How certain important interest groups have rated the Candidates

[pathansen]

Here are the MOST RECENT ratings from certain organizations found at www.vote-smart.org.
There was no information found for Romney or Huckabey. Also if no rating is listed here, it means I found no information.

AFL-CIO
Clinton 93% Edwards 100%
Obama 93% McCain 7%

ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS
Clinton 100% Edwards 100%
Obama 100% McCain 20%

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Clinton 83% Edwards 60%
Obama 83% McCain 33%

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION
Clinton 8% Edwards 13%
Obama 8% McCain 65%

AMERICAN WILDERNESS COALTION
Clinton 100%
Obama 100% McCain 16%

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION
Clinton 95% Edwards 65%
Obama 95% McCain 16%

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY
Clinton 0%
McCain 100%

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Clinton 100% Edwards 100%
Obama 100% McCain 40%

AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
Clinton 100%
Obama 100% McCain 20%

AMERICANS FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
Clinton 100%
Obama 100% McCain 33%

AM. SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Clinton 100% Edwards 60%
McCain 20%

ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY OF U.S.
Clinton 100% Edwards 60%
Obama 60% McCain 40%

BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
Clinton 100% Edwards 77%
McCain 14%

CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND
Clinton 100% Edwards 91%
Obama 100% McCain 10%

CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Clinton A+ Edwards 53%
Obama A+ McCain B+

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Clinton 100%
Obama 100% McCain 40%

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
Clinton 80% Edwards 66%
Obama 80% McCain 20%


LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
Clinton 95% Edwards 37%
Obama 100% McCain 29%

NAACP
Clinton 96% Edwards 94%
Obama 100% McCain 7%

NARAL PRO CHOICE:
Clinton 100% Edwards 100%
Obama 100% McCain 0%

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
Clinton 96%
Obama 91% McCain 13%

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Clinton 100% Edwards 100%
Obama 100% McCain 0%

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
Clinton 83% Edwards 80%
Obama 100% McCain 0%

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE
Clinton 0% Edwards 0%
Obama 0% McCain 75%

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Clinton F
McCain C+

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE CONGRESS
Clinton 95% Edwards 95%
Obama 95% McCain 20%

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Clinton 100% Edwards 88%
Obama 100% McCain 60%

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
Clinton 100% Edwards 100%
Obama 100% McCain 0%

UNITED AUTO WORKERS
Clinton 93% Edwards 75%
Obama 85% McCain 9%


Project Vote Smart at www.vote-smart.org discloses not just how interest groups rated candidates but how each candidate voted on various bills, where they stand on the issues, campaign speeches and lots of other valuable information. This organization gets its information from neutral sources .

[MH1]

1. Edwards' scores are very interesting

compared to Obama and Clinton, considering he is posing as the "most liberal" of the three.

Of course in perspective, it shows that all three of our top candidates are much, much better than the other side.

Good post.

[pathansen]

6. Yes, and a McCain Presidency would be far worse than any of our candidates

So why are people so concerned about Hillary? I don't get it?

[unc70]

12. It might be because he missed votes in 2004

I recently looked to see why Edwards seemed surprisingly low in some rating. Found that the years being used for the "comparison" were 2004 or 2003 through 2006, and an absent/no vote was treated the same as voting against the preferred position. Edwards scored highly in the previous years, but missed several votes in 2004 while campaigning for VP; because 2007 was not included in the comparisons, his opponents registered higher.

This is a common technique often used to make ones candidate look good or to make their candidate look really bad. It is particularly easy to distort when comparing candidates whose records do not overlap, who never voted on the same bills.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Didereaux]

2. the Edwards ratings are explained by a checkered voting record...

not necessarily a bad thing. Many issues cross over between those groups, and several bills that Edwards voted on were either against a special interest or for one on small issues. Things that helped look a little better to the 'home' folks. That he did not become wildly popular with the NoCarolina voters is probably an asset nationally.

[DaLittle Kitty]

3. and Old Line Insider Groups Tied to INSIDER Dems That Naturally Support DLC'ers

:think:

[cali]

7. LOL!

NARAL, Conservation voters, labor, etc. Here's a hint: The better way to defend Edwards is to say he's changed since he was in the Senate.

[pathansen]

4. Edward's higher rating from the American Conservative Union

is what surprised me the most.
Also, the ACLU, Americans for Democratic Action and United Auto workers all gave Obama and Clinton higher ratings.
So how do we figure that one?
:shrug:
Maybe this will make Edwards more electible?

[jackson_dem]

9. What substantive difference is there between 8% and 13%?

[pathansen]

10. The point is, Edwards has been claiming to be much more liberal

than the 2 major candidates.
Maybe he has changed since he's been a senator but then he's being a flip flopper.
So, instead of "Can we trust her" maybe it should be "Can we fully trust him"?

[annie1]

5. Thank you so much for putting that together!

[Adelante]

8. Here are a few others for the record

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) (from 2001-2006)

Obama 97.5
Clinton 95.8
Edwards 82.5

National Journal

Obama 84.3
Clinton 78.8
Edwards 75.7

Progressive Punch (lifetime)

Clinton 92%
Obama 90%

[mcg]

11. League of Conservation Voters - 2008 Pres. Primaries Voter Guide

http://www.lcv.org/voterguide/

What I see for LCV lifetime score:

Clinton 90%
Obama 96%
Edwards 59% (lower, but endorsed before by LCV, description & snapshot both good)
Kucinich 92%

McCain 26%
Thompson 12%
Ron Paul 30% - climate skeptic
Giuliiani, Romney, Huckabee - no scores, all descriptions and snapshots look bad
McCain was the only republican to respond to the LCV questionnaire.

Where are you getting these scores from?
Clinton 95% Edwards 37%
Obama 100% McCain 29%

Click on 'Chart the Candidates' and also view their snapshots for more information.

[pathansen]

13. From www.vote-smart.org

These ratings change every year based on their voting records.
I found no overall ratings or lifetime scores there. What I posted were the MOST RECENT ones that I was able to locate at that website.

[mcg]

14. Ok, that was for 2003 voting, he missed votes,

due to campaigning, LCV counts missed votes as negatives. Also, he has improved over time.
For 2003, the Sierra Club rated him 80 percent.

More information:

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/07/16/griscom-edwards/index.html

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=21107&type=category&category=30&go.x=14&go.y=8

For Clinton and Obama:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463&type=category&category=30&go.x=15&go.y=10
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=30&go.x=14&go.y=7

Note, low scores from the American Land Rights Association and Partnership for America are GOOD.

They all look much better on environmental issues than the republicans and I will fully support the nominee.

LCV on Edward's plan: "most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date."

"Senator Edwards’ plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it"
-- LCV President Gene Karpinski