|
Notice that in the list he listed the bills authored by Clinton that were passed into law but for Obama listed bills sponsored or co-sponsored. Apples are being compared to oranges. I did my own searching and the numbers are somewhat different but don't paint so divergent a picture.
Since 2000, Clinton has been primary sponsor of 159 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 705 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on independence of US Attorneys, one on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal, one on breast cancer stamps, and one on subpoena power related the 9/11 Victims Fund.
Since 2000 (obviously, he wasn't actually in office since 2000 I just didn't change the search term since it should have no impact), Obama has been primary sponsor of 120 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 527 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on stem cell research, one on breast cancer stamps, one on naming a post office, one on the Freedom of Information Act.
Further, of all those bills Obama and Clinton were both co-sponsors of 269 of them.
I'd tie this in to the discussion in another thread about statistics and their use. Statistics were sorely misused there. And of course it is all meaningless without the context of knowing how many meaningful bills a senator can expect to push in a year, how many meaningful bills get passed every year, and the power structure involved in two junior senators trying to get their names prominently attached to meaningful bills.
My concern wasn't with the use of the word "sodomized" but rather the suspicion that a person who was working so hard to give a hard bias to a blowjob probably wasn't working too hard to be even keeled in the other parts of the post.
|