Hillary's Voting Record on Trade, Labor and Union Issues

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:55 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama is seeking to portray himself as the better candidate on issues pertaining to NAFTA, jobs, unions and labor.

For voters in Texas, Ohio and PA (it's too late for Wisconsin), I suggest you examine their voting records in the Senate on these issues. It's a far better yardstick than speeches. A good starting place: Progressive Punch.

Hillary Clinton's voting record during her seven years as U.S. Senator is 100% progressive on "Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements", on General Union Rights and on Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas.

Barack Obama has no voting record on "Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements."

Here is Hillary's record on Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements. It is solidly progressive with the exception of two votes on one bill in 2002. [More...]

Hillary has a 100% progressive voting record on issues related to corporate subsidies and on housing. On these issues, she ranks as the number 1 progressive among all senators. (Added: Obama has the same ranking on these two issues.

Here is Barack Obama's voting record on Labor Rights. ( His actual votes here.)

Hillary is ranked as the 19th most progressive Senator with a 91.18% progressive voting record on these issues. Barack Obama is ranked 20th with a 90.91% voting record. She has seven years of Senate votes on these issues. Barack Obama has three.

It's just not true that he is a better candidate for these groups. They are very similar, only Hillary has the more established track record of fighting for them.

< Who's More Progressive, Hillary or Obama? | Stupid Criminal of the Week >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary's Voting Record on Trade, Labor and Union Issues | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wonder how many (none / 0) (#1)
by athyrio on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST

people will read this and actually listen or how many are so emotionally vested in their candidate, at this point, it will just be ignored??

Unions work against their best interest (none / 0) (#2)
by Prabhata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST

Unions should not be divided in selecting a pro-union candidate, but we see it all the time. It's difficult to support labor when the unions don't agree among themselves on the right path to better working conditions.

Different issues (none / 0) (#36)
by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST

depending on the Union. Coal miners have different important issues than Bus Drivers.

[ Parent ]

: the problem is (none / 0) (#40)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST

the guys at the top do the voting. Very rarely do the guys at the bottom get the opportunity to have a say.
Power corrupts. You heard it here first.

[ Parent ]

umm... (none / 0) (#4)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST

She has seven years of Senate votes on these issues. Barack Obama has three.

Not quite.

Obama was also a State Senator. I am not sure why people forget that, and pretend that we cannot learn anything from his votes there.

Like all his 'present' votes? (none / 0) (#17)
by badger on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

sure. (none / 0) (#20)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST

If you actually understood the present votes.

But if you want to consider all of the present votes, then you also need to consider that Obama has a progressive voting record during his time in Illinois.

[ Parent ]

stick to labor and worker issues on this thread (none / 0) (#32)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST

please.

[ Parent ]

I am... (none / 0) (#33)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST

... Obama has a record on workers and labor issues in the State Senate. You can't ignore that.

[ Parent ]

You should ask the Maytag (none / 0) (#37)
by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST

union about that one... they endorsed Sen Clinton.

[ Parent ]

Ah yes... (none / 0) (#42)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:13:54 PM EST

... one union tells the whole story.

In Illinois, SEIU endorsed Obama. So did Unite HERE. AFSCME Council 31 endorsed Obama.

You can't point to one isolated example and use it to prove your point.

I don't know of any other state unions in Illinois who endorsed Clinton. And I do know that the vast majority of Illinois unions didn't endorse grudgingly. They have been exciting and supportive of Obama for a long time.

[ Parent ]

ATU iendorsed Hillary (none / 0) (#44)
by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:23:37 PM EST

I'm not going to go back and forth on what unions endorsed Hillary and what unions endorsed Obama. This is NOT the "if I name more I win" game then I win.

The Maytag mess will most likely be brought if/when he get the nomination.

[ Parent ]

: Agreed... (none / 0) (#45)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:23:04 PM EST

... I don't want to have to list more unions then you! :) (I'm kidding...)
But did ATU's Illinois operation endorse Obama? Or the international? Just curious...
The maytag thing won't be an issue. They will support Obama when he gets the nomination.

[ Parent ]

Labor and Hillary (none / 0) (#5)
by cowboyneok on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST

I support Hillary 100%.

That said, I support Obama 100%.

I just want a Democratic President period. I just want to win.

I don't want to see ego, from either one, hurt our party's chances of winning in November.

If EITHER candidate ends up damaging our party. I will never forgive them for it. We have to much at stake... We have LOST SO MUCH by having eight years of Republican rule. Think about it.

: THANK YOU (none / 0) (#7)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:43:21 PM EST

We need a dem in the White House. That said, I don't think either candidate is really progressive. Kucinich in 2016!

[ Parent ]

and... (none / 0) (#6)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:42:30 PM EST

Jeralyn... this is pretty dishonest:

Hillary has a 100% progressive voting record on issues related to corporate subsidies and on housing. On these issues, she ranks as the number 1 progressive among all senators.

It is true, but if you are going to point that out, you should point out that Obama also has 100% progressive voting records on housing and corporate subsidies, and it also tied as the "number 1 progressive among all senators."

: you just did (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST

he has no votes by the way on housing funding.
The point is that he is saying he's better than Hillary for labor and workers and it's not true.

[ Parent ]
: Ok, I just added that to the post (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:47:32 PM EST

that he is #1 of 98 too with a 100% record on corporate subsidies and housing.

[ Parent ]

and... (none / 0) (#8)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST

... in the previous thread, you mention that you believe Obama is a centrist.

Since Obama and Clinton have almost identical voting records, does that mean that you think Clinton is a centrist too?

to me, yes (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:47:46 PM EST

they are both centrists.

To progressive activists, they are close, with the edge to Hillary. What I'm pointing out is that Obama is not the liberal the media is painting him as and he is not better for labor or workers than Hillary as he is claiming.

[ Parent ]

: thats fair... (none / 0) (#12)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST

I think that labor has been quite clear that they are pretty happy with with both, though neither are perfect.
Of course... they have almost identical records on labor issues, but Obama doesn't have a CEO of a major union busting firm as his chief strategist, so that is a big plus for him.

[ Parent ]

Actually we should be happy with both candidates (none / 0) (#14)
by Baal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:00:33 PM EST

Here is a site that does an excellent meta-analysis. Bottom line, they are both about as progressive as we are ever likely to see.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Senate/senator-ratings.html

So it comes down to style points. I for one really despise the DLC types who have infested Hillary's campaign. And I like a man who gives a great speech. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will work really hard to get her elected.

Why doesn't anyone ever point out that the America (none / 0) (#16)
by hairspray on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:10:59 PM EST

Nurses Association which represents about 3 million Registered Nurses endorsed Hillary in January? This is big news.

umm... (none / 0) (#18)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:16:47 PM EST

... they did point it out. when it happened.

But the reason why an SEIU endorsement is big is because they are pretty commonly considered the most politically powerful union in the country, and they have a proven ability to mobilize resources - both financial and people - in order to get things done.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#31)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:54:13 PM EST

Yet, the unions did not help him so much in Nevada, CA, NY and NJ.

I think union members are proving to be a tad more individualistic than they used to be--on both candidates' sides.

[ Parent ]

kathy... (none / 0) (#34)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST

NY? Seriously? NY and NJ were never expected to be in play, with or without unions. Further, in NY or NJ there was no large Union contingency supporting Obama.

As for Nevada and CA, I do believe that they helped, just not enough. And that is in part because the endorsements came so late.

I think union members are proving to be a tad more individualistic than they used to be--on both candidates' sides.

As I have said over and over and over again on this site, it is not about getting individual members to vote along with the endorsement. It is about mobilizing people and money to help campaign. This means that unions can send hundreds of organizers to canvass in TX, OH, and PA if necessary. Unions can and will be sending hundreds of organizers and members to those states to campaign.

[ Parent ]

yes, I have heard you say it (none / 0) (#39)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST

over and over again, but you seem to miss my point, which is that I do not agree with you.

I will restate it here: I think that unions have not been as helpful for BOTH candidates. This includes Clinton as well as Obama. What we have seen is that memberships do not fall in step as they have in past elections, and yes, for the love of God, I know that the GOTV effort is still in place, but the sway that unions have as far as getting union members to march in lockstep is not as substantial as it has been in years gone by. Further, if one union sends hundreds to canvass, and another sends hundreds to canvass, what is the net effect? Wait a minute--please don't answer that, because I already know what you are going to say and say and say.

Jesus Christ, it's like yelling in a wind tunnel in here lately. Every. Single. Freaking. Point. has to be challenged and challenged and challenged aggressively until the person either surrenders or walks away in disgust. Used to be we could agree to disagree, and not expect to get hammered over it.

[ Parent ]

ugh. (none / 0) (#41)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST

Further, if one union sends hundreds to canvass, and another sends hundreds to canvass, what is the net effect? Wait a minute--please don't answer that, because I already know what you are going to say and say and say.

Really? You already know what I am going to say?

You already know that I am going to say that it depends on the state, the candidate, and the union?

Different unions have different abilities, there is no question about that. So I really think that union endorsements have different impacts in each state and in each situation.

But I guess you already knew I was going to say that.

Every. Single. Freaking. Point. has to be challenged and challenged and challenged

Well... being that you challenged what I said, it would seem fair to respond back. That is kind of the point of comments on a blog, right?

[ Parent ]

: dead horse (none / 0) (#43)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM EST

stop beating.

[ Parent ]

further... (none / 0) (#35)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST

... I have never said (nor has anyone else) said that a union endorsement means that the candidate will win. That would be foolish.

But I do think that they can help, and if they can change the results by 2-3% that is pretty substantial.

[ Parent ]

I certainly didn't see it get much play. (none / 0) (#38)
by hairspray on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST

off topic comments to labor and workers (none / 0) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST

being deleted. Stay on topic. There's another thread about their records overall.