vote for john edwards. or obama..

Both senators have voiced criticism of the way President Bush has conducted operations in Iraq.

Yet when they were given the chance to enact Sen. Russ Feingold’s measure ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops by July 1, 2007(because it's unrealistic), both Clinton and Obama voted "no."

Obama didn’t take a seat in the Senate until 2005, so he didn’t vote on the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.

Clinton did vote for that resolution, as did 28 other Senate Democrats.

Obama and Clinton have disagreed on a few issues since the beginning of 2005, such as a mandate forcing automakers to achieve 40 mile-per-gallon average fuel economy by the year 2017. (why not? every other country can do it)

Obama voted for that mandate, Clinton against it, and the Senate rejected it on a vote of 67 to 28.

On Congressional Quarterly’s tally of how often senators support Bush’s positions on issues coming before the Senate, in 2005 Clinton earned a 31 out of 100 rating (with 100 meaning totally supportive of Bush) and Obama got a 33.

On the National Journal scale of liberal to conservative positions, again based on roll call votes in 2005, Obama rated an 82.5 (meaning he was more liberal than 82.5 percent of his Senate colleagues) and Clinton a 79.8.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15920730/


They opposed John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination as chief justice, supported increased funding for embryonic stem cell research and backed the same nonbinding measure that urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq.

But other votes reveal important differences between the Democratic rivals that distinguish them as they prepare to launch their anticipated candidacies. The areas of dispute include energy policy, congressional ethics and budget priorities, relations with Cuba(yay, cuba), gun ownership, and whether a senator can hold a second job.

In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating process, Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast on June 15, 2005. The senator recently softened her stance, but she is on record opposing a large federal boost for the grain-based fuel.

Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. "As a senator from a corn-growing state, Obama will have no problem on the ethanol issue and can tout his credentials on this score with a clear conscience,".

The two Democrats differed on other energy-related issues. In August, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012. - (because we need to quit being dependent on OIL!!!!)

One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have stripped funding for TV Marti, which beams television programming to Cuba, though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain that the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort and have targeted the program year after year.
Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported maintaining it.
(and that sounds stupid, right? throw the money away, just put it in the trash) Those votes will have resonance in Florida, which is a key primary state and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to February.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population, one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing. Clinton "is going with the status quo," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who specializes in Hispanic voters. Obama, he said, "is with the position of change."

The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters (wtf?)-- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions. (yeah, cos we saw how crazy it got down there. what if someone wants what you have during that disaster, are they going to think twice about killing you with their illegally held legal handgun?)

In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change, an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request. (yeah hillary, and it's okay for you to go around the country to earn your presidency candidacy.... but don't you dare donate your time and knowledge for non-profit benefit!!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_2.html