home page (thomas.loc.gov) and pick a senator from the drop-down list.

    And one other thing, legislative wonks and geeks out there: You can't just look at the total number of bills introduced; if you scan the list you'll realize that a lot of them are just resolutions recognizing this that or the other and some of the bills are introduced more than once for some technical or parliamentary reason. Examining actual legislative efforts/accomplishments by your favored candidate takes a decent amount of effort.

    (Which brings us back full circle to why "look it up" is not an adequate stance.)


    What misinformation? (none / 0) (#74)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Experience (none / 0) (#75)
    by Green99 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    Because her actual experience isn't that much greater than Obama's.

    Now if first wife experience or her husband's experience matter, then sure, she's way up there on the list but she's very little actual experience in elected office, that's the fact of the matter.


    Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    Lanny Davis equated Hillary to Joe Lieberman as a reason not to count her out.  That should rally the paritsans!

    Wow, that's just cold (none / 0) (#36)
    by Davebo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    Is Lanny trying to sink Hillary's campaign or what?

    That was equally pathetic. (none / 0) (#62)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    Lanny Davis is not a good spokesman for HRC or our party.  

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#19)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    Politicians basically just take any question that is asked and say whatever it is they want to say, regardless of the question.

    Matthews pushed a specific question on someone not used to answering direct questions directly....many pols would have performed similarly

    News Week also (none / 0) (#35)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    wants to know ...seems the frontrunner is now being questioned...

    If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

    The Obama Delusion

    As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

    More please (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    Known quantities???? (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    Sure, experience, but experience supporting the war in Iraq.

    I'd rather have the new, thanks.


    Your (none / 0) (#77)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    people are one-issue voters like the Republicans are one issue voters on abortion. He didn't "vote for the war." Of course, he didn't have the opportunity, but don't cloud your rhetoric with facts.

    You are SO wrong (none / 0) (#79)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    The positions of the two of them are very close. Therefore one must pick out the few differences that are important to us. It may look like we are single-issue, but that is one of the few issues where there is light between them.

    (This is just my opinion-I am much more pro-Hillary than most Obama supporters)


    is it either/or? (none / 0) (#38)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    It's a republican frame that belittles people.

    Unfortunately the accuracy of the (none / 0) (#41)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    surrogates response, nor what any other candidate's record is, matters. This will be used by the media and the republicans in the general election.

    Kirk Watson (none / 0) (#42)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    That's Senator Kirk Watson, ex-mayor of Austin, a politcal hotbed for Obama supporters.  This will get played over and over again by the Republicans.  It fits so neatly into their narrative of "where's the beef?" with Obama.

    I imagine this will be the last time someone goes on TV without some semblance of talking points, at least as to Obama's accomplishments.

    Poor guy, he couldn't know (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    that he'd be the first Obama supporter to be asked that by Mathews.  There is "change" coming, and in the media.  Too late for real vetting, but we'll get a better grasp about how bad it will be from now until November.

    yes. you are right. (none / 0) (#52)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    It actually may not be too late. McCain is already attacking Obama on foreign policy (terrorism, to be specific). If he scores, it may send Dems back into the arms of Hillary.

    So...I say go McCain...let's get that man vetted and see how he responds.


    Fox actually did it first (none / 0) (#78)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    But to a group of young voters, not a surrogate.

    Not that I watch Fox, I feel compelled to add. Some blogger (can't remember who) linked to a video.


    I saw that video, too; a hoot (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    but hardly surprising, as I've gotten the same (non-)answer from Obama supporters I know.  But this was the Obama camp itself sending out this guy, and that sends a very worrisome message about whether the campaign is ready for anything other than the unquestioning support of media previously seen.

    Agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    Yeah, having seen the Fox video, I was surprised that they sent someone out who was that unprepared. If they are going to play in the big show, they're going to have to step up their game.

    Ranks up there with... (none / 0) (#46)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    ...the union head in Ohio bashing/caricaturing Obama supporters.  Both were blunders.

    I can't imagine the Obama campaign letting anyone speak for them on Hardball now without a laundry list of BO's curriculum vitae at this point.

    And I'd hope the Clinton campaign isn't banking on blue collar vs. white collar warfare to win Ohio and Texas.

    My concern about this... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    Is not as a Hillary/Obama partisan, but for the democratic chances. It seems Sen Obama has been very good at running a particular campaign, but the details like this will hurt if he is indeed the nominee. This is amateur hour stuff, make sure your surrogate has the basic answers ready to tell.

    Hopefully they will learn quickly.

    me too. (none / 0) (#53)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:44:02 AM EST
    wrong, sorry. (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    I agree with the poster below who said this really is amateurish on the part of Obama's campaign.

    He is at the mouth of the river, entering the ocean. The sharks are circling. He cannot make these mistakes.

    He did do his homework. Read an interview with (none / 0) (#60)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    him this morning in the Austin American-Statesman.  The reason he couldn't say anything other than Obama is inspiring is because there is nothing to say.  He has no real accomplishments.  Nothing legitimate.  Lots of present votes in the Illinois chamber.  Lots of hot air spewing from his mouth.  Lots of copied text.  Lots of nothing.  

    not true (none / 0) (#66)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    Can I quote Jeralyn?  "Please stop posting misinformation here" ?

    He's sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills, both in the US Senate and Ill Senate, that have become law.  That's not "nothing".


    Well... (none / 0) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    what are they?

    I can assure you that the lobbyist bill bill be savaged by the repuibs for that whole eating while standing thing. You can bet this will all be used by the repubs.

    Good thing this is all happening when people can still vote for Clinton.


    the eating while standing thing (none / 0) (#69)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    is an urban myth.

    here are some (none / 0) (#71)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    • Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation.  This was pretty important, actually (expanded the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms, such as unsecured lightweight antiaircraft missiles.)  This was signed into law.  I don't know why the web site you cited above leaves this out.

    • Avian flu -- sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness

    • regulating genetic testing

    • Obama and Clinton, together, introduced legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors

    • co-sponsored, along with Clinton, the Minimum Wage bill.

    • Re: Katrina -- Aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contacts by FEMA

    • Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (requiring OMB to create a searchable online database of all governments contracts, and allow the database to be searchable by agency, geography, industry, congressional district and types of federal funding.)  This type of sunshine should make it a lot easier to spot fraud, insider schemes, etc.

    • in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal, co-sponsored the Wounded Warriors Act (mandate standards of care and facilities for wounded soldiers)

    • co-sponsored, with Durbin, the Stop Fraud Act, to prevent mortgage abuses

    • Media Matters notes that in just his first two years: "Obama was the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions introduced in the last Congress. These included bills to create a federal standard for renewable diesel fuel (S.1426), to improve benefits and services for members of the armed forces and veterans (S.3988), and to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines for tracking spent fuel rods (S.1194)."

    I got lots more if you want them.  But I hope I have disproved this GOP talking point that he's accomplished "nothing."

    Sponsoring numbers (none / 0) (#80)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    I appreciate the details you offer; that is nice.  The absolute number cited by Media Matters is pretty meaningless (as it would be for Clinton) since it includes such things as "A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship."

    On the other hand, the White Sox resolution did pass by unanimous consent, so maybe he's a uniter after all.


    Maybe you haven't done any homework (none / 0) (#68)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    FFAT Act of 2006 or the Federal Financing and Accounting Transparency Act created a database where ever dollar of tax money can be tracked by American citizens online.  Most of his work has centered on Lobbist reform, campaign finance reform, government tranparency.  He also served on the Veterens Affairs board and worked on securing rogue nuclear weapons so that that do not end up in the hands of terrorists.  

    You may not support any of this work but you can not honestly say there is "nothing".


    Come on (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:10:18 PM EST
    He could have come up with one thing, anything, it didn't have to be earth shattering. This was just lack of preparation, pure and simple. It was someone sent to go "RaRa" but without preparation.

    I hope its not a sign of buying one own hype.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#72)
    by Aaron on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    Why don't you post Obama and Clinton's legislative accomplishments together for comparison.

    Obama was just endorsed by the Teamsters, 1.4 million members.

    If anyone's interested... (none / 0) (#85)
    by hilzoy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    I compiled lists of the substantive bills and amendments they have sponsored and co-sponsored that became law (bills) or passed (amendments), during the 109th and 110th Congresses (the time they've both been in the Senate.)

    Sponsored and bills and amendments
    Co-sponsored bills, and co-sponsored amendments for 110th Congress
    Co-sponsored amendments for 109th Congress.

    Personally, I think Obama has a more substantive record, but the reason I compiled the lists was so that people could check for themselves.


    The (none / 0) (#88)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    Library of Congress has a listing for Rep & Sen.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Avedon on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:08:21 PM EST
    I thought it was even funnier when Olbermann asked Matthews why he hammered that guy, and he said, "This is Hardball," and Keith said no it's not, it's primary coverage.

    unfair (none / 0) (#92)
    by fakeplasticfool on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:53:46 PM EST
    so i guess this website likes to delete comments people make when they dont have the same view points but i said it once and ill say it again, chris matthews needs to ask questions to both candidates, and thats not what he did, which is hy olbermann had to come to Obamas defense and make tweety look like a bird on national television