Obama or Clinton by the issues

[superstition]

Please post specifics explaining why you would choose Barack over Clinton, or vice-versa. Here are a few opinions from voters:

As Bill Maher recently observed on his show "Real Time," a lot of people say they hate Hillary, but when pressed they can give no solid reasons for their hatred.

She supported Lieberman and cluster bombs because she does not want to lose support of the lobby that puts Israel first. In the midst of the Lebanon conflict, Israel requested more cluster bombs! Israel had promised us that they would not use cluster bombs against civilians, but they did.

Obama supported extending it for 3 whole months so that a congressional report could be finished first. The actual vote of the Patriot Act occurred in 2001. Obama was elected in 2004.

I did not watch the debate because Dennis Kucinich was excluded. Without him the debate becomes a he said she said bickering contest between Clinton and Obama and the public ends up hearing nothing at all on their so-called universal health plans, Iraq/Iran war stances, gay marriage stances, the NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO nightmare, repeal of the Patriot act and impeachment. You are being duped into watching an expensive infomercial.

(Note about above quote: Obama and Clinton voted against CAFTA.)

Here are some points that demonstrate Obama's faulty logic:

"Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement."
Fixed: Gay rights movement is a civil rights movement.

"Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is."
Fixed: Marriage is a human right, and recognizing that is non-discrimination.

"We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions."
Fixed: Unless civil union replaces marriage for all, civil unions are weak.

"Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights."
Fixed: Marriage is part of equality.

"Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality."
Translation: I oppose gay marriage and therefore don't support equality.

(Clinton, by the way, has the same positions as Obama on gay issues and has the exact rating, 89% from the Human Rights Campaign.)

Interesting or questionable positions:

Do not lower drinking age from 21 to 18.
Free public college for any student with B-average.
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US.
National smoking bans only after trying local bans.
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
On "inexperience": he wrote policy books that media ignores.
Says biggest mistake was intruding in Terri Schiavo case.
The wealthy should pay a bit more on the payroll tax.

Some very good positions/observations:

Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health.
Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests.
Congress subsidizes megafarms & hurts family farmers.
Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
We need condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS.
Homophobia prevents talking about HIV/AIDS.
America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions.
Human rights and national security are complementary.
Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus.
The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits.
Chief co-sponsor of IL ENDA, against gay job discrimination.
Pres. candidates can afford minimum wage; most folks can't.
Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs.
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.
Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (HC yes)
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (HC yes)
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.

Clinton called Obama's proposal to raise Social Security taxes on earnings over $97,500 per year, the current upper limit on which any tax is levied, a trillion-dollar increase on "middle class families."

Obama defended his proposal by saying it would fall only on the upper class: "Understand that only 6% of Americans make more than $97,000--so 6% is not the middle class--it's the upper class."

Obama - some taxation quotes:

There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break. I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together.

...

There's no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.

But I think this goes to a broader question, and that is, are we willing to make the investments in genuine equal opportunity in this country? People aren't looking for charity. We talk about welfare and we talk about poverty, but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes.

One of the distressing things about Katrina was the fact that we have not made systematic investments. And the only way we're going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have the money actually make a contribution.

...

We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.

...

Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class

Middle class families are getting squeezed. The new jobs being created in Illinois pay an average of $15,000 less than the jobs that we've lost - and fewer offer real benefits. Health insurance premiums and the cost of a college education have skyrocketed since the beginning of the Bush Administration. In the past three years, corporate profits have increased more than 60%. Workers are being paid just 3% more.

It wouldn't be fair or accurate to blame all of this on the Bush Administration. It is fair, however, to say that they haven't done much to help. The tax cuts they've offered have barely made a dent in reducing the burden on middle class families, while driving our nation trillions of dollars deeper into debt. They continue to support tax breaks for corporations who export jobs overseas, and have refused to enforce provisions within existing trade agreements against countries who engage in unfair trade practices.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm">Clinton: votes and statements
</a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm">Obama: votes and statements
</a>http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

 

[Farang]

Your argument fails. You seem to have put a lot of thought into it, but you are getting Obama on his wording, when in fact it is the wording of the website you quote, not Obama himself. For example, on this claim of yours:

"Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement."
Fixed: Gay rights movement is a civil rights movement.

Let's take a look at what Obama said, this is what the website derived your misquote of Obama from:

My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.

edit: sorry I'm catching you on just one thing here but the rest of your argument is based on the interpretation of this website so I'm not going to bother with it.

 

[Rainsford]

This seems like a pretty good reason...

Clinton: National security is more important than human rights.
Obama: Human rights and national security are complementary.

It's part of a larger theme, but those quotes exemplify my dislike of Hillary pretty well...and why I like Obama. In many ways, Hillary is like Bill in terms of political views...and Bill Clinton wasn't all that great a President when it came to civil liberties, and he didn't even have the terrorism excuse. Hillary (correctly) bashes Bush for his ridiculously fascist approach to fighting terrorism, but I'm not entirely convinced she'd be all that much of an improvement. Obama, on the other hand, seems to fully understand that we can't defend liberty by abandoning it.

 

[superstition]

Originally posted by: FarangYour argument fails.

What argument?

edit: sorry I'm catching you on just one thing here but the rest of your argument is based on the interpretation of this website so I'm not going to bother with it.

The civil rights movement quote summary wasn't accurate enough. What about the others?

Does Obama actually favor legal recognition of same-sex marriages? That's the bottom line, after all. Or, does he play sematic games to try to avoid the realization that there is either equality or inequality?

 

[ProfJohn]

Obama and Hillary are almost identical on most issues. There is virtually no substantive difference between the two of them.

This is why Obama is doing so well at the polls. Without and real differences between them their race has turned into a contest to see who can be liked by the most people.

Look at P&N and you will see a few Republicans who claim to support Obama because they like his message of ?change.? But they never really talk about what kind of change Obama is going to bring about. Obama is all style of substance.

 

[superstition]

I think their differences concerning taxation are at least worth examining. Obama appears to have a much stronger opinion concerning the need for tax reform, particularly to increase regressive taxation. While their voting record in the Senate is very similar, how they will conduct themselves as the Chief Executive remains to be seen. Clinton is a centrist more than Obama, who is a progressive, at least in the positions he has articulated.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: superstition

Originally posted by: FarangYour argument fails.

What argument?

edit: sorry I'm catching you on just one thing here but the rest of your argument is based on the interpretation of this website so I'm not going to bother with it.

The civil rights movement quote summary wasn't accurate enough. What about the others?

Does Obama actually favor legal recognition of same-sex marriages? That's the bottom line, after all. Or, does he play sematic games to try to avoid the realization that there is either equality or inequality?

Anybody who can think and reason intelligently in other than black and white is always playing semantics games to those who can't, no?

 

[Legend]

I'm a centrist/libertarian, but I've got to say that it's pretty clear that Obama is more of a true democrat, whereas Clinton is a slutty corporate whore.

Clinton Voted for the "War on Terrorism" and part of her "experience" as first lady was when Bill signed the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. This act basically says let's find a reason to overthrow Hussein. Mission Accomplished you bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Obama would not have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...y226po&feature=related


Clinton crafted UHC as first lady behind closed doors, and she says she will tax the fuck out of anyone that doesn't like her program if she's president.
Obama is not a big of a corporate whore, and his plan is more voluntary.

Clinton's politics are slimy. She "cries", Bill says that South Carolina isn't meaningful because Jesse Jackson won their twice, etc. Clinton spends half of the time saying stuff about how she hates Republicans, blah blah blah.
Obama is a powerful orator focused on positive, constructive ideas.

 

[nageov3t]

legend, I think you just threw out a bunch of slimy Clintonesque attacks in order to prove how Obama is focused on positive ideas

I thought my friend put it well this weekend... when the going gets tough -- and it will -- you want someone who's prepared to kick the other guy in the nuts to get the job done, not invite the other guy to sit around a campfire and sing koombyya.

but that's just me, and I can see how people might feel differently. it's probably an irreconcilable difference of political views.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481
legend, I think you just threw out a bunch of slimy Clintonesque attacks in order to prove how Obama is focused on positive ideas

I thought my friend put it well this weekend... when the going gets tough -- and it will -- you want someone who's prepared to kick the other guy in the nuts to get the job done, not invite the other guy to sit around a campfire and sing koombyya.

but that's just me, and I can see how people might feel differently. it's probably an irreconcilable difference of political views.

That seemed to work well for Bush's domestic agenda (sarcasm). The President derives his or her power from the bully pulpit. You want someone who can manipulate the legislature and be extremely divisive, then you've found yourself a majority/minority leader, not a President.

 

[nageov3t]

it would have worked better if it weren't for Iraq dragging his numbers down (or maybe if he had actually won his first election)... it just so happened that Bush's domestic agenda sucked

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: loki8481
legend, I think you just threw out a bunch of slimy Clintonesque attacks in order to prove how Obama is focused on positive ideas

I thought my friend put it well this weekend... when the going gets tough -- and it will -- you want someone who's prepared to kick the other guy in the nuts to get the job done, not invite the other guy to sit around a campfire and sing koombyya.

but that's just me, and I can see how people might feel differently. it's probably an irreconcilable difference of political views.

I don't want to "Get the job done." Because the job entails arming dictators and radical groups when it suits you, only to have to pour hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to reverse that mistake when they turn on you.

Neo-conservative foreign policy is cowardly because it revolves around to idea of doing whatever you can to make yourself feel safe -- to get "the job done." The funds come from our children. Fucking cowards.

Edit: My attacks weren't logical fallacies. Unlike Clinton's arguments, I had substance behind my arguments. I correctly labeled Clinton as a corporate whore.

 

[nageov3t]

The funds come from our children

I'll never understand why people say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: loki8481

The funds come from our children

I'll never understand why people say that like it's a bad thing.

Because we have no right to rail up deficit spending anymore. We have over 50 trillion of debt and money owed. In all likelihood our economy is going to collapse between 10-20 years from now, or there's going to be severe cuts in medical benefits to people that were promised it for decades.

It's a bad thing because we're bankrupting their future. They won't have a prosperous economy to be born into. They'll have to fix the mess that a bunch of cowards created in a society of fear.

Now, why don't you prove that what we're doing in Middle East is going to reduce Al Queda's numbers, or prove that these other groups have the means to attack us -- navy, air force are needed here because they're nearly on the opposite side of the globe.

 

[chowderhead]

The National Journal just ranked Barack Obama as the Senator with the most liberal
voting record.
This is the same tag that John Kerry got in 2004 and the Republicans ran ads all over the country. You can argue over which votes were counted but the tag line remains. Obama is the most liberal ahead of Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc.

Obama better have a response to this and the media has yet to call him on it. How is he going to keep attracting the independents, etc if the Republicans run the gays, guns and God ads all over Obama in the South and Midwest.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
The National Journal just ranked Barack Obama as the Senator with the most liberal
voting record.
This is the same tag that John Kerry got in 2004 and the Republicans ran ads all over the country. You can argue over which votes were counted but the tag line remains. Obama is the most liberal ahead of Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc.

Obama better have a response to this and the media has yet to call him on it. How is he going to keep attracting the independents, etc if the Republicans run the gays, guns and God ads all over Obama in the South and Midwest.

We live in a world where things mean the opposite of what they should. If we reevaluated the word conservative and used it to describe things using it's definition, Obama is a moderate leaning conservative.

Foreign Policy: Obama is conservative in applying force, deploying troops, and doesn't make threats. A liberal would liberally apply force. A liberal would liberally deploy troops. And a liberal would use threats to get what they wanted.

Social Liberties: Again, Obama is a conservative. He does not want a huge ass government dictating what they can do with their lives. Liberals want a large government to control people's lives.

Economics: He's a steaming liberal. This definition is still accurate, but Republicans are fiscal liberals too.


I think some time after Barry Goldwater's time, the word conservative slowly came to describe neo-con liberals. A world of upper-middle class elderly people that go to country clubs. Where they talk about how they should use government to enforce their view of "decency."

 

[0roo0roo]

well no, we live in a world where terms come to mean what they mean.
no need to confuse it further. liberal here means something complete different than say in europe where it means libertarian.
doesn't mean we are wrong. under our terminology obama is a left liberal and as said above, his voting record shows it.

the real difference is hilary can reach across the isle and get results, and has during her time in power. obama talks a good game. but its empty empty talk.

dealing with reality, you do need someone who can get things done, not say pretty words and get blocked into total lameness. sure sometimes compromises are made to get things done. welcome to democracy.

and yes the clinton hate is overstated. the media spun a narrative of hate and people bought into it. oddly enough the stewing hatred didn't prevent bill being elected twice. you'd think during his second run the hate would be at its peak to boot

 

[Rio Rebel]

I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

As for "most liberal" tag: Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the democratic nominee is ALWAYS tagged as "most liberal" by someone? Do you really believe they pick the most liberal candidate every time? That's a rather fantastic belief.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

As for "most liberal" tag: Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the democratic nominee is ALWAYS tagged as "most liberal" by someone? Do you really believe they pick the most liberal candidate every time? That's a rather fantastic belief.

Pretty much it. Obama and Clinton are 95% similar on issues, but it's Obama's character and the perception of honesty (whether it's genuine or not) that draws people like me in.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

I think that is the case for a large majority of Obama supporters. And there's nothing wrong with that. Trust, Character, and Integrity are all valid issues. There are some substantive differences in their positions on some issues, but they are in agreement by-and-large, more often than not.

As for "most liberal" tag: Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the democratic nominee is ALWAYS tagged as "most liberal" by someone? Do you really believe they pick the most liberal candidate every time? That's a rather fantastic belief.

It's a pretty standard attack line. I believe Hillary is more liberal than Obama, despite the "ratings" from any given site or think tank. She just hasn't had the position of power to exercise her true tendencies. And god willing, she never will.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

As for "most liberal" tag: Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the democratic nominee is ALWAYS tagged as "most liberal" by someone? Do you really believe they pick the most liberal candidate every time? That's a rather fantastic belief.

Pretty much it. Obama and Clinton are 95% similar on issues, but it's Obama's character and the perception of honesty (whether it's genuine or not) that draws people like me in.

Agreed. And more than that, I really like how Obama seems able to draw in support from every part of the political spectrum. He really seems like the kind of candidate that can build a consensus and actually unite the country rather than pandering to his base and pissing everyone else off. We've had enough of that the past several years with Bush, and I think Hillary is poised to carry on the grand partisan tradition. But there's something cool about a candidate able to draw support from me and Pabster at the same time.

 

[FoBoT]

i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me


my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

Right. She has a history of sleaze and I believe she would be co-opted almost as bad as Bush.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me

More platitudes regurgitated. You have to pay taxes regardless of whether you want to or not. Are you less free because of it? Maybe. But there's really no difference between her raising taxes to pay for this program over Obama raising taxes to pay for few billion more in education or social security or welfare or whatever. You may disagree with her choice of how to spend you tax dollars, but an increase is an increase and Obama has proposed a 300B increase, and Hillary only 200B. Sounds like you're 1/3 more free under Hillary if mandatory tax increases is your metric.

my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

Politically motivated investigation after investigation, no charges brought, no trials held. Does she play in murky legal waters? They all do. There are no clean candidates for president, and you can't accumulate much power or position in this world without someone accusing you of something shady. I do not deny that the many scandals that 20 years in politics will bring are a burden she bears that he does not, yet.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Obama and Hillary are almost identical on most issues. There is virtually no substantive difference between the two of them.

This is why Obama is doing so well at the polls. Without and real differences between them their race has turned into a contest to see who can be liked by the most people.

-snip-

Exactly.

I don't see any real need to get caught up in the minor details of their policy differences (ecept for their diff in UHC, where I find HRC's too authoritarian). Taxes, UHC etc, all these things are gonna come through the House & Senate where there will be many compromises. So, the details are gonna change anyway.

Fern