The fastest search method I’ve found is by Senator name, congress # (110, 109 etc), sponsered/co-sponsered and stage in process - signed by president.
That will give you the list of all legislation written or sponsered by that senator in that congress that was signed into law.
for the 110th congress, Clinton has 4 ,the 109th, 20, the 108th 17 and the 107th 13.
Obama has 3 for the 110th and 13 for the 109th using the same search criteria.
ETA - http://thomas.loc.gov/
The closest thing to experience as president would be vice president. That is even questionable because so many VPs have been diminished by the president. Fact is ,it is a unique job and we should judge on issues ,temperament and previous job performance.
Senator s,governor sand congressmen bring a familiarity with the system and connections already formed. Clinton brings much experience in politics. So does Obama. To suggest they bring nothing is false.
Antinor, my friend, please see the following link: U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page
I posted it right above in Post #19. It’s Hillary Clinton’s own Senate website and has direct links to the search results on Thomas for all 3 Congresses I listed in that post. That is where I got all the items I listed in that post. I did my own independent search of Thomas for the 110th Congress, since she doesn’t include a link to that one on her site.
I also acknowledged spending a full hour searching through the links to the co-sponsored legislation and finally giving up, finding nothing of significance or nothing I could pinpoint as an actual “joint” bill. The floor is open for her supporters to do their own homework on that one, I cannot be bothered to do all the legwork for them.
Thanks for trying to help with an answer, though.
Ok, so what are the “issues, temperament and previous job performance” that make Hillary Clinton a better choice than Barack Obama for President?
Please point to where I suggested that either of them bring nothing?
No problem, I fully admit that I don’t completely understand the joint vs cosponsered bit so was just trying to help with the results.
/points at thread title
unless “smoke and mirrors” counts for “something” that is.
Again, boilerplate debate technique 101.
Have any answers to any of the substantive questions I actually asked?
Nope. I actually agree with you, I just think you might make your point a little better if you would lay off the accusational tone.
She might, but everybody knows how Shayna feels about this subject anyway. She’s right that the “Be it resolved” style is standard, although not everybody here was in the debate club in school.
Neither was I. I actually learned that here. 
Shayna, did you see this? Obama picks up delegates in California after the official results are in.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801
Don’t feel too bad. My girlfriend is a vociferous Clinton loyalist, and she can’t explain her reasoning either.
Ditto my mother, sister, and grandmother. Political beliefs can be very deeply held, and since I do not have any good theories of preference formation, I don’t really see any need to argue with them. Their reaons are no less valid than mine.
No, I hadn’t seen that. That’s great news – an 8 delegate swing. Thanks!
I wouldn’t “argue” with people IRL about their choice, either.
Though I do kind of take exception to the notion that any reason is a valid reason to vote for someone to become President of the United States. We’ve all learned the hard way that the “I’d rather have a beer with him” reason gets us a doddering idiot for a President. I, personally, believe the same holds true for the “She has female genitalia” reason, but a lot of women are voting for Hillary for that reason alone.
The question is not whether “I would like to have a beer with the guy” works over one election but, say, over ten. Our brains are marvelous ballistic calculators: without having to sit down and do some calculus, most of us can throw an object and be reasonably certain where it will land. Likewise with predicting outcomes: even if we cannot make our reasoning explicit and subject to certain constraints, we have a fairly good idea of how things will turn out.
We are, of course, not always right. The question then becomes, on balance, what really is the best way to choose your beliefs to get the best outcome consistently? I maintain that we as a people were wrong about Bush but right about Clinton, even though we voted for them for likely the same reasons.
I am not convinced that this is a bad reason to vote for a candidate. I do not think that “experience,” “issues,” or any of the other myriad reasons used to justify political preferences are actually any better at predicting outcomes.
At the end of the day, we vote for who we like. Our ability to rationalize it is limited only by our creativity.
“Doddering Idiot”? Shayna, I have to disagree with that description. “Doddering” kind of implies idiocy through advanced age. Bush is an an idiot in general terms. Bush is more of a “Blithering” idiot, or at best an idiot plain and simple.
Absolutely. Which is why I don’t bother to try to debate. It’s her choice, her reasons are hers even if she can’t articulate them, and that’s the end of it.
The folks arguing about this should bear that in mind. On both sides.
I liked most of his policies fine. Most Americans like his policies. That’s why he gets away with it. But it is most assuredly not OK for the federal executive to unilaterally seize non-combatant persons from other sovereign countries, hold them indefinitely without trial, & then say it’s OK because as non-citizens they have no civil rights. (The actual justification used for this behavior.)
Two layers of criminality on the part of the same office, & we’re expected to believe they cancel each other out? Fine. I hope you complain not at all if Chavez’s government seizes you & holds without trial for seven years, & you die there due to torture, & it’s all a horrible mistake, because you have the same name as someone he considers a “fascist menace.” It is the same in principle, & international law is based on reciprocity. Bush is at the least an embarrassment who should have been asked to step down, & at the most, should be called before the ICC in the Hague.
But hey, you want a specific criminal law? W Bush lied to Congress, he falsified evidence, he defrauded the American people. You can shut your ears, your eyes, & your mind, but’s it’s still true.
OK, sorry for the hijack, Tom.
But the fact that reasonable, albeit misinformed people may believe a given proposition does not mean they have a right to refuse to be informed, or that such refusal is reasonable.
To bring it back to topic:
Obama supporters are being unreasonable if they claim that he has the executive experience to be President & Hillary does not. Hillary supporters are being reasonable when they assume she does, by her familiarity with the White House, have sufficient experience of that kind where Obama does not. But if it can be shown that Hillary does not have that experience, then their eminently reasonable assumption is trumped by the facts.
I hope, ultimately, that that particular kind of specific White House experience is not really that important, or can be gained in the first month or two in office. If so, then the issue is neutralized. If not, we need to radically rethink how we choose executive officials on that level, not just for this term, but for all future terms.
Yes, I did, and AS I’VE ALREADY SAID, I agree with all of his positions on legislation that he joins with other senators. But it’s not like he’s moving bills the way LBJ did in the 50s. To tie your name onto a bill is a pretty simple thing.
I want to see him president, so as to see him “get things done.”