What differences are there between Hillary and Obama on the issues?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

What differences would there be between a H. Clinton presidency and a President Obama? On what policies do they differ? It seems to me they are identical. I ask for differences all the time but never see anyone point to one, aside from "merit pay" which I mention (some like to ignore that difference ;) ) on which Obama is actually more right-wing than Clinton.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Hillary wants health insurance for everybody.

Obama wants health care for everybody, but has not (to my knowledge) defined just what that means.

Neither, to my knowledge, supports single-payer universal health care.

[TeamJordan23]

7. Obama has a plan, HRC does not. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. HRC has promised a plan--a universal plan

So HRC favors universal health insurance (if we take her word--let's wait for the plan); Obama does not. So there are two differences--and Obama is to the right of Clinton on each one.

[TeamJordan23]

16. What a LIE! Obama does favor universal healthcare. Nice attempted smear.

Just because one newspaper thought it would fall short, you think its not universal. And what you leave out of your deception is that Obama has clearly stated that for any reason, they fall short, they WILL MAKE SURE that those uninsured get covered.

Quit the Lies. My God.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Nice spin. Even the Obama campaign estimates 15 million would not be insured under his plan

They do not share your view.

==Why does this matter? Obama's advisers, for what it's worth, think it doesn't. Not much, anyway. They believe that their initiative will help cover most Americans within two or three years. After that, they say, they can come back to the problem and, following through on Obama's promise, cover that relatively small portion of the population that still doesn't have coverage. If that requires passing some sort of mandate then, so be it. They're prepared to do so.

I think they mean it. But can they do it? The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.==

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070528&s=cohn053107



==that Obama has clearly stated that for any reason, they fall short, they WILL MAKE SURE that those uninsured get covered.==

In other words, vote for me. I will do the right thing. Trust me. I promise.

[TeamJordan23]

44. LOL. Where do the advisors explicitly say that. It is the opinion of the author of this piece. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. "Obama's advisers think...they can goose that up to two-thirds." nt

[Ken Burch]

92. Of course, if HRC's plan is "less ambitious" than the watered-down one she had in '93

will it be of any real value?

Incrementalism(especially "pro-business" incrementalism) would end up being reduced to nothing.

[Skip Intro]

10. A plan that insures everyone?

[Bitwit1234]

91. That's bull. When they had the meeting in New Mexico

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were the only TWO candidates who have a viable and workable health care plan. All the blog sites, Daily kos, thinkprogress etc reported that Obama had as much time to prepare but HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...

[ProudDad]

97. Hillary hasn't laid out a Health Care Plan either

As SiCKO has proved, "Universal Health insurance" is NOT Universal Health CARE.

It's all hot air on her site...no plan, no nothing...

And you ARE correct,

ONLY Dennis Kucinich has come out for the REAL SOLUTION:

HR 676 - http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

[BluegrassDem]

2. Obama being the face of the United States would do wonders for our credibility

He has the intellectual wherewithal to deal with problems around the world, especially in the Middle East. And he has the charisma to move the country to the left, whereas the Clintons are all about triangulation in order to keep power. Obama overall would be better for progressives and for the country as a whole.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. So there is no difference in policy between the two?

What you say relate to personal attributes of Obama, and then cite alleged negative attributes of Clinton. This is exactly what I routinely see at DU. No one ever points to any actual difference on the issues between the two.

P.S. "unity"=a clever repackaging of triangulation ;)

[rinsd]

6. Huh?

"And he has the charisma to move the country to the left"

How exactly is a moderate who takes pride in coming to compromise with the GOP going to move this country to the left?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. How is a guy running on singing kumbaya with the Republicans going to move us to the left?

Great points, rinsd.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Obama Thinks Insane Wars Are A Bad Idea, ...

he's never condoned torture, he was not a fan of permanent 'free' trade with China, he didn't vote for any awful bankruptcy bills, he'll hold discussions with foreign leaders without preconditions.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. So there are no differences in their platforms?

Thank you. The only difference you cite no longer exists, as Obama returned to his pre-debate position on foreign policy.

[ProudDad]

99. There is no difference in their platforms!

The "programs" on both sites ARE ALL HOT AIR, platitudes and NO FUCKING DETAILS!!!!

They've got all this crap about "who they are" and NOTHING about HOW they're going to do any of it!!!

There are no solutions there, just bloviating about how wonderful they'll be once they're in office and how much "experience" they have...

Hot Air....


For Instance - On "Health Care":

OBAMA's Site: ""I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair." -Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/27/07"

OK, Barack Hussien, how the frak you gonna DO IT!!!?!?????!?!? As for the health insurance mafia and big pharma they shouldn't even be allowed in the FUCKING BUILDING, let alone allowed "seats at the table"...

-----
Now, Ta-Da, here's Hillary's Plan:

"Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care

Nearly 47 million Americans -- including 9 million children -- don't have health insurance. America is ready for universal health care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a reality. This is a battle Hillary has fought before -- and she has the scars to prove it. She knows better than anyone how to fight and build the political support to get the job done."

:wtf:

We already fucking knew that. What ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!!!!!!??????!?!?!?!?

-----------

I can't see any difference, can you? Neither of them are saying SHIT...


those ain't no plans...Now this 'ere's a plan...

----------

the Conyers/Kucinich plan:

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.



Now THAT'S A FREAKIN' PLAN!!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. Thank you.

Leave it to the loony lefties to come up with some real solutions.

I've been saying for years, America does not have a health care crisis - it has a health insurance crisis.

It's time to change the paradigm.

[ProudDad]

107. Since seeing SiCKO

I have tried to be VERY careful about saying "health insurance" vs "Health Care"...

They are SO far from being the same thing it ain't funny. They are, in practice, opposites.

We need Universal Health CARE in this country, not Universal insurance coverage...

[rinsd]

13. "hold discussions with foreign leaders without preconditions"

Really, his campaign team seems to feel quite differently in their clarifications.

"he was not a fan of permanent 'free' trade with China"

Clinton and he have the same position on this.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/07/27/kristof_0729.html

"he didn't vote for any awful bankruptcy bills"

Well there was only one when he was in the Senate and he did vote against it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Guess who is getting the most money from the banking industry?

Great post, rinsd. Btw, take a guess as to who the banking industry's favorite. No bonus points for guessing...

Money from commercial banks

1) Obama $607,259
2) Clinton $492,725
3) McCain $479,085
4) Romney $451,771
5) Giuliani $416,901
6) Dodd $352,500
7) Edwards $131,876
8) Biden $102,250
9) Richardson $83,000

So the banking industry prefers Obama over HRC? If HRC is so bad on such issues, how bad would Obama be? :

[TeamJordan23]

11. Obama does not take Washington Lobbyist's money. Has no ties (favors) to the Dem Establishment. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. He also takes as much corporate money as Hillary--and nearly twice as much from Wall Street

Are you seriously claiming he is an anti-establishment candidate?

[TeamJordan23]

21. Why don't you produce some evidence that he will support Wall Street interests after he gets elected

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. here you go. Obama is a "stealth" candidate for corporate America

#1, Wall Street itself thinks he will. :rofl:

Obama has no real record so looking at it will not do any good. Clearly, Wall Street and others in corporate America like what they see in him. Obviously they are not blindly investing so heavily in him. So what is going on here? I think these people recognize that Obama is cut from the same political cloth as HRC. It is no accident the same people who finance HRC, who I am sure you would agree is a favorite of corporate America, are heavily financing Obama. In many cases I think fat cats are simply hedging their bets and contributing to both candidates (but notice the Edwards numbers? They clearly are not going to give to any viable Democrat. The excuse some will give is that JE has "no shot." The facts show that he has more or less as good a shot of becoming prez as BO. He definitely has a better chance than McCain--and compare the McCain numbers to Edwards'). However, that does not explain it all. What special advantage does Obama offer? This brings me back to my first sentence. Obama is a blank slate. He has no real record (notice the utter silence on his record in Washington? All we hear of is a few popular progressive things he did as a state legislator). Remember the Roberts confirmation process? Roberts was great for the right-wing because he had no real record to attack and was a blank slate. However, the right-wing zealously supported him. Why? They knew exactly what their "stealth justice" would do on the Supreme Court. The same thing appears to be the case with Wall Street and co. with respect to Obama. He also offers two compelling advantages over HRC, though. #1, HRC is reviled by progressives. Obama is not. Every step HRC takes will be closely scrutinized by progressives. With Obama our guard will be down. Moreover, Obama is charismatic and a great speaker. HRC is competent but no one has ever accused her of being of a great speaker or Ms. Charisma. The bottom line is Obama would be a more effective salesman for the policies these people want than HRC, for the reasons I just stated. (see the furor over HRC's position on outsourcing a few weeks ago at DU. Notice how Obama gets a free pass for having the same position on the issue as HRC while HRC is angrily denounced?)

[TeamJordan23]

28. Awesome, someone's post on DU as a Evidence. Nice one, DMC.

Now where is the real beef?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. The evidence is Wall Street itself

Why do you think Obama is rising as much as Clinton and Giuliani combined on Wall Street and nearly as much as Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney combined? Certainly you agree that Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney are pro-corporate.

[TeamJordan23]

36. Yeah, coming from a supporter of a candidate who WORKED for a Hedge Fund. Nice. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Money raised from hedge funds

1) Romney $797,325
2) Dodd $726,950
3) Clinton $703,600
4) Obama $652,105
5) Giuliani $644,750
6) McCain $255,950
7) Edwards $218,290
8) Richardson $85,900

Why is Obama matching Hillary Clinton and beating Republican Giuliani, crushing Republican McCain among hedge funds? ;)

[TeamJordan23]

42. Let me guess, because he has a plan to screw over everyone except Wall Street.

Let's see how many people will buy that, DMC. :sarcasm:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. No, because he is pro-corporate. Like Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton

Wall Street certainly agrees. :)

[Dawgs]

54. Still no proof.

dmc, you are becoming more irrelevant every day.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. So why are you in my thread replying to a post of mine?

:rofl:

Obama has no record. What can we look at?

Why do you think John Roberts was a conservative nominee in 2005? He had no real record either. Did you adopt a "wait and see" attitude on him in 2005?

let's reverse it. Why do you think corporate America--the same people who support Hillary Clinton (who you guys call a "corporate whore")--support Obama? For fun?

P.S. I am flattered a very "relevant" poster such as yourself would grace my thread and even be nice enough to come down from Mt. Olympus and respond to a post of mine. Can I have your autograph?

[TeamJordan23]

64. I agree with Dawgs, stick to real issues and not conspiracy theories. nm

[rinsd]

68. Cool, now can you stop lying about my candidate in this thread

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. So why are you always in my threads and replying to me?

Why would self-proclaimed "relevant" posters bother to post to an "irrelevant" poster? If I am irrelevant, put me on ignore. That is logical...

[rinsd]

18. LOL! I love the caveat though you should add to it "Current Washingon Loobyist" to make it right

"Has no ties (favors) to the Dem Establishment"

Really? Obama never gives out or seeks favors?

Now think really hard on this one because I obviously have evidence I am waiting to whack you with if you should say that he doesn't do favors or have ties.

[TeamJordan23]

22. Yah, why don't you tell HRC to release her Earmarks. Obama has.

[rinsd]

31. I would love for her to release her earmarks.

I would also like for Obama not to do brain dead things like say No Lobbyist money only to accept what amounts to small sums. Is he really that hard up for the extra $100K?

I notice you didn't respond to getting called out on your "favors" smear.

Another kind of stupid move by your guy's campaign that demonstrates little more than endorsement envy.

[TeamJordan23]

37. I guess the retiring of Vilsack's debt was just out of 'gratitude' nm

[rinsd]

59. Because the Vilsacks and the Clintons were complete strangers before that

:eyes:

[knight_of_the_star]

19. Proof for that statement please nt

[dmallind]

20. and again

what has he said he will do that is any different from what Hillary has said she will do?

Frankly I (slightly) prefer Obama because even though it's sad for a diehard rationalist like me to admit, there are times when you need charisma to get things done. He's got it. She hasn't. I think she has proven to be a tougher and more resourceful campaigner than him, but he's never really had to be one on the national stage before either.

In short I have no hugh favorite between them. The reason for that is that their stated policies are very similar. Why there is such emnity and mutual vitriol thrown by the supporters of one about the other is a bit of a mystery to me, other than the obvious reason that they both want their favorite to win. That said though, there is much less vitriol between any other pairing. Perhaps that too is because after all there is so little in pure policy to differentiate them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. I agree. They can't argue with each other on policy so they attack the candidates nt

[rufus dog]

81. correction YOU ATTACK DMC - ya wuss. n/t

[TeamJordan23]

12. Here is Obama's plan to combat Poverty. I cannot find HRC's plan to combat the issue.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/

I can list them all out, but it would be too long.

[rinsd]

26. LOL< he put that up in the middle of June when Edwards was staking his claim to the issue.

"I cannot find HRC's plan to combat the issue"

Well your research skills have never been stellar.

In the RH hand frame of her issues section are initiatives and fact sheets

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/katrina/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/inequality/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/labor/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/prek/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/housing/

I dare say there is little difference between Obama and Clinton there.

[ProudDad]

102. Hillary in her own words

"Providing for universal healthcare - Hillary will work to create a high quality universal healthcare system that is affordable and accessible while maintaining patient choice."

:wtf: :wtf: -- How? When? Are you going to leave your friends in the health insurance mafia and big pharma in the game? You're the number 1 recipient of lucre from those interests, how can I trust you?

the rest is pretty much "Hillary is so wonderful, she believes in this and she believes in that and she has stood for this and she has stood for that..." and we're supposed to trust...

-----------------

Here's a detailed Platform with SOLUTIOS and PLANS:

Universal Health Care...

Our health care system is broken, and H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program. Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in...

In the America of my dreams, the America I see taking root and flourishing under new administration, other nations will encounter an America that abides by Lincoln's precept: "The only lasting way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend." We will accommodate rather than alienate, make friends instead of enemies, and employ carrots far more often than sticks. We need an administration that will drain the swamps of hopelessness, exploitation, and humiliation that cause vulnerable individuals to head down the terrorist road. We need leaders who will be both tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror.

We must work to replace the law of force on the world stage with the force of law. By showing such open disdain for the UN Charter and international law during the past three years, we have become in the eyes of many the primary outlaw on the world stage. If we disregard the law of nations, we're left with the law of the despot, where the only constraint on violence is the power and ruthlessness of those who would employ it. Rest assured, in that world we won't be the only ones to use it.

We must immediately move for the United States to re-engage in the important treaties that the Bush Administration has abandoned. We must affirm and ratify treaties, beginning with:

The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change
The Biodiversity Treaty
The Forest Protection Treaty
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The Landmine Ban Treaty
The Biological Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention
The International Criminal Court

Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties that reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic that does not respect human rights, workers' rights, and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.


Putting America Back to Work IN America...

Our country is facing twin crises: high unemployment and a decrepit infrastructure. At the same time, millions of manufacturing and high-tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I have a plan that will turn our problems around and put Americans back to work in America.

By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life.

As a nation, we face a predicament of either buy American, or bye-bye America. Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit.

Repeal of the "patriot" act...

It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act.

Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K through College...

The right of every American child to a high-quality free public education is one of America's most treasured principles. We must improve the quality of public education in those schools that are struggling and expand public education to include pre-kindergarten beginning at age 3 for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students.

Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65...

I see a new vision for American seniors. I see a country where all citizens can retire with full benefits at age 65, where social security will never become privatized, and where retirement years won't land in the hands of the stock market. I see an America where equal access and equal rights are obtained by all; where health care is regarded as a human right; and where the people who have lived to see this country grow can continue to grow old with it in peace.

Right to Choose...

Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies.

The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill."

Privacy and Civil Rights...

The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records.

Balance between Workers and Corporations...

Labor has stood almost alone while corporations have cut wages and benefits, slashed working hours, tried to undermine wage and hour provisions, reneged on contracts, and jettisoned retirements through bankruptcy strategies. The current clamor for corporate accountability calls for honesty in stating the numbers, and faithful custody of shareholders money.

There needs to be equal concern for those who created the wealth through their labor, because the attacks on unions are a means of redistributing the wealth upwards. As union membership has declined, the disparity of wealth has increased. Since 1973, union membership has dropped from 24% to 14%. And the share of aggregate income of the poor, the middle class, and the upper middle class has declined. Congress has not passed an increase in the $5.15 minimum wage, even though the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is 21% lower today than in 1979.

People have a right to:

* Have a job.
* Have a safe workplace.
* Get decent wages and benefits.
* Organize and be represented.
* Grieve about working conditions.
* Strike.
* Get fair compensation for injuries on the job.
* Sue if injured by negligent employers.
* Have secure pension and retirement benefits.
* Participate in the political process.

Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy...

The EPA under the Bush Administration has stood for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We as a nation must turn our efforts towards the great work of restoring our air and our water and our land. We must view our natural resources as the common property of all humanity -- even more, as the commonwealth of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection, which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival.

I am not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests or pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability.

Restored Rural Comomunities and Family Farms...

Something is wrong when profits of agribusiness corporations skyrocket, but farmers must find off-farm jobs or sell their farms to survive. I believe the United States must implement the following farm policies to benefit farmers, provide our nation with wholesome food, protect our natural resources, and restore our rural communities:

Fair Price and Fair Markets
Cancel NAFTA and the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements designed to benefit family farmers and workers while protecting the health of communities and the environment.

Market Concentration
Create new markets by actively enforcing existing anti-trust laws and proposing new laws to force divestiture in concentrated markets, breaking apart monopolistic agribusiness companies and shifting farm economics towards higher commodity prices for farmers.

Biotechnology and GM Seeds
Advocate only for responsible farm sector biotechnology, creating an indemnity fund -- financed by the corporations responsible for the technology -- for farmers who incur losses caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To protect farmers, labeling GMO seeds with disclosure and liability information must be required. To protect consumers, food containing GMOs also requires labeling.

Local Food Systems
Shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. The new focus must benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food to all people.

Conservation and Environmental Protection
Strengthen and enforce air and water quality laws to safeguard rural communities from factory farm pollution.

Food Industry Workers and Food Safety
Implement new safety standards in meatpacking and food processing. Worker health and safety protections would be expanded through increased inspections and fines, with criminal charges for employers who cause injury or death to agricultural industry workers.

Rural Communities
Initiate a major new program of investment in rural America, putting thousands to work rebuilding invaluable public assets such as schools, hospitals, libraries, swimming pools, and parks. Teachers, doctors, veterinarians, and other important service providers would be offered incentives to work in under-served areas.


More Details here: http://www2.kucinich.us/issues

And the plan to end the iraq invasion and occupation...

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation.

Complete details here: http://www2.kucinich.us/iraqplan

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Obama just spoke out on poverty 2 weeks ago. Let's give HRC some time

She may climb onto the poverty bandwagon too. Poverty did decline by 7 million under President Clinton btw.

[TeamJordan23]

32. Inequality of wealth also went up. nm

[rinsd]

62. Did I miss Obama calling for the capping of income?

[TeamJordan23]

86. No, but i'm just saying income between rich and poor has widened as a result of Bill's policies.

like NAFTA.

[ProudDad]

100. Some good stuff there

This is good: "Ensure Freedom to Unionize

Barack Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Although an estimated 60 million Americans would join a union if given the opportunity, companies too often evade employment laws and deny workers the opportunity to organize and advocate for their rights. Obama is a cosponsor and strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to make the unionization process more transparent and increase penalties on companies that violate employee rights. He voted in favor of the legislation this year and will continue to fight for its passage. Obama also will fight to make the card check process more common and less difficult."

This is ok, a little step in the right direction:

"Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports

America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Today, nearly 2 million children have a parent in a correctional facility. Barack Obama recognizes that it is simply unacceptable to keep ignoring this crisis in American families and communities. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has worked to provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities to ex-offenders. In addition to signing these important programs into law, Obama will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership to create ties with employers, third-party agencies that provide training and support services to ex-offenders, and to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates. Obama will also work on initiatives to reduce barriers in state correctional systems that prevent finding and maintaining employment."

Still nothing on my major issue, Health Care...but thanks for the link...

[goodhue]

15. not a whole lot

Obama claims he would have voted against a war resolution five years ago; a resolution that Hillary now in retrospect (knowing something now she apparently did not know then) regrets voting for, but for which she will not apologize. Also Obama is more willing than Clinton to meet with certain world leaders who are allegedly enemies of the USA. He believes in the Audacity of Hope, whereas Hillary married some guy from a town called Hope. Otherwise they are pretty much the same on issues.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Good post

==He believes in the Audacity of Hope, whereas Hillary married some guy from a town called Hope.==

:rofl:

[TeamJordan23]

25. Obama against flag burning amendment. We know where HRC stands on this issue. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Damn, there is a huge difference! BTW, didn't Obama also oppose flag burning?

One of the HRC supporters pointed that out a while ago, I believe.

[rinsd]

53. Both voted against a Constitutional amendment

Both voted for Durbin's amendment that would have narrowly made it illegal to desecrate the flag (ie" to incite violence)

Team Smear-4-Obama loses another round of "What's the Truth!"

[ProudDad]

103. Ah, so when it comes to the 1st Amendment

they're both "a little bit pregnant"...

[rinsd]

111. I suggest you look at the bill as it is fairly narrow in its scope.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109JpLcDQ::

1) IN GENERAL.--Section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``§700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States

``(a) Definition of Flag of the United States.--In this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.

``(b) Actions Promoting Violence.--Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

``(c) Flag Burning.--Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

``(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States.--Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

``(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land.--Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

``(f) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.''.

[rinsd]

50. Hillary is also against the flag burning amendment contrary to DU lore.

What she was for was a narrow and explicitly defined law against flag burning to incite violence.

She cosponsored a bill in 2005.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396

"Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag."

She was also for Durbin's amendment to the amendment bill that was almost identical.

Guess who also voted for Durbin's amendment? Why that would be one Barack Obama!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. A perfect example of Team Obama attacking HRC when their guy has the same position

The flag burning thing is one of their cherished talking points but their guy has the same position.

[elizm]

35. The differences are...

...not so much on the issues but that Hillary is so hated (her negatives remain unchanged) that she is unelectable in the general. Why do people here refuse to take a serious look at that?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. At least you admit it. The difference is the marketing package, not issues

Thanks for being heads up. I agree that electability is a factor but the notion that Obama and HRC are far apart on the issues is a myth. Too many have bought that myth without looking at their actual platforms.

[elizm]

65. Yes, I agree...

I do not believe they are far apart on the issues...other than initial support for the war. They are also VERY far apart on style and their ability to not only bring this country together, but also mend our damaged relationships around the world. I trust Obama on this completely....and it is my opinion that Hillary does not have that ability....which is why I oppose her and support Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Those things are more based on perception of the two rather than cold hard facts

You can compare positions easily but who has the ability to say, mend our foreign relations situation is subjective. I can understand Obama supporters thinking he is better on those issues. What I don't understand is all the BO supporters who act as if Hillary is far different than Obama and a closet Republican. Notice that those people, except for one, are missing from this thread? ;)

[elizm]

84. Subjective yes....

...But bringing this country together and mending relationships around the world is the number one issue for me. And the facts are that Hillary's negatives are such that she will never be able to bring this country together...she would only further divide us...Except for the fact that she could never get elected in the general.

[TeamJordan23]

38. Unfavoriblity, Polarization. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. So no differences on the issues? Obama is just easier (allegedly) to market? nt

[TeamJordan23]

43. I think all Dems want an electable candidate. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. And some think HRC is more electable than Obama nt

[rinsd]

63. Which they get with all of the big 3 even Obama (who deserves kudos for finally passing Rudy)

[TeamJordan23]

67. HRC is tied with Thompson; losing to Guilani in a recent poll.

The bipartisan Battleground Poll finds that Republican Rudy Giuliani beats Clinton by 6 percentage points but loses to Obama by 9 points. Both Democrats would beat Republican Fred Thompson -- Clinton by 2 points and Obama by 23 points.

Margin of Error was 3%.

[rinsd]

71. I just don't understand. Why do you lie about the most easily of verified facts?

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 46 13 Clinton +5.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 50 44 6 Giuliani +6.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 46 5 Giuliani +3.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 41 46 -- Clinton +5.0
Rasmussen 07/09 - 07/10 800 LV 43 44 13 Clinton +1.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 49 1 Clinton +1.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 44 45 9 Clinton +1.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 44 51 5 Clinton +7.0

In 6 of the last 8 polls from different polling firms, Hillary is winning

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 38 47 15 Clinton +9.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 45 47 8 Clinton +2.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 45 48 7 Clinton +3.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 41 47 -- Clinton +6.0
Rasmussen 06/27 - 06/28 800 LV 45 45 4 Tie
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 46 50 1 Clinton +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 40 45 13 Clinton +5.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 42 53 5 Clinton +11.0

In 7 out of 8 polls she is beating Thompson and 1 they are tied.

Obama beats Thompson in all recent polls. Here are his numbers for Rudy

Rasmussen 07/23 - 07/24 1472 LV 41 47 12 Obama +6.0
FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 45 14 Obama +4.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 43 52 6 Obama +9.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 45 6 Giuliani +4.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 42 46 -- Obama +4.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 46 2 Giuliani +2.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 41 42 15 Obama +1.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 44 49 7 Obama +5.0

Obama wins 6 out of the last 8 polls from different polling firms.

[jmp]

45. Obama is more right wing than Hillary.

Anyone throwing around religion is bound to be.

[PATRICK]

46. So this is an attempt

to put Obama between a "bad policy" or "where's the beef" dilemma? On the merits we should have had and would have done better with Gary Hart. Let's listen to those actually delineating Obama's policies with understanding his present political campaign has to take Hart road and this is not necessarily a minus. The more negative posting is putting up a good candidate's back against the wall pretty unfairly.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. This is an attempt to stop Team Obama from criticizing Hillary each day for having the same platform

For instance, they often call her a "corporate whore." Well, if she is and Obama has the same platform what does that mean? Either both are "corporate whores" or neither is.

Obama supporters cannot continue to paint Hillary as the spawn of satan while cleverly hiding the fact that their guy agrees with her on every issue.

[TeamJordan23]

61. What can we do to stop the Anti-Obama posts by you everday. nm

[rinsd]

66. Well you can thank yourself and a couple of other Obama supporters for that.

DMC used to be on Hillary's case. I think I fought with him nearly every single day from March thru May about polls and electability arguments.

But then the Punjab memo hit.

DMC took it personally and you guys made like it was no big deal, dismissing his concerns.

Yourself in particular really rode the edge of bigotry in some of those threads.

[TeamJordan23]

69. Can you please provide evidence of me being on the edge of bigotry? nm

[rinsd]

72. Well here's a thread

You generalize Indian-Americans and scold them for not speaking up against outsourcing.

Which reminds me of when rwers complain about silent Muslims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3333511&mesg_id=3333516

[TeamJordan23]

76. Haha. And that makes me a bigot...What is even more funny, is that I am 'South Asian'. I guess

I hate my own kind. NICE ONE!

[rinsd]

78. Like I said you were close to the dge.

Personally, I found it a little offensive.

And I'd like to believe you are Indian American but you have shown yourself to be far from trustworthy just in this thread alone.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. He didn't say he was Indian-American then

;)

[TeamJordan23]

83. Father from India, Mother from Pakistan. Since, you want to classify me only as South Asian, I will

change it for you. I guess Barack must not be African American than, huh?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

87. Your posts, not mine. You called yourself a South Asian then

Now that you were called on your comments regarding Indian-Americans you claim to be Indian-American. How convenient. ;)

[TeamJordan23]

89. Indian-American = South Asian.

I wonder what type of education you got.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

94. Nice try

If you were Indian-American pointing it out would more relevant in light of the memo than saying "I am South Asian and I was not offended by Obama's memo." So why didn't a known Obama spinner mention that little fact then? ;)

[ProudDad]

104. He's a

Kenya-Michigander :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. You said you were "South Asian" during that controversy

That encompasses a few ethnic groups. Now, to deflect this, you say you are Indian. That is odd. Why didn't you mention this when Obama was being attacked for a memo attacking a rival for having Indian-American supporters?

[TeamJordan23]

82. Sorry, I guess I will change it for you.

My father was from India, mother from Pakistan. Happy...I will call myself South-Asian. I guess Barack needs to stop calling himself African American also.

Would you like to tell me who to vote for also?

[TeamJordan23]

85. Would you like to know my religion also? nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. This coming from someone who attacks Hillary each day

:rofl:

[PATRICK]

93. Well that certainly improved things.

Spats.

[Dawgs]

55. If the only one is the Iraq war, that's all I care about.

And, Edwards and Hillary agreed on the Iraq war, so I don't like him either.

I don't care about the rest.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. They have the same plan for Iraq

There is no difference between a President Clinton II on Iraq and a President Obama.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Not enough to fight over...

because we all know that "positions" are complete bullshit and "plans" will never happen.

Look beyond the issues and try to to see how each will actually try to solve problems and govern.

[rucky]

60. Not much, aside from rhetoric & style.

that's why they're creating so many of the little false controversies - in an attempt to differentiate themselves from each other.

[More Than A Feeling]

70. Thank you for this, DMC!

This is a really important point.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. You're welcome

:hi:

[rufus dog]

88. Another DMC red herring

What there current plans are compared to what will get passed and what will be pushed/emphasized are completely different. We know what happened it Clinton 1 and I really don't want 4 to 8 more years of that. HRC also incorrectly caved on the IWR and supported that position well into 2006. She did it with an eye on running for President as a calculated political move. Personally I don't like her, never did like her, never will like her. So DMC why would I vote for someone that was part of an administration that capitulated a bit too much for my liking rather than picking a different candidate that my have the ability to lead the Nation in a new direction. And don't give me one of your smarmy ass, "it is all packaging/marketing" because it isn't. It is a choice of four more years of status quo (except for the SC) versus 4 to 8 years of taking the country in a new direction.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

95. What are the differences? How about citing them?

==What there current plans are compared to what will get passed and what will be pushed/emphasized are completely different.==

Such as what? Name these alleged differences.

==It is a choice of four more years of status quo (except for the SC) versus 4 to 8 years of taking the country in a new direction.==

That is what the OP is about. What new direction? In what ways would an Obama presidency differ from a H. Clinton presidency? So far no one has been able to point to any policy difference...

[sniffa]

90. hmm, not much

they're both the onLy contenders... and i think that's about it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

96. Apparently that is the conclusion of this thread

:)

[Bullet1987]

98. Obama is a Progressive-leaning reformist...Hillary isn't

...she's a moderate, pro-corporate Democrat. DLC types typically aren't reformists simply because they represent the Republican wing or corporate wing of the Dem Party. Obama believes in a transparent government. This can be seen in his releasing his earmarks and his teaming with Russ Feingold for the establishment of an independent ethics oversight committee that's apart from Congress. That is REAL ethics reform. I don't know where Clinton stood on that bill either.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

108. Ok. That is a legitimate difference

I don't believe HRC is Cheney-eqsue (or some may say Cheney-lite ;) ) but I think it is clear Obama is a more open government Democrat than HRC. Still, of all the issues facing us the only difference between the two is Obama will be more transparent?

I believe you are a BO supporter. I applaud you for being honest. This thread was prompted by the countless comments I saw from Obama supporters painting HRC as something evil, a neocon-lite or Republican-lite corporate "whore." On the merits that was ludicrous since they are the same on policy. If this thread can cut down on that, it will have achieved its chief purpose and made DU a more civil place.

[bling bling]

112. Hey DMC --

I tried to PM you but you don't accept them so I couldn't. I just saw rinsd's comments about you being offended back during the Obama Punjab comments. If that's part of the reason, then that explains a couple of things for me about your actions in the last month and a half. I remember those threads. At the time there seemed to be all kinds of mass anti-Obama threads that week over a few different things. I guess I since I saw so many negative posts from you at the time that I thought you weren't being genuine when you claimed to be offended. I thought you were just opportunizing on the chance to take a stab. So I wish I could go back and change my insensitivity about it. I owe you an apology for that. That's all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3319787&mesg_id=3319894

[ProudDad]

105. Sad but probably True (n/t)

[hedgehog]

101. How about this - not exactly an issue but - imagine a future President

faced with a group of people from the CIA and Pentagon are pushing to unilaterally and pre-emptively bomb another country based on secret information. Ask yourself, what would Hillary do? What would Obama do?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

109. Great question

I think that relates to perceptions of them. With policy we can get an objective answer. However, what you said is a fairly likely scenario and would have great implications. I think they would react basically the same, with HRC probably doing a better job because of her experience. I don't think we would be in Iraq if Hillary was president in 2003. Of course, I can see why many would prefer Obama in such a situation.

[SaveElmer]

110. Hillary would not unilaterally send American troops into Pakistan...

Obama would...