Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Hillary + McClurkin - Universal Health Care = Obama. Are there 10 key votes where Obama differed

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

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

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:40 AM
Original message

Hillary + McClurkin - Universal Health Care = Obama. Are there 10 key votes where Obama differed

from Hillary? I can only identify about a half dozen significant votes where Obama and Hillary both voted and they voted differently (Obama voted better on half and Hillary voted better on half).

They are both blatantly bi-partisan in their approach.

Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are both rabid in their preferences, but I just cannot see the differences in the approaches they have taken during the brief time their Senate careers have overlapped (other than the surface differences of race and gender -- and I'd love to see either a black president or a woman president). Aside from their votes in the Senate which are remarkably comparable, I see Hillary's health care program as significantly better than Obama's (but Edwards' program is MUCH better then either and Kucinich's legislatively DOA plan is still the best). Plus, I am still greatly discomforted by Obama's embrace of the grotesque homophobic bigot Donnie McClurkin.

Can anyone identify 10 significant votes where Obama and Hillary both voted but differed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zynx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message

1. There is only a difference in emphasis and style.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #1

13. "Only"?

When you're President that's mostly what your job is. It's not like Presidents actually write laws or make administrative decisions except at the very highest level; that's where charisma, trust, character, and leadership are everything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaJones

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message

2. they are similar on issues. Obama lacks courage. nt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Scriptor Ignotus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #2

8. lacks courage?

he's a black man running for President in an extremely racist country. You don't think that takes courage? You don't think he gets death threats every day?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jackson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #8

28. It takes "courage" to want to be the most powerful person in the world?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Scriptor Ignotus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #28

31. no, not to want it

it takes no courage to want something. Hell, it takes no effort to want something. Campaigning at function after function, shaking hands with thousands of people over the course of a few weeks, standing exposed on an elevated stage while thousands of strangers stare at you after going through minimal (I've seen him speak in person enough to know) security as images of MLK, RFK, JFK, and Malcolm X dance through your head.

Yes, that takes courage.

Look, you can dislike the man, you can disagree with the man, but it's BS to say that what he does takes no courage. I will say that it's true that all presidential candidates are targets, but as a black man running in America he has a much larger bullseye than the rest. If you disagree please swing by stormfront or other white supremacist website for your rebuttal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Occam Bandage

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #2

18. For instance, he cravenly opposed the IWR, while Clinton bravely toed the Bush line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. Good point. Didn't Obama also bravely take his anti-war speech off his website and then courageously

agreed with Bush's approach of keeping troops in Iraq and then bravely and repeatedly voted to fund the war unconditionally?

Such fortitude must be remembered by all voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellisonz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #19

24. I can't address the former.

But the latter is the pottery barn rule. You broke it, you own it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jackson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #24

29. Which is not what Obama said when he ran for the U.S. Senate from the left

He promised to vote against funding the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellisonz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #29

33. That's not true and you need to provide evidence if you actually want people to believe it.

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding
Says he backs troops, not war

By James W. Pindell and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 22, 2007
Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

Obama's comments represent a direct response to attacks launched by aides to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who have pointed out that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

----

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.
"
When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but

Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

Obama explained that position yesterday by saying that his initial opposition to the $87 billion was based on the fact that $20 billion of that sum was earmarked for reconstruction projects that he feared would be awarded by the White House in no-bid contracts.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

maddiejoan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message

3. I think on policy

Hillary and Obama are nearly identical, and Obama's votes are nearly identical --but only when he bothers to show up.

I think Hillary is the one that can make those changes a reality. She is a workhorse --not a showhorse (as she puts it)

Plus I agree with you on Health Care and "Ex-Gays" --don't forget to throw Rev. Caldwell in there. (worse even then McClurkin IMHO)

My hopes are that Edwards' Health Care will become the official party plank.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3

14. I hope Edwards gets enough delegates to use as leverage to get his health care plan adopted as an

official plank of the party platform.

I'd rather see Edwards nominated, but even if that becomes impossible, the promotion of his platform is good enough reason to support him to the end unless Hillary or Obama makes a better case for themselves as the candidate of progressive Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

soleft

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message

4. I think you nailed it - but there are a few things that sway me to Obama

as my second choice. Edwards is my first choice.

Number one - no Bill Clinton, no dynasty, no rehashing the constant attack machine of the 90's.

Number two - I think internationally, Obama would do more to restore a postive view of th US.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #4

17. I agree. Your points would push Obama to my 2nd choice but McClurkin, his obstinacy on universal

Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 12:21 PM by Stop Cornyn

health care, his anti-consumer "tort reform vote," his anti-environment vote for Bush's 2005 energy scam hold me back, but then I'm equally disgusted by Hillary's votes for extending tax cuts targeted to benefit those already wealthy and her abysmal trade policies as well as her votes against setting a goal of redeploying US troops out of Iraq in a year and against the creation of the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Iceburg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #4

27. Number Two ??? The Clintons are universally admired and respected abroad

Obama still doesn't know who the leader of Canada is ... his remark about the "President of Canada" is somewhat reminiscent of GW's "Prime Minister Poutine" comment.

Obama has great difficulty thinking on his feet (all of the debates illustrate this profound weakness). Hillary on the otherhand is a master at it but that has much to do with her experience and vast knowledge on many subject matters. Further, wrt to non-Christian countries, Hillary is not and will not be viewed as a Christian Crusader and Obama most certainly would be, particulary in Muslim countries which frown upon conversion to Christianity. Hillary may well be a deeply religious person, but from an outsider's point of view her beliefs are seen to be of peronal matter only.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HeraldSquare212

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message

5. Assuming they don't, you then have to judge how they would govern

and whether they would get even the humble things they propose accomplished. I think Obama has a better chance of that. I also think Obama is less likely to let the Reps goad him into doing stupid things, like bombing Iran. We know the Reps were successful in goading Bill into doing things he didn't want to do, and I think the same would be true of Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

J R

(63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message

6. I won't support Obama because of McClurkin

As far as I'm concerned, Obama sold all gay people out when he teamed up with Donnie McClurkin. I'd never ever vote for that jerkwad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

20. McClurkin is a bitter pill to ask any progressive to swallow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FredScuttle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #20

25. McClurkin shows a straight Democrat like me that he's no better than your garden variety panderer

When the best defense the Obamanations can come up with for McClurkin is "but, but...Hillary hires homophobes too!", that is, to me, an admission that "Saint Obama" is just as big a phony, just as craven a panderer, just as willing to sell out principles and ideals for the sake of a few primary votes. :puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #25

35. Count me as another straight Democrat who views the McClurkin fiasco as disqualifying for primary

support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Czolgosz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message

7. BINGO! Obama and Hillary are two sides of the same coin! Neither represents meaningful change.

The election of Obama or Hillary would would exchange corporatist Democrats for corporatist Republicans which is an improvement but not a real or meaningful change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mondo joe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:28 AM
Response to Original message

9. Exactly. NT

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eridani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message

10. National health care would NOT be DOA if--

--our candidates (except Kucinich) weren't too wussy to ADVOCATE it. Jeeaus fecking keerist! The 1994 Clinton plan was a huge subsidy to large insurers. Small to middlers responded with Harry and Louise. Did the bigs then defend the plan that they were responsible for creating under Clinton? Haw. Why in fucking hell would any of the frontrunners think it would be different for them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #10

21. Our candidates are not the roadblock. HR 676 is already drafted. It just doen't have support among

the already elected congressional members.

I think even Kucinich gave up on this when he endorsed Obama going onto the Iowa caucus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eridani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #21

37. That is absolute crap. He recommended a strategic alliance for Iowa only

Kucinich made a really stupid strategic decision in Iowa, based on being pissed off at Edwards for colluding with Clinton to eliminate him from further debates. Obama had come out publicly in favor of inclusive debates--unfortunately that, not health care, was the relevant issue. Strategically, Kucinich should have recommended Edwards because backing the candidate running in third place nationally would have kept the race more even.

BTW, elected congresscritters are by and large cowards who pay more attention to interests with big money than to their constituents.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #37

38. When Kucinich endorsed the candidate with the worst health care plan it spoke volumes about his

priorities and his own disbelief that he can get HR 676 passed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eridani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #38

39. Kucinich did not endorse Obama, period.

He disendorsed Edwards for pushing for his exclusion from further debates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eallen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message

11. Character. That is very important this election.

It always should be important in presidential elections. It's just that the Bush years have high-lighted the importance of it.

:hippie:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message

12. You forgot - Wal~Mart, - Charisma, and - Any Chance of Bipartisan Support

Obama wants to find moral common ground between the right and left and constructively move forward on the issues we can work together on. Maybe Clinton wants that too but
A) she's not talking about it
B) so many people dislike her so strongly it's not likely

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Oregone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message

15. Hillary doesn't offer UHC

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #15

16. She sets universal coverage as a goal and has a method to achieve it. Obama doesn't even bother to

set a goal of universal coverage with a plan to achieve it.

Don't get me wrong, HIllary's health care plan isn't half as good as the Edwards plan and isn't even a quarter as good as the Kucinich plan, but her plan is a damn site better than Omaba's preemptive-compromise half-a-plan on health insurance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #16

23. Subsidies are ten times better than tax credits

Anybody who relies on tax credits isn't serious about anything. The college tax credits they gave us in the 90's is proof of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #23

36. All three candidates are offering subsidies. Some are offering tax credits in addition to subsidies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

VarnettaTuckpocket

(559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #16

34. And like she says, as Democrats if we don't even start with universal coverage

We'll never get it. The Repugs will use the fact that even Democrats (or specifically Barack) aren't arguing for universal coverage, and then we'll never get it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message

22. ILLINOIS

His record in Illinois proves that he would fight for progressive policies because he did it while the Clintons were triangulating away the New Deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FredScuttle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #22

26. Strange, then, how such a "progressive hero" hired a clown bigot to headline his campaign event?

Oh yeah....he's running for President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jackson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #22

30. He triangulated away in Illinois on behalf of drug and insurance company lobbyists

Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 03:08 PM by jackson_dem

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yanez Houston Jordan

(317 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message

32. I can see how some people would feel that way about Obama and Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Czolgosz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #32

40. I can't understand how anyone else sees it differently

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

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

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