I would like to attempt to start a positive Hillary and Obama thread

I know I have a pretty low post count and have been told that there are those that will question my credibility because of that. But in view of the bitterness of some of the threads I have read and have responded to, I was wondering if we could discuss the differences in policy that may have made some prefer Obama or Clinton, and more importantly we can begin to hone arguments on why a Democrat in the White House will be far superior to a Republican.

I still know people who still think of Democrats "tax and spend" and that is it.

I am starting wonder if part of the reason we are having all of this in fighting is because we are just DYING to get into the General Election and "get at" the Republicans.

Well, how will we be better than the Republicans? Just a suggestion.

maybe its not possible - but I sure would like to see it.

I guess all we can do is our best to try and keep the record straight and hope for the best! :toast:

EVERYONE here once had a low post count and many of us first started posting at DU during a Democratic primary for President. That's what pulls many of us to places like this in the first place.

For the most part Democrats win on most of the real issues when Republicans can't scare people into not trusting the Democrats. It almost is that simple.

And that is what I love about the Democrats, we are best on the real issues and we really care about people.

There are graphics which show how much of a Tax Dollar goes to "Defense". Of course, in discussing this example of Tax and Spend Republicans, it would be necessary to arrive at a common (Democrat + Republican) definition of Defense.

Discussion of how much of our tax dollar is going into activities that don't produce enough positive effect on our economy would also include Tax Breaks.

one of them can't open her mouth without lying out her ass.

this is an example of a lemming who, rather than learn about the candidates, just nods in agreement at the made up talking points.

Way to contribute.

I am interested in fixing health care. I do not like the tact Obama is using to win: he is using right-wing talking points to scare people into thinking that they will go broke or be fined if they don't shell out big $$. That was simply not true.

Further, I do not like his inexperience and his unwillingness to make a decision until he reads the political wind. I want a fighter, and we have that in Clinton.

Further, her experience and knowledge is extensive in foreign policy. She has such a deep understanding and it shows when ever she speaks about history, the issues, the countries involved.

Clinton will be an amazing President.

where you stop spinning, nobody knows. :rofl:

Can you be anything but snarky?

Not terribly likely to happen in the near future. Tensions are high to begin with in any Primary, and this particular one has been especially ugly. I think part of it has been that people (not just Dems) are unhappy with the state of our nation as a whole. People are pissed off at a variety of things that are going on and this election has served to focus that anger.

Illustrates beautifully why some of the GOP folks are getting a might uneasy about what lies ahead in the General election--not just in the Presidential race but all the way up and down the ticket. If the voters are thinking the current mess is entirely due to the mismanagement of dubya and the rest of the Republican party then the GOP is well and truly screwn.

It SHOULD send chills down the spine of just about ANY thinking incumbent campaign, however--no matter the party. If people are THAT unhappy it is a very small leap to blaming any office holder--not just the GOP ones. Congress is comprised of both parties, and there is "blame" enough to go round if the campaigns don't stay on message.

As for how the Dems will be "different" from the GOP, I suspect that answer will vary from person to person. We had Dems who voted to go into Iraq--so you know THAT isn't an arguable difference. We had Dems who voted for all that Homeland Security stuff--so THAT is no clear difference. Dems have not led the charge to reduce your motor fuel costs or provide you with accessible health care.

Frankly, there have been Dems on both sides of EVERY single controversial issue, and there IS no clear distinction between the national parties. This is case by case issue, and there ARE no blanket answers at this point. (THAT fuels a lot of anger too...) Our Dem party lacks any definite platform at this point in the Primary--that will resolve with a nominee--and right now there just are NO easy answers. We are still sorting ourselves out.


YMMV. Good luck with your hunt for understanding.



Laura

The reason that it is difficult to consider a positive feeling on this is because it is perceived that one on of the candidates is putting their own personal interests ahead of the party's.

and it is very hard for us to be here while this has to run its course. I get really angry some times and I get scared especially when I see documentaries like "Hacking Democracy" when I see how easily elections can be stolen. We all are going to need to be ready and sharp come the GE! :patriot:

Dems "tax and spend".

Repubs "borrow and spend"...and they spend a lot more than the Dems do.


Still, the issue is spending. We need to stop unvetted earmarks (pork). We need to stop war spending. We need to start investing in technologies (like alternative energy) that may cost money now, but have a payout in the future. We need to completely revamp our tax code to eliminate tax breaks for individuals and corporations who don't earn them.

Obviously, these are not Republican planks. It'll take a Dem in the White House and a Dem majority in Congress to get things done.

Just as there is a split in the Dem party right now, there is also a pretty big rift in the GOP regarding spending. I know several Republicans (an occupational hazard) :evilgrin: who are completely unhappy with not only dubya, but McCain as well. That displeasure is rooted mostly in economic policies and excessive spending.

I had one guy tell me that his biggest disappointment in the last 25 years was the failure of the GOP to do anything about excessive spending while they had the ability. He is almost as bitter with dubya as the most angry DUer, and he is not the only GOP member I have heard say it.

The true conservatives (not social conservatives, mind you, the FISCAL conservatives) are pissed OFF and I know a half dozen that claim they will vote Libertarian just to make a point this year. Could be that is just peculiar to the guys I know, but I have to say I think that anger is a lot more common than we might realize.

Dems might face raising taxes to fund what we need in the short term, but I honestly think our strong suit has always been that we can look longterm and create systems to meet societal needs. We do spend, no doubt, but it is like spending to plant a garden--with care you get an excellent return on your investment.

Regards!



Laura

fiscal conservatives in Washington in 40 years.

"Republican", in the past 40 years, is synonmyous with "borrow and spend".


As I said, the key (for both parties) is to spend less and more wisely.

You figure out how much you need, who you're going to tax for it, and how much. Then you spend it as you planned.

"Borrow and spend" = Republic bullshit excuse to strangle social programs.

You figure out how much you have to spend. You figure out how much you're going to tax. And borrow the difference primarily from rich Americans (whom you just gave tax cuts too), future generations, oil-rich Middle Eastern regimes, and oppressive authoritarian Asian governments. Because that makes you strong on national security, you see.

tax cuts to the wealthy in the hope pennies will "trickle down" to the peons?

Absurd and illegal wars?

Or health care, education, and other items for the general public good?

What republicans believe is "moral" to spend gov't money on is a little scary.

welcome to DU

is what has generated such heat from their supporters. The choices seem to be based more on personality or subjective issues rather than policy, since each is a fairly moderate candidate and not apt to revolutionize anything. There just isn't that much of a difference between them policy wise, which is a shame since the left is yet again being ignored.

Though I'm not really a supporter of either, I tilt towards Obama by an inkling because of Clinton's votes on IWR and Kyl-Lieberman. However, those votes don't put me squarely in Obama's corner just because he failed to vote either way on Kyl and I have no doubt that if he had been in the Senate in 2002 that he also would have voted for the IWR. Every single Senator with any presidential ambitions voted for the damn thing, and since a liberal eyes wide open John Kerry voted for it, no one will ever be able to convince me that Obama would not as well. Just my opinion, not trying to convince anyone.

and a good thing for all of us to ponder.

I certainly hope we bring at least this level of heat to the GE. McCain *should* be an easy target. He's quite a mediocre person, except for one (important) biographical detail. They'll do their damnedest to show him otherwise; it's up to us to expose the truth.

I will give your thread a hearty :kick: and a Recommend!

For crying out loud, she used assassination as a campaign strategy!

What is anybody thinking, saying that a positive thread can ever be started about her again?

I don't think there is ANYTHING that can be said about such a person, and I question the motives of the OP. It might just be part of that "cover-up" that Bill Clinton is paranoidally ranting about, but the "cover-up" is actually originating from the Clinton campaign in an attempt to redeem her after threatening assassination of Obama. How convenient for Hillary to be part of a "positive" thread with Obama.

Again, there can be NO positive thread about someone who has threatened assassination!

is all ya got. She didn't advocate anyone's assassination but please don't let the truth cloud you fuzzy rational to continue spewing that lie.

Black Americans, and many of all races are EXTREMELY disturbed by Hillary's insinuation of a possible assassination of Barack Obama. To imply that her reason for staying in the race is because anything can happen, then nonchalantly say that even Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June, meaning therefore she should stay in, is not only pitifully diobolical but incredibly dangerous.

As I read some of the comments, I sense that some do not understand the true impact of her deadly insinuation. Keep in mind, when it was first announced that Obama was running for President, the initial concern in Black America was his safety. "Would some nut sniper him"? Obama had to hire secret service security right out of the gate.....why? Because of the true possibilty of some nut doing harm to him or his family.

Also, during the last 50 years, the people who have been assassinated have ALL been leaders who were working toward equality for ALL. John F., Robert and of course Dr. King. So just the WORD assassination brings to us not only an extreme fear but is a reminder of the incredibly sad loss to America, particularly Blacks, at the hands of the sick and wicked. For Hillary Clinton, a so-called leader, to insinuate, for WHATEVER reason assassination....is beyond disgusting. It subliminally sparks the hatred, bigotry and destruction that most Americans have worked so hard to overcome.

Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial Org...Dedicated To Truth !

especially about bandying about the word assassination. There is no appropriate or acceptable way to do that. Hillary had no need and no excuse to use that word. And whatever she meant by it, it was simply unforgivable.

Anyone who has read my posts may have seen me say that I spent most of my adult life defending and being a strong supporter of the Clinton's but this campaign they let me down completely. I began this primary season as an Edwards supporter and after being torn for a while about who to support, finally and happily settled on Obama.

What I am trying to do here, is to re-direct the conversation a little bit. I have been watching intelligent people who are very passionate about essentially the same things at each others throats over and over again having the same arguments.

I was hoping that we could try and move to discussing concrete things that can be debated.

Please don't think I am acting all full of myself or anything I am just hoping that if some of us can try and talk about the issues we can figure out what we are for as a group so once the dust settles we are ready to move forward.

on the issues. Big issues for this election include the economy, health care, and security. Barack and Hillary will stimulate the economy with a mix of tax incentives for small business, raising the taxes on the wealthy, and probably some make-work type programs domestically to get people back to work. Both recognize the need for single-payer health care and the country overwhelming wants it as well. Nearly everyone wants our soldiers out of Iraq.

When policy differences are few you tend to look at more subjective things like overall leadership style, past behavior/experience, and similar factors to determine who you think might do a better job.

I look at Hillary and see a moderate who is deeply tied to corporations and has alot of political baggage. I know many moderates actually won't vote for her because she had such high negatives in the 90's (whether they were fairly proscribed or not). She is a very educated lawyer, with the experience of being married to a president (which I don't think counts for all that much), and a few years in the Senate. She didn't even go back to one of her home-states (Arkansas or Illinois) to run for Senate - she ran in NY because she thought it would be a good springboard to run for president. She is roughly 15 years older than Barack, and life experience counts for something. She brings a unique voice in being a woman, but she grew up in a very well-to-do suburb of Chicago, and thus her view is influenced by those surroundings.

With Barack I see another well educated lawyer, with experiences of working as a civil rights organizer, civil rights lawyer, State Senator, and a couple of the years in the US Senate. I see incredible charisma and judgment (against the Iraq war from the beginning) and an inclusive attitude. He has run a phenomenal campaign for being a "novice", focusing on community involvement. Not just grass-roots support, but really building on the skill set of community organinizing. He's got "precinct captain" volunteers in every county nation-wide ready to work hard for him this fall. He is out there with an amazing energy, registering voters, and getting people excited about politics. Small donors are sending in record donations, while Hillary's donors are mainly PACs and large donors. He brings a very unique voice as the first African American to run a serious campaign for president. His worldview is influenced by having lived in not only Chicago, but also Hawaii and Indonesia.

I feel it is time for a real change, the vigor of youth, the judgment of someone who tries to talk to people rather than rattling off words like "obliterate" and "assassination" as if they are not serious terms to only be used with care in extreme situations, and a multi-cultural background that gives him an especially unique perspective. It's true that he hasn't been married to a president, but that can also be a plus because he doesn't bring all that baggage with him.

I don't know if this is what you hoped to generate, but it is honestly what I thought about when I became an Obama supporter.

I really appreciate your response. You echo a lot of my beleifs.
Take care!

because I'd LOVE a female in the top office. But unfortunately this time the best candidate happens to be male so I'm voting for him. I do have to give credit to both Barack and Hillary for history-making campaigns. That's my hope for campaigns of the future - that we see alot more diversity all around (and in both parties, but that may take a little longer).

that one kills me. the whole point of having a government is so that you can share the cost of providing for the common good. we used to do that with tariffs, which the republicans abolished.
and besides, it beat borrow and spend.

All our attention needs to be on McCain now. I think it has been stipulated that the stated policy differences between the two are not great. It is just that Obama brings greater credibility to the campaign because he has been more consistent in his policies, especially the opposition to the war.

It is a fact that he brings less Washington baggage to the campaign. And with his donor base truly being grass roots instead of mostly corporate interests, that is a very important difference.

Any politician can say whatever they think the public wants to hear at any moment. Therefore, we have to look at the history and the source of his positions. I simply trust Obama a lot more than Clinton.

is very easy. The problem will be if we are able to be heard. In 2000 they thought Gore was a liar and in 2004 they thought Kerry was French (yeah, really) and a coward.

They will come after us like that again. What was so shocking about 2004 is that during Vietnam Kerry WAS the hero and W was the chicken but they spun it the other way.

But, that said, if we get to be heard we call THEM the borrow and spend party who are pushing debt on to your children and grandchildren by being irresponsible about spending.

On health care, I've heard republicans say they don't want to work and pay for benefits for people who don't work. I tend to get off stride in that argument. What we need to say is the current health care system does not work for anyone in America.

the US spends more than any other country in the world but the quality of health care in the US is 37th in the world.

Take issue at fact value, know what we believe and why, and hold your head up high. Being liberal (generous, open minded) is nothing to be embarrassed about.

I honestly think it would also help if we didn't play their game. Which is not to say to ignore attacks against us, but to turn it on them rather than get in the mud with them. That's why I like Obama.

I love seeing the "Borrow and Spend" argument being discussed here!

As my mother would have said, "I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch!" because I am up to my eyeballs in Republicans in my family.

My inlaws would vote Republican no matter who it was.

My father's wife's family beleive Iraq bombed us on 9/11 and Gitmo is full of terrorists
and that the Democrats will raise taxes and destroy the middle class.


I came to DU to find people I could talk to. I am looking forward to this primary season to being over so we can move on to the GE and beating the bad guys.

as far as I know

:rofl:

Clinton and Obama have broadly similar policy positions; where they differ, the differences are fairly slight. I sincerely think that the difference is not one of policy but personality and personal history. Many of those who support Senator Clinton do so because they see her and her husband as having a proven track record, and see Senator Obama as relatively youthful and inexperienced; in contrast, many of those supporting Senator Obama see Senator Clinton and her husband as divisive and polarising figures who have a history of ethically questionable associatons and self-serving political posturing that has acheived little in the way of real gains as far as advancing a progressive agenda or strengthening the Democratic Party goes.

It's also interesting and perhaps instructive to note the difference in personality, vision and leadership revealed in each candidate's use of pronouns; when Senator Clinton speaks, she always says 'if elected, I will'; Obama says 'We will'. That difference is perhaps small on the surface, but important nonetheless; compare and contrast, for instance, JFK, who said 'we', with George W Bush, who says 'I'.

To be perfectly frank, I rather suspect that Senator Clinton's support is based in large part on fond memories of the 1990's and Bill Clinton's presidency; the reasoning seems to be that Bill was a decent president, was much better than his successor, and that Hillary by association has many of his virtues (not to mention that were she elected Bill would no doubt play a significant unofficial role in her administration).