jebus
10/06/2008, 10:20 AM
On Clinton vs Obama:
She talks a good game with tax reforms (as do all decent politicians) but she never signed for Americans for Tax Reforms pledge, despite stating that she wouldn't raise any existing taxes and would cut the advantages of the wealthy. Makes me think it was all words from her, much like the Republicans, bar McCain, who has supported it and said he will introduce it if President, much to anger of his party. Obama wants to introduce a restructured model of Roosevelt's New Deal bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal), to help the disadvantaged in America, he has stated that's his number one priority.
She says she's in favour of worker rights re: health plans etc. and yet when she was on the board of WalMart she did **** all to try to help it's employees, again it sounds like a token gesture to say she's in favour of the working man. Obama worked in Chicago with disadvantaged people while she was doing this (as per his Memorys Of My Father book. Obama has also promised to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act)
On the illegal immigrant position in America she seems liberal until you read through some of her speeches where you find she is actually just saying whatever needs to be said to the people she is talking to. She supported a bill to give drivers licences to illegal immigrants with one crowd, but a few weeks later she said she didn't when there was a backlash against said bill. Makes me think she doesn't actually have any clear opinions on these issues. Fair enough though in that she does support giving Visas to 'aliens' that have been in the States a certain number of years.. Obama however wants to lay down a plan for illegal immigrants to gain citzenship, and has stuck with his belief that they should be given driver's licences as a way to help them (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/MNH1UL57Q.DTL), despite the criticism
She flip flopped on her earlier support of imposing sanctions on gun owners when she announced she'd run for President, instead she said she'd fight for the right to have firearms (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/) :rolleyes: Obama thinks it should be regulated (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1), but that there should be a ban on people carrying concealed weapons (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html)
She's pro-choice, fair enough (http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html), so is he
She supports the death penalty (book called Hilary's Choice, that Hilary has backed states that), he thinks it should only be used in extreme cases (http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty)
She apparantly thinks video games are attacking society's core models (http://www.igniq.com/2005/03/hillary-clinton-disses-gra_111211380243571428.html) :rolleyes:, Obama thinks it is ultimately the parent who needs to control what is viewed, ate and done in their house (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/819177,CST-NWS-sweet29.article)
It's clear to me that while Clinton talks whatever game she feels necessary to win votes, Barack has firmly set liberal ideals, and doesn't flip flop on them even when it could cost him votes. That's why I'd be more trusting of his liberal credits than Hilary's.
Oh and you can't just say, forget about foreign policy when comparing her and Obama, and this is where the difference between the two is really shown. Obama supports dialogue between America and hostile states as a means of easing America back into world affairs, Clinton believes that Palestines and Iranians should live in fear of America. Obama moved to say to Israelis that he had no plans to abandon them, but that dialogues does need to be opened with Iran (he doesn't support talking to Hamas I know), marked difference from Hilary's 'I'll obliterate them! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518)' speech. Obama supports easing restrictions on Cuba, Hilary doesn't. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/14758) And then of course there's Iraq....
Plus the main area that marks Hilary as being more Republican than Obama is that she is in the pocket of her moneymen (people she had to go back to time and time again, and presumably promise more and more favours to), where as Obama's 'organization' as you call it is mostly made up of people like you and me giving whatever money they can. Huge difference in terms of what they would be allowed do in office in relation to things like carbon cutting arrising from that
She talks a good game with tax reforms (as do all decent politicians) but she never signed for Americans for Tax Reforms pledge, despite stating that she wouldn't raise any existing taxes and would cut the advantages of the wealthy. Makes me think it was all words from her, much like the Republicans, bar McCain, who has supported it and said he will introduce it if President, much to anger of his party. Obama wants to introduce a restructured model of Roosevelt's New Deal bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal), to help the disadvantaged in America, he has stated that's his number one priority.
She says she's in favour of worker rights re: health plans etc. and yet when she was on the board of WalMart she did **** all to try to help it's employees, again it sounds like a token gesture to say she's in favour of the working man. Obama worked in Chicago with disadvantaged people while she was doing this (as per his Memorys Of My Father book. Obama has also promised to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act)
On the illegal immigrant position in America she seems liberal until you read through some of her speeches where you find she is actually just saying whatever needs to be said to the people she is talking to. She supported a bill to give drivers licences to illegal immigrants with one crowd, but a few weeks later she said she didn't when there was a backlash against said bill. Makes me think she doesn't actually have any clear opinions on these issues. Fair enough though in that she does support giving Visas to 'aliens' that have been in the States a certain number of years.. Obama however wants to lay down a plan for illegal immigrants to gain citzenship, and has stuck with his belief that they should be given driver's licences as a way to help them (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/MNH1UL57Q.DTL), despite the criticism
She flip flopped on her earlier support of imposing sanctions on gun owners when she announced she'd run for President, instead she said she'd fight for the right to have firearms (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/) :rolleyes: Obama thinks it should be regulated (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1), but that there should be a ban on people carrying concealed weapons (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html)
She's pro-choice, fair enough (http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html), so is he
She supports the death penalty (book called Hilary's Choice, that Hilary has backed states that), he thinks it should only be used in extreme cases (http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty)
She apparantly thinks video games are attacking society's core models (http://www.igniq.com/2005/03/hillary-clinton-disses-gra_111211380243571428.html) :rolleyes:, Obama thinks it is ultimately the parent who needs to control what is viewed, ate and done in their house (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/819177,CST-NWS-sweet29.article)
It's clear to me that while Clinton talks whatever game she feels necessary to win votes, Barack has firmly set liberal ideals, and doesn't flip flop on them even when it could cost him votes. That's why I'd be more trusting of his liberal credits than Hilary's.
Oh and you can't just say, forget about foreign policy when comparing her and Obama, and this is where the difference between the two is really shown. Obama supports dialogue between America and hostile states as a means of easing America back into world affairs, Clinton believes that Palestines and Iranians should live in fear of America. Obama moved to say to Israelis that he had no plans to abandon them, but that dialogues does need to be opened with Iran (he doesn't support talking to Hamas I know), marked difference from Hilary's 'I'll obliterate them! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518)' speech. Obama supports easing restrictions on Cuba, Hilary doesn't. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/14758) And then of course there's Iraq....
Plus the main area that marks Hilary as being more Republican than Obama is that she is in the pocket of her moneymen (people she had to go back to time and time again, and presumably promise more and more favours to), where as Obama's 'organization' as you call it is mostly made up of people like you and me giving whatever money they can. Huge difference in terms of what they would be allowed do in office in relation to things like carbon cutting arrising from that