I have read a number of blog posts, diaries, etc. recently that ask: what has Obama/Clinton actually accomplished? So I decided to make it easier for people to answer that question for themselves, and to compare the legislative records of the two. Other people have compared their voting histories -- see, for instance, here -- so I thought it would be interesting to ask: what legislation have each of the candidates actually gotten passed? I thought this would be worth knowing for two reasons: first, it's an indication of their priorities, and second, it helps us to assess their effectiveness as legislators.

So I went through and compiled a list, in three parts. Bills and amendments the two candidates sponsored that became law are here; bills and amendments they co-sponsored that became law are here, except for amendments they co-sponsored in the 109th Congress, which are here.

Except in the 'sponsored bills' part, I excluded legislation that: (a) simply states policy, expresses the sense of the Senate, or requires a report; (b) is purely ceremonial (e.g., naming post offices); (c) is of purely local interest (counting bills Clinton passed about NYC and 9/11 as being of more than local interest); or (d) appropriates less than $50 million and does nothing else that's not covered in a-c above. I did this because legislation in any of the above categories seemed to me relatively easy to get passed, and so less worth focussing on.

I did this to make it easier for people who wonder what Clinton and Obama have actually accomplished during their time in the Senate to find out the answer for themselves. Personally, I support Obama, for reasons I explain here and here. But I'm more committed to the idea that everyone should decide, one way or the other, on the basis of facts and information. And that's why I did this.

I hope it's useful.

Wes Clark has drafted a petition calling on Sen. John Warner, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to investigate the role of the Bush administration in the various prisoner abuse scandals. It reads:

"Chairman Warner:

I urge you to investigate the Bush Administration's role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that has motivated our enemies in the war on terror and endangers the well-being of our fighting forces.

Today, the reports of abuse and humiliation at detainment facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba are distracting the world from focusing on winning the war on terror. Although the military chain of command seems to have properly investigated the role of its personnel and held accountable those in the wrong, the civilian leadership in this country has failed to do the same.

How can we win the war on terrorism, a fight for democracy and freedom in America and around the world, if we forsake the very principles and institutions for which we are fighting?

The laws of war are designed to regulate combat and to protect non-combatants from the violence and degradation of war. The conduct of this Administration may ultimately lead to a green-light for our enemies to torture our soldiers when captured -- we owe it to our men and women in uniform and their families to investigate.

I urge you to hold hearings and investigate the Bush Administration's role in the abuse and neglect of detainees. For the sake of our international reputation, and for the sake of our soldiers in the field, we can't afford to keep silent."

This is not a new issue for Clark. While his campaign had ended by the time the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public, he advocated US entry into the International Criminal Court not only because it was both the right thing and the smart thing to do, but because he thought that the idea that we needed to worry about holding the members of our armed forces to the standards of international law was insulting to them. He was horrified by the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, both for the obvious reasons and because he loves the army he spent his life in, an army in which it was expected that everyone would follow the laws of war; and these abuses were opposed to everything he thought it stood for. As he writes in the letter that prefaces the petition:

"For generations, the United States has been a powerful voice of moral authority in the world. After World War II, we led the world in creating the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and later became one of the first nations to ratify the Convention Against Torture. Even today, Slobodan Milosevic is being tried for war crimes thanks to a U.S.-led NATO air strike against his brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has squandered our legacy of moral leadership."

If you support such an investigation, you can sign the petition here. Thanks.