Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Fans

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:49 AM
Original message
Obama Fans
I've yet to see a single post from an Obama fan telling which of his policies you prefer over Clinton's version. Tell me, based on his policy plans ONLY, why you think he's the best candidate for the job. Win me over. Let's compare and contrast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. do your own homework
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
61. Can't pony up the goods, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Will you?
Win me over.

Or can't you "pony up the goods"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. I have done my homework and that's why I support Clinton. I'm asking you guys
Edited on Sat May-10-08 03:55 AM by bluetrain
to make a case for winning me over. I base my decisions on the platform of the candidate. Clinton was far from my first choice. I'm as left as you get. But I've seen no one making a case for Obama based on his actual plans for the country. And I can't vote for vapor. And I'm far from the only one who feels that way. So make your case, win over the other half of the Democratic party. Or don't. What is it that you are exactly supporting? Which policy? Seriously. I want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PretzelWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. in turn, I have a question for you
Tell me, based on Hillary's policy plans ONLY, why you think she's the best candidate for the job. Win me over. Let's compare and contrast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PretzelWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. chirp chirp. crickets going off....typical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #20
49. Paranoid much? I've been responding to other people. And with good reason. You're a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
62. Healthcare...just to name one. Stronger on foreign policy for another.
Questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. "And I can't vote for vapor."
Do your homework for BOTH candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. His Political Policies For One
He doesn't use Rovian tactics or try to steal delegates.

Second: He doesn't want to obliterate Iran.

Third: He isn't proposing a sham tax holiday that just belittles my intelligence.

Fourth: His Health Care policy doesn't mandate that you pay insurance corporations.

Need more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. I was asking about his political platform.
I prefer a health care plan that covers all Americans to one that only covers some of the population. And his previous concessions to the insurance lobby in Chicago worry me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. You Prefer Mandates To Choice??
Guess you hope she mandates a draft for her Iran war too. And I thought we cherished freedom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. It's cheaper for everyone. Take a look at this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.htm...

As for the rest of your post, yes, of course, I wish death and destruction upon the world; that's why I'm hung up on policy over the best health care plan for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Cost Is No Excuse For Mandates
Your cheaper insurance comes at the expense of those who can't afford what Hillary will make them pay. I wonder why the insurance corporations love Hillary's plan? Do you really think they want to benefit you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Obama allowed the insurance lobbyists to write his IL plan for him. If that isn't a
compromised position, I don't know what is.

Do you disagree with paying taxes? Social Security? Etc. These are socialist reforms which have greatly benefited us as a nation. Taking a step (much larger than Obama is offering) with that can only be a step in the right direction. Did you read the article I linked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. It Is Still Less Compromised Than Mandating We Pay
insurance companies.

I have nothing against paying taxes or Social Security. In fact, I support Universal Health care just not mandated Universal Health Care Insurance.

Yes, I read your link. It did nothing to change my view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. You don't find it peculiar at all that he allowed lobbyists for the industry to write his plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salbi Donating Member (195 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
73. I live in IL, the health care plans in place here for low income families work
I have family and friends who qualify for health care as lower income working families. It's a great program for very little money. My only concern with it is it doesn't cover families or singles that do not have children. But, it is a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
34. You pointing us to an newspaper article written by KRUGMAN of all people is not persuasive.
I'll give you a few reasons why I support Obama over Hillary, political, policy, and personality wise

Political:

1. Hillary has not proven to me that she can win an election based on her own merit. She won NY based on the fact that she is a former first lady and Bill Clinton.
2 Hillary is a very divisive figure. She has the highest negatives of any presidential nominee ever.
3. Hillary has run her campaign like a circus event. She couldn't manage her way out of a paper bag
4. She is DLC
5. I don't appreciate the fact she has cozied up to the likes of Scaiffe, Murdoch, O'Reilly and right wing nutjobs
6. I don't like the fact that she totally discounted caucus states and small donors before she realized she needed them.
7. I don't like the fact she said Martin Luther King's Dream ONLY became a reality when LBJ signed the CRA of 1964
8. I don't like the fact she DEFENDED her vote on the IWR right up until the point where she could no longer defend it for political reasons.
9. I don't like the fact she voted for the Bankruptcy bill, the IWR, or Kyl-Lieberman
10. I don't like the fact she was a corporate board member for Wal-Mart
11. I don't like the fact she did not repudiate and renounce and reject Geraldine Ferraro for her racist rant parade
12. I don't appreciate the fact she tried to tie Farakhan and Hamas to Obama, a respectable, upstanding man who has been nothing but kind to her, for political reasons.
13. I don't like the fact she disparaged an entire church community on the South Side of Chicago.
14. I don't like the fact she defended Bush in 2004 while Kerry was running against GWB
15. I don't like the fact that she has people like Begala, Carville, Penn, Wolfson, Maggie Williams, and others advising her on "campaign strategery" when these people are nothing but hustlers and liars
16. I don't like the fact that she gave Drudge the picture of Obama in Somali garb to insinuate that he is a Muslim when she knows he is a Christian.
17. I don't like the fact that she said, "as far as I know", in reference to whether or not Obama is NOT a Muslim.
18. I don't appreciate the fact that she cried fake crocodile tears in NH to play on womens' emotions and sympathies for her to get a fucking vote.
19. I don't like the fact that she is a known and proven liar.
20. I don't like the fact that she even KNOWS Lanny Davis

POLICY

1. I don't like the fact that she is mandating that people pay health insurance companies when people can't even fill a tank of gas
2. I don't like the fact that she has lied and called her plan "universal" when it is NOT. People who DON'T buy the insurance will NOT HAVE IT. Therefore, how can it truly be UNIVERSAL.
3. I don't like the fact she said she would "obliterate" Iran
4. I don't like the fact that she takes STUPID gimmicks like a gas tax holiday from Repugs, throw some glitter on it, and call it progressive policy
5. I don't like the fact that she sees NOTHING wrong with Lobbyist controlling Washington.
6. I don't think her plan for an Iraw draw down is realistic. She has stuck by her claim she will begin troop deployments within 60 fucking days of obtaining office. She will NOT STICK BY THIS because she has no clue what will be the situation when she takes office. She has said, no matter what, this will be the case. Obama has a more sensible plan. He will look at the facts on the ground, but still move towards troop deployment to have all combat troops out in 16 months. He also has a plan to TALK TO leaders in the region WHO HILLARY SAID SHE WILL IGNORE. He will focus on diplomacy, humanitarian efforts, to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq as we REDIRECT our attention to Afghanistan.
7. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to engage in any kind of practical diplomacy. She only wants to talk to her friends.
8. Hillary Clinton supported Nafta then, and I have no doubt she will continue her stance on it in the future. There will be no "moratorium" on these FTAs and no "renegotiation". Bill Clinton likes free trade and if you think for one millisecond Hillary won't get "advice" from Bill on this, you're kidding yourself. He will convince her that if she doesn't agree to these agreements, she won't get reelected. And since she is poll and power driven, she will CAVE, just as HE DID in the 90s.

I could go on, but I think those are good enough reasons right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. What He Said!!!!!!!
Damn, nice list!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
63. "He doesn't use Rovian tactics or try to steal delegates."
Another fallacy from the oba-maniacs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dammit Ann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. I prefer his not voting for the war policy.
Hillary Clinton, not so much.

And I know he wasn't a Senator then but I doubt he would have if he had been.

And I like his smile, sue me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. So, you like him just because he wasn't in the Senate when the IWR vote was taken.
That's it? Even he has said he doesn't know how he'd vote had he been there during that time. And he's, also, voted to continue to funding the war since he's been in the Senate.

I can't vote for people on smiles, but thanks for giving me an honest answer. I really do appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dammit Ann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Pretty much.
I actually thought Edwards much hotter, but alas...

The Clintons are pariahs on the Democratic party, if you don't feel the drag they supply, I can't help you. Rethink his last term, he caved, I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. I'm weary as hell of dishonest characterizations of Obama's
opposition to the Iraq War. The statement you're referring to was a polite sop to Kerry and Edwards, and the second part of that statement, which hillbots love to omit, made it clear that he was opposed to voting for the IWR.

Thanks for showing conclusively that you aren't interested in honest debate, only petty, dim, gotcha shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. I like his health policy better......
because it means that he doesn't have to fight about "Mandates" during the GE. Mandates that would end up being stripped away from Hillary's own policy as it made it way through congress.

Mandating forced payment to insurance company is a loser for "lunch bucket" Hard working Whites. They don't want to be forced to pay for anything, especially to have to pay it to an insurance company.

So that's one policy difference in where I side with Barack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PretzelWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. ding! ding! ding! ding! we have a winner
I think this is a GREAT difference in favor of Barack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Ironically, I think I may have more HOPE about the ability to get a fair health care plan
passed. We do have the majority right now. And I think her plan comes a lot closer to the socialized medical system I desire than Obama's does. He's, also, made statements indicating that he thinks it's impossible for us to get universal health care which seem likes quitting before you try to me. If all these other countries can do it, why can't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Hillary's Plan Is Universal Mandated Insurance
Edited on Sat May-10-08 04:17 AM by lligrd
Obama wants a government universal health care system but doesn't want to lie about being able to pass it right now. And he is right. We don't have the votes and thanks to Hillary allowing * to start this everlasting war with Iraq, we are broke.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Check my post above on the same issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
38. You're not gonna get "Socialized medicine" in these united states.
Are you kidding me? If we go that route, why not go single payer instead of this sham plan she calls universal health care? No, this is only a mega pay day for HMOs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. I prefer his less bellicose stance on foreign policy
I prefer his position on high level talks with our putative enemies. I prefer his position on the gas tax holiday. But largely, it's not about policy differences- they share a great many- it's who I perceive them both to be. I see him as much more secure in who is he is, with less of a compulsion to prove how tough he is. I see him as less rigid. For me, policy is one leg of the chair. I cosider, temperment, judgement and experience to be equally important.

And sorry, I'm not going to try and win you over. I don't bother with people who need to be cajoled into voting for the dem nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dammit Ann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Nice.
Completely agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PretzelWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. I prefer his "No Yellow Jackets" policy
CLAP CLAP POINT POINT CLAP CLAP POINT POINT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. Obama's willingness to put lengthy union-related proposals
on his site is attractive. Instead of merely saying he supports EFCA, he goes on to say that he'll support the banning of permanent scabs, is cosponsoring legislation to overturn the horrific Kentucky River decisions, and will promote NLRB appointees who will work to block permanent scabbing.

And of course it helps that he didn't vote for the Iraq War. His position on the gas tax was also extremely attractive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. As a fellow union member, I'm assuming, before there is regulation put in
against scabs, I'd like to see some hard hitting legislation enacted against the Union leaders. I'm SAG and AEA and I can't even begin to tell you the ways the leadership has fucked us over by aligning with the money men before the members.

Again, the IWR vote, which I'm pissed with Clinton about, too, just isn't an applicable argument as he was not in the Senate at the time of the vote and has admitted he doesn't know which way he would have gone on the issue. He has continued to fund the war since he was elected.

I agree that the gas tax issue was a bit of pandering, but it is a step in the right direction. We do need regulation. And it cannot hurt to bring the issue into public consciousness, i.e. these folks could do something about the problem. So, let's demand that they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. If you're a union member
then you should be aware of the Landrum-Griffin Act which criminalized corruption in unions. There is already "hard-hitting" legislation specifically addressing union leaders. If you don't like how your union is being operated, then you've got the power of the vote at your disposal to change things. If it's criminality you're referring to, then report 'em to the DOL. But spare me the bullshit that union bosses need to be reined in before scabbing; it's a meme only uttered by those who've never graced a picket line in their entire lives.

The IWR most certainly is applicable: He said before the war started that he was opposed to it. She voted to authorize it. And what Obama actually said with respect to the "not sure" statement was this: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made for authorizing the war." While he said he wasn't sure, he followed that up by saying that the case wasn't made to authorize the war. Are you telling me the inference you draw from that is that he would've voted for the IWR? Seems a bit of a stretch.

As to the gas tax: That's where we differ. It most certainly was NOT a step in the right direction, but instead 10 steps in the wrong direction. The tax pays for road construction on our nation's faltering infrastructure. Taking those payments away would seem to underfund that construction, wouldn't you say? A "bit" of pandering? More like a truckload full.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. You're showing your ass, as my mother would say.
Edited on Sat May-10-08 04:58 AM by bluetrain
I've been on the front lines of the last three strikes my industry has endured. How dare you. Really. When our agents are selling us out to producers forcing package deals which exclude 90% of the workforce from working. Have you seen the employment stats for SAG lately? Over 90% of the workforce is unemployed while the union leaders make deal$ with non-union producers or settle for less with the "legit". It's a disgrace. I don't know if you followed the recent WGA strike at all, but our unions are a joke. I hope yours isn't, but we seem to be having very different experiences.

He said he was against the war is speech which there is no record of him every having given. How convenient.

Well, personally, I think we'd save a lot of money if a bill were passed that said government employees of whatever level cannot receive as salary anything more than the minimum wage. I'd like to see that passed. But it ain't gonna happen. And I think if we stopped paving our roads so badly to begin with we wouldn't have to repave them so often. Although, I like that it creates a few jobs. Clinton's "plan" was to force the gas companies to toss the money they would be making off of us into those road plans. No feasible. But they are angling for a PR campaign so let's see where they're willing to go with it. Honestly. Probably not far, but maybe somewhere. To just throw a good idea off the table sounds too much like that turn coat Pelosi, to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. How dare I?
Quite easily. I've been a union member for longer than I can remember, and I've seen about 400 picket lines in that time. Over that same period I've seen union leaders frog marched out of local union offices - and International buildings - owing to their violation of existing anti-corruption laws (laws which have existed since 1959). And, of course, I've seen prognosticators like you over that time as well, those who've "been on the front lines" and what not but who seemingly harbor more hatred for their union leaders than they do those who took their friggin' jobs.

It's people like you who enable bad union leaders. Why? Because I'm betting that my mention of Landrum-Griffin was the first time you've heard of it, something which betrays your overreadiness with the mouth as opposed to the action. If this "corruption" were so well-entrenched and so pervasive, are you telling me that none of your brothers and sisters - hell, YOU! - have contacted the DOL? If not, why? Don't do the easy thing, flying off at the mouth about "corruption" when you've done diddly-shit to combat it under the extremely-strong laws made to prevent/punish such behavior. That you've done nothing in that vein suggests you're full of shit about the level of corruption, especially given that - as an employee of the Change to Win Coalition and former AFL-CIO worker - I've never, not once, heard anything on the level you're suggesting regarding SAG. Go peddle that crap to someone dumb enough to buy it, my friend.

I've seen many union "members" like you in my time. Those who're quick with the criticism and charges, yet a bit slow on proof that such a situation even exists, never mind actually doing anything about it. What I suspect is that you're one of those free-riding union "members" - we call them Taft-Hartley members - whose anger at the union stems not from this mythical "corruption" you're alleging, but from your resentment over having to pay dues. If it were pure corruption, all you'd have to do is call the DOL (would you like their number?) and they'd be MORE than happy to help considering who's in charge over there.

As to the Iraq speech: No record, huh? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama\'s_Iraq_Spee...

As to road paving and the ignorant rest: You ever poured asphalt, big guy? If you had you'd know that it's physical properties don't allow for permanent adhesion/cohesion, thus the need for repaving. It's not a "poor job" of repaving, it's simply physical limitations on asphalt. Damn man, learn about something for a change, especially prior to presuming to speak in public about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Youphemism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
21. Just a few quick differences...

Don't forget that his healthcare plan mandate doesn't fine people for not joining. Hillary makes a big deal out of the fact that he might have to fine people for not signing up their kids, who have no choice in the matter -- no different than requiring parents to seatbelt their kids in a car.

Hillary suggests he'll leave people out this way -- as if her fines will get people without money to buy into her plan. It won't. They'll be broke, fined, and still not in her plan.

Obama has a plan to subsidize college tuition and require a year of public service from those who use it -- pay something out, get something back. It makes sense, unlike Clinton's pandering.

Obama advocated going after the real terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hillary and McCain both jumped all over the notion of going into Pakistan for terrorists. A week later, we did exactly that and nabbed a major bad dude. (Funny how they say claim to be the tough ones on terror.) Instead, Clinton once again follows McCain and Bush by threatening Iran -- as if Israel would ever let them develop a nuke. They favor mindless saber rattling, even as they shirk from the real threat.

Those are a few policies that are very simple and obvious.

I suggest, as others have, you "do your own homework" and visit Obama's web site. The truth is, both candidates *are* pretty similar but where they differ, Obama makes more sense.

So, now are you going to vote for Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #21
36. Given the % of the country unemployed at the moment, I don't think a fine for
those unable to pay would pass in a bill.

Please, give me a link to the details of his college plan. I have friends in Germany and Israel who have all had to serve a year of public service, either domestically or in the military and I'm not sure that I agree with that mandate. Kinda kills the whole idea of Land of the Free. What I do think is that kids should get extra college credit for working a part time job while in high school. But that's another topic.

She used outlandish language to say the same thing Obama did. I may have not used the same language, but that's neither here nor there. She asserted that were one of our allies attacked she would attack on the perpetrator, in kind. Frankly, I'm not thrilled to say the least with our babysitting job of Israel, but, again, that's a different discussion.

And, yes, I have done my homework. And from what I've read, I think she has better policy. I'm not going to get into their records because that's not what this thread is about. The reason I asked for input from supporters is that his policy positions are rarely discussed and, if I'm going to have to vote for someone whom I disagree with ideologically on almost every point, I'd like to have a reason to do so other than just the bullying blackmail of women's right -- which Obama does not have a great record on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. So you're admitting, then
that this thread wasn't intended to be honest discussion, but instead a "trap" you've laid to pick on Obama supporters' views. I mean for someone to say "win me over" but then say Obama is "someone whom I disagree with ideologically on almost every point," it seems there's not a lot of give in your views.

Tell me, on which "ideological points" do you disagree with Obama? I'm forced to ask because you ask for Obama's positions - the reasons we support him - but then say you've "done homework." Seems to me you haven't; and it further seems to me you're the one making the argument by way of your "universal ideological disagreement" statement, thus it's incumbent on you to demonstrate what you're alleging. If she's got this "better policy," let us all in on what precisely comprises it. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Not at all! I want to be won over! I want to be able to vote in good conscience for the
PRESUMPTIVE democratic nominee. I'm not there. Mostly, because I've seen so few of his supporters discuss policy. I have seen Clinton supporters discuss policy ad nauseum. And I know where she stands for good and for bad. As far as Obama goes, I've seen irrational, misogynistic bashing of Clinton, freeper assaults on President Clinton and worshipful crush-like, but empty rhetoric about why Obama is the best man for the job. No one seems to discuss his policy. Even people I know who have known him and and his wife for decades. It rubs me the wrong way. I do not vote on personality; I vote on policy. And he has gotten a negative rating from NOW IL which really worries me and has shown that he's ambivalent at best to the GLBT citizens of our country and I think his plans are quite vague when they aren't downright dangerous. But, as a Democrat, I am OPEN and WANT very much to be able to cast my vote for the Democratic nominee, which, despite all the corruption, it seems he will be. So, I'm asking, very honestly, what makes his supporters stand behind the man as far as his policy goes. That's all that matters to me. Good policy. Progressive policy.

I really have no interest into getting into campaign assaults with you or any one else. I'm interested in platform and voting record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. And you've been given ample examples on this thread
Yet all you've done is argue, pretending that what we put forth isn't good enough, or discounting Clinton's faux pas (such as when you called her gas tax proposals "a bit" of pandering ... yeah, if galactic proportions are "bits," then yes, it was a "bit" of pandering) . Let's assess how you framed it: You asked to be convinced. You asked why we like him (on policy grounds). We've told you. You've disagreed and discounted those reasons at every turn, promoting Clinton's policy as superior in a discussion ostensibly seeking our answers. How, I ask, are we supposed to respond to that? What, give you more examples that you can shoot down with your partisan petards?

You're not desirous of Obama's pros. You're looking to assail them. That's called a trap, but rather predictably it's a trap that's ensnared the one laying it. Yeah, you're all about "policy" alright: If it's Clintonian policy it's good. If it's not it's bad. That about the size of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, you're wrong. lol.
Did you do anything in your post except attack me personally? No.

I asked for facts. Not judgments. So, are you going to play the role of yet another Obama supporter who can't back up his policies? Really, why should it be so difficult to laud the policies of the man you believe should be the next president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. Well that's quite a comeback
In talking with my 6 year-old nephew today, I believe I heard something very similar. It was along the lines of "nuh uh!" Good one.

You know what's even better than "nuh uh?" Actually demonstrating how someone's statements are "nuh uh." You know, beyond the whole "because you said so thing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. And, still, you do refuse to argue any of my points. Why bother posting in here if you had no
intention of backing up your candidate? If you can't argue for him against me, a fellow Democrat, do you really think you can argue for him against the Smear Machine. Seriously. All you've done is divide two union supporters. Is that productive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Youphemism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
76. Obama College Funding Links/Info

First, if a fine for those unable to pay for healthcare would not pass, then Hillary's entire premise of forcing everyone to join her program was disingenuous... Her entire argument against Obama on healthcare was not that he didn't provide coverage for everybody, but that he didn't require everybody to buy into that coverage. She said that in order to get her projected cost savings, you have to force everybody into the plan. Fines are pretty much the only way to force people. When pressed, she never identified any other methods than fines.

Obama correctly pointed out that people who couldn't afford it would be broke, fined, and uninsured. That would also leave Hillary short of covering everybody, so her projected cost savings would not be achieved.

As far as education goes, I'm not sure why you choose to apply the word "mandate" to Obama's Community Service Initiative. "Mandate" applies to Hillary's healthcare, but there is no mandate by Obama for service. Instead, he offers a $4000 tuition (tax) credit for 100 hours of public service. Since that is tax-free money, I think it works out to be $50 to $65 per hour. Not a bad college wage for simple jobs helping members of your community. If you don't want the $4000, you don't have to do any service. That's not a mandate.

I'd encourage you to read up on Obama's website about this and other information -- because to me, it makes a lot of sense. I think you might like the guy more if you look into it. Here are two links from his site that discuss this:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service /
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-edu...

Also, here's the transcript of a speech he gave on the topic:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/07/remarks_of_senato...

Finally, here's a little blurb that quickly describes what he's talking about...

But before I sign off, we don't have to "babysit Israel." I have little doubt that Israel will be happy to stop Iran long before it goes nuclear. I tend to think it will, and that this is an issue we don't need to involve ourselves in directly. Given that we did, talking about "obliterating" a country in advance of even mentioning or discussing other options is hardly constructive. It's grandstanding in McCain/Bush fashion.

http://philanthropy.com/news/?id=3578&pth&utm_source=pt...
December 06, 2007
Obama Plan Would Greatly Expand Volunteer Corps
A plan announced by presidential candidate Barack Obama would more than double the size of two national-service agencies and offer tax credits to college students who volunteer, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Mr. Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois, would expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000 slots; expand the Peace Corps from 7,800 to 16,000; and create a national online volunteer network modeled after Craigs List to connect volunteers with opportunities.
In addition, he would offer tax credits to pay up to $4,000 in college tuition for students who do 100 hours of community service per year and would also encourage younger students to volunteer at least 50 hours per year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
25. Certainly he has a different foreign policy stance then Clinton
Many people have never traveled outside the US and seen how we are viewed from the outside (and I've heard many say that they plain could care less about it). This is one area I agree with Obama more then Clinton. I have lived outside the US for over four years. I've seen anti-war protests in foreign countries, talk to people about how the US is viewed by others around the world.

Bush's foreign policies during the last 8 years have hurt us. Clinton has pretty much made herself clear that she will follow many of his hard-line policies. This troubles me that she makes statements that indicate a willingness to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #25
74. Okay, but Obama, in more delicate language than she, has vowed to enact the exact same policies.
Although choice of diction can create a better novel, it doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with policy.

My OP was on policy. I completely agree with you that Bush's policies have cost us, but what specific Obama policy do you see gaining us this respect back? Seriously?

She did make a horrible statement (which, unfortunately will go over well with the phoney the Dem base) that she is willing to OBLITERATE another country if they attack, in the same force, one of our allies. Honestly, as much as I disagree with the premise and think she used poor word choise, the she's convinced that she couldn't get elected without having been so aggressive. The Washington kids don't realize that the majority of the county isn't pro-Israel. It's been so ingrained in them that they are oblivious to the fact that it seems INSANE to the rest of us that we constantly Israel our national security for the sake of a country with no exports, a thousand enemies, and no exports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hope And Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
26. Obama is more willing to...
talk with countries that we don`t like.He has a more pragmatic approach than Hillary.Hillary in my opinion is more of a hawk.Her comments that "we will obliterate Iran" isn`t exactly the right way to try build bridges with other countries that we don`t like.I remember when Obama said he will be willing to meet with Iran`s controversial President and he was heavily criticized by Hillary...Obama`s foreign policy will be his strengh-not only because of his good judgement(opposing the Iraq war from the start) and his pragmatic approach-but also having lived outside USA gives him a global perspective that makes him see the world and his own country much more differently than Hillary does.

"We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."--John F Kennedy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
75. that is the point where I view him more favorably
I happen to spend a lot of time in the Middle East (roughly half my life) and there is no question whatsoever that most people in this region are hoping for Senator Obama to win, specifically for this reason. Sen. Obama is the overwhelming choice of most Arab-Americans also for this reason. He seems considerably more of a realist and less of a demagogue with his willingness to listen to the concerns of people in the Middle East.

Although Sen. Obama is certainly a strong supporter of Israel - he has made a point of understanding and dialogging with the Palestinians - this makes for great fodder from the extremist on the right-wing - But if one is actually interested in realism and in Peace - its a considerable asset.

Sen. Clinton however has take an approach which smacks of patent demagoguery and extremism when it comes to these issues. We all know her "Obliterate Iran" comments...but there are other issues of concern as well which causes unease and consternation in the region. Here is one:

Hillary Clinton's Little-Noticed Israel Problem

News: HRC's position on Israel could mean a significant departure from longstanding U.S. policy. How come no one cares?

By Justin Elliott

April 3, 2008

link: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/04/hillary-...

snip:"Under the heading "Standing with Israel against terrorism," Clinton's official policy paper, released last September and currently touted on her campaign website, states, "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned." With the phrase "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital," Clinton seems to take a hardline position on a deeply contested facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a position like this should have garnered at least passing interest from the mainstream media. So how come nobody's paying attention?"

snip:"Clinton is toying with one of the few most important final-status issues that will have to be resolved as part of any two-state solution. Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. While Israel has declared the whole of an expanded Jerusalem its capital, the international community views east Jerusalem as occupied territory and the potential capital of any future Palestinian state. In recognition of the contested status of Jerusalem, the United States and other countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

"Jerusalem is not only of political, religious, and emotional significance to Palestinians. It's the cultural and economic capital of any future state of Palestine. To carve out east Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine would be to deprive of it the geographic area which traditionally has been the heart of the Palestinian economy," said Philip Wilcox, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who served as consul general and chief of mission in Jerusalem and is now president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a D.C. nonprofit. "It's an absolute deal breaker, and there will be no peace if there isn't an agreed political division of Jerusalem."

If opposing a compromise on Jerusalem is a deal breaker, one would think there would be more importance attached to Clinton's wordsespecially appearing in the unequivocal construction of Israel's "right to exist" that "must never be questioned." If Clinton did, as president, endorse Israel's annexation of all of Jerusalem, it could mean nothing less than a repudiation of the concept of a two-state solution. And while her position mirrors that of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it actually puts her at odds with some prominent Israeli officials, notably Vice Premier Haim Ramon, who have publicly spoken about the need to cede the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. One explanation for this incongruity, offered by all of the half-dozen experts I spoke to on the subject, is that Clintons statement is nothing more than election-year rhetoric. That is, her stand may tell us more about the fraught politics of Israel/Palestine in the United States than it does about how a Hillary Clinton administration would approach the conflict."

snip:"As others have pointed out, her campaign position paper on Israel doesn't even mention a two-state solution. She virtually never utters the word "Palestinians."

link to full article: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/04/hillary-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
28. Policy is irrelevant, since they are so similar. I didn't decide on Obama because of his policies
I decided on him because of his campaign organization. He wants to build the Dem party at the local level, whereas Clinton just wan't "activists" to go away and leave policymaking to their betters. He shares his contact and voter registration with local parties and Clinton does not (and may even be involved in vote suppression).

He often breaks Rethug frames; Clinton does nothing but reinforce them, to her own detriment as well as his. Her campaign has been entirely dedicated to saying that Dems are wrong and Rethugs right since Feb 5th.

All of Obama's foreign policy advisors opposed the Iraq War; most of Clinton's favored it.

He can manage a campaign and plan for the long term; she can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
29. So you're a Hillary fan...
What makes her superior in your eyes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
31. OK...
Hillary has taken money from the same global lobbyists who control Bush.

'Nuff said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
33. His health care proposal. Americans will NOT accept turning over their lives to the gov't.
They only need to hear the word mandatory once and they'll reject it.

Among other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
37. I like the subtle use of language Hillary has everyone doing ... "fans" and "followers" et al
My candidate was Edwards. I wish to the bottom of my soul it was Edwards I was seeing get the nomination. But you know what? He didn't. The will of the people was different than mine.

Obama didn't gain my vote so much as Clinton lost it. As much as I've love to see a female President one day, I don't want anyone who would do what she has done anywhere near the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. What a great post
I totally agree that this country should have a female leader. We should've had more than a few by now, but sadly we haven't. It's just that Hillary's not the one in my view. I wish Barbara Boxer would run; I'd break my back campaigning for her. Another awesome lady (for president) is Claire McCaskill. She rocks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Barbara Boxer would be a superb President
She's also a very kind and compassionate woman who genuinely helped a friend of mine finally get her citizenship after years of waiting in the machine. She'd be amazing -- as would Claire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
78. My choice for VP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. I Love Boxer Too! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. I do, too, but I think she's most effective in the Senate.
What's so interesting to me is that (not counting the hateful bots) most of the real DUers seem to believe "Their Candidate" is the more progressive of the two. And so do revere figures like Boxer. All I can say is that I was a Kucinich supporter to begin with and still am. From comparison of their policies, I do believe Clinton is more progressive than Obama but they are both freakishly conservative. He moreso. Especially when it comes to women's rights and GLBT rights and healthcare. Those are all important to me. She has a track record on those issues. A pretty good one (Don't Ask Don't Tell was not her fault). He doesn't. I want to understand why people see him as being more progressive than she is.

I don't watch TV. At all. I quit listening to Randi and Mike when the hate fest began (months previous to "fucking whore") and I, honestly, did not have a horse in the race when they began the vitriol. I do not read Kos. And I, rarely, read Huffington. I wonder if there's a correlation between the media people are ingesting and the views they have of the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
39. The policy of the high road.
When two candidates are this close it is morality which is the telling factor.


When one candidate threatens another nations children it is a big NO
When one candidate tries to race bait an entire nation it is a big NO
When one candidate blesses the rich it is a big NO
When one candidate continues to belittle the other candidate when there is not even a thin chance at victory it is a NO


I could go on for pages but there is a very distinct difference between the two candidates. I choose the moral candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
54. Social Security is my favorite
Raising or eliminating the cap for contributions has seemed like such an obvious solution for so long. And he entertains the possibility of a donut hole to prevent it causing hardship for the middle class. That's a difference in policy that indicates a deeper difference in philosophy and I share Obama's on that. And John Edwards', too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. Would this go along with altering income tax? Would they be wedded? Do you have a link
to the text of proposed bill? And, if he has this bill in the works, why hasn't he introduced it yet? None of the legislature he has been a part of has passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. It's been part of the debate since the beginning
I don't think it's wedded to altering income tax. There are numerous links. This one is old in that Obama has since expressed openness to having a "bubble" similar to what Edwards proposed. With or without the bubble, this has been something I've thought should be done long ago:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/news/article-storage/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. Thanks. I'll look at it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
56. Obama's ethics in gov't plan sets him apart
Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients or tax earmarks are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.


As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.



There's more at:

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

Does John McCain or Hillary have plans such as these in the area of ethics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
64. Nothing there. Now back to lying through their teeth about Hillary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. To those with open eyes
There's plenty there. All one needs to do is remove the blinders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. Say your peace... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Already done
don't feel like retyping, but there's a subthread on this topic wherein I pointed out Obama's willingness to mention unions at length. Find that one and you'll see my specific argument for Obama. Can't promise it'll sway you, but it's sincere and important to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. You're preaching to the coir here...
Barack's in my corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
70. More practical on how to get us to universal health care, more open on foreign policy
Edited on Sat May-10-08 06:28 AM by BeyondGeography
(talking directly to Iran is exactly what is needed right now) and committed to reducing the role of money in public policy (a topic which Hillary doesn't show any signs of caring about). We also saw that he won't play political games where fundamental change is needed such as with energy and the environment on the gas tax holiday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
72. I prefer his healthcare and his character, Hillary is a bought off liar and Obama MIGHT be one too..
...but I can give the guy the benefit of the doubt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
77. I prefer his disability policies over Senator Clinton's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
79. You do realize that POTUS is just one of 3 coequal branches...
Isn't planning for specific policy counting your chickens before they are hatched?

POTUS is a veto pen & a bully pulpit, not a decider on Day One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC