What differences are there between the platforms of Obama and HRC?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Aside from health care--concededly probably the biggest domestic issue in this election--there seems to be no real difference in their platforms. They both seem to be running on traditional Third Way platforms. If this is true, then we might as well favor the real McCoy, the one with experience who won't fumble around for a year or two while learning on the job (remember Bill Clinton's first two years? Or Carter's?).

There has been a lot of talk between the two camps on everything but the substance of their campaigns. Let's move beyond the smallness of our politics and compare what they are actually running on.

[NYCGirl]

1. Throw Edwards into the mix, too. NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. That would be too complicated. Let's save that for another thread. HRC and BO are our front-runners

If you want to post a thread comparing them today, feel free to do so. I think it would be better to focus on these two and then compare HRC and Edwards or Obama and Edwards (comparing three at the same time would be too muddy) at a later date. I don't want to divert the attention of partisans to another thread. Let's put all the substantive differences between our front-runners in one thread that we can refer back to for the rest of the campaign.

[NYCGirl]

3. It'd be much more interesting with the top 3. Is Edwards not important enough?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Efficiency

Head-to-head comparisons are always easier to do and more illuminating and less meandering than three or four way comparisons. Think about it. Jordan or Magic? Compare that to Jordan, Magic, or Bird? It is more difficult to compare and contrast a trio than two candidates.

As I said earlier, if you think we should have such a comparison today, post an Edwards vs. Obama or Edwards vs. HRC thread. I think, for reasons stated earlier, we'd be better served saving that for another day.

[NYCGirl]

5. Seems you've been playing Clinton and Obama against each other and leaving

poor John Edwards out in the cold.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. 40 views and not one post about a difference yet?

Hmm...

Post an Edwards vs. Obama thread then.

[rinsd]

9. I think Edwards is warming by the fire while the snowball fight ensues (nt)

[NYCGirl]

10. I just want to get this snowball fight a little more egalitarian. NT

[BeyondGeography]

7. All three are running on something other than policy statements

which is smart. People vote for Presidents, not party platforms.

Hillary is running on experience/hubby legacy/only I know the evil ways of the VRWC, only I can beat them.

As for Obama, here's a quote from Axelrod:

<After the consecutive presidential losses of Al Gore and John Kerry, patrician candidates who ran ill-fitting “people versus the powerful” campaigns designed for them by the consultant Bob Shrum, many Democrats began to suspect that part of what was wrong with the party was its formulaic consultants. The party has suffered, Axelrod says, from a “Wizard of Oz syndrome among Washington political consultants who tend to come to candidates and say: I have the stone tablets! You do what I say, and you will get elected. And they fit their candidates into their rubric.”

Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. It is also, more and more, the way of the Democratic Party. Its 2006 Congressional campaign strategy — run by Axelrod’s close friend Emanuel, with the Chicago consultant acting as principal sounding board — did not depend on any great idea of where the party ought to go, like the last political cataclysm, Newt Gingrich’s 1994 House “revolution.” As they have reclaimed power, the Democrats have done so not by moving appreciably to the left or the right; rather, they have done so by allowing their candidates to move in both directions at once. “What David is basically doing — and this is somewhat new for Democrats — isn’t trying to figure out how to sell policies,” says the Democratic media consultant Saul Shorr. “It’s a matter of personality. How do we sell leadership?”>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=a9235fe0b0643c63&ex=1182225600

As for Edwards, here's a quote from Edwards:

<“Presidential elections are not just about issues — they’re about character and integrity and values,” Edwards told me when we met for coffee in Chapel Hill last year. “I didn’t realize when I went into it that what you stand for is more important than all the rest of it put together. I believe that very strongly now.” In other words, whatever one might say about the details of Edwards’s proposals, he is betting that voters will see two things: first, that he is a serious thinker who has offered detailed plans for the country (something they did not necessarily see in him in 2004), and second, that he is a man of such character and resolve that he is willing to talk about poverty in rooms full of wealthy lawyers and Iowa farmers, whether or not they share his passion for the poor.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10edwards-t.html?ei=5070&en=9b12dcd773ed7123&ex=1182312000&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=7&adxnnlx=1182202657-hdMahsKQNcjbjQcXRMO8YA

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Substance doesn't matter? Is this an election for POTUS or freshman class prez?

It is idiotic, it seems to me, to vote for someone based on their smile, marketing, or whether you would rather have a beer with them. Didn't we learn this lesson the hard way in 2000?

Edwards stated the obvious but has not discounted the importance of substance. I believe he has spoken of the need for candidates to say what they intend to do. This is why he has been the most specific, most policy-oriented candidate thus far.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Ask Edwards; his "serious plans" are just as much to make him look serious

as they are "serious plans."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. So substance doesn't matter?

We are not electing a freshman class president. We are electing the most powerful person in the world. We need to vote on substance. Look at what happened in 2000 when * kept it close enough to be selected because he was perceived as someone people would like to have a beer with...

As far as Edwards is concerned, even if (that was the writer's spin, not his words) that is why he is offering specific plans the fact is he is laying out what he intends to do. That is good. Obama and HRC are doing so too, but on a lesser scale, particularly Obama. HRC at least has a lengthy record we can examine. Obama is virtually a blank slate. This leads to things like Obama supporters vilifying HRC for her position on outsourcing when in reality he has the same position! :rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

15. I wouldn't put much stock in what any of them say about policy

during a campaign, least of all Edwards, who went from one of our most conservative Senators when he actually was in government, to would-be lefty now that he's trying to be our nominee.

Their records are what matters, and, for the record, Obama takes plenty of heat from critics who see him as the thing Edwards never was: a true liberal:

<When Obama’s record and views are separated from the mythmaking and rock star rapture he’s wrapped in, the problem of his electability looms large. Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.

Meanwhile, Obama bombed in the ratings he got from the conservative National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the Federation for Immigration Reform and the American Conservative Union. These are some of the nation’s top conservative advocacy groups, and they reflect the interests and views of millions of voters on immigration, spending, guns, abortion and military prowess. These voters will scrutinize his record and his views with a laser eye.>

http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/African/politics_law/ofari_barak0206.asp

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. So what should we vote on? Smiles? Do you think Obama and HRC are identical on substance? nt

[BeyondGeography]

18. I trust Obama to be less conservative than Hillary

they are not the same people. More inclined to roll back tax cuts for the rich. Less inclined to plant military bases in Iraq. And far more inclined to clean up the ethical sewer that is Washington and run a transparent government. So, yes, it comes down to substance, but, just as much, trusting the instincts of the person you support to do the right thing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. "Trust", "instincts", "inclined". These are all faith-based

We can't afford to put someone in the most powerful position in the world based on faith. It isn't as if we are buying a product we can quickly return to the store if it is faulty.

[BeyondGeography]

20. It's a balance, as I've pointed out, but you're determined to try and pick fights

with Obama and his supporters, so a reasoned approach isn't working with you right now.

[MNDemNY]

11. The difference is IMO perceived elect-ability.

Clinton has her skeletons, I think most if not all are out there.
Obama probably has some undiscovered ones that will come out.(after all you can't be a politician in IL and not rack up a few. Let's get them out before the choice is made for the nomination.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. I agree. Also, we need to find out whether Obama is a HRC-type Third Way candidate

One of the biggest attacks Obama supporters make against HRC is her DLCism and why we need to move to a more progressive stance. Well, if Obama himself is the same, voters should be aware of that before they vote for him over HRC based on a false belief that he is the antithesis of HRC.

The other obvious issue, aside from electability, is ability to produce results. If they are identical then we might as well go with HRC, who knows how things work in Washington. People forget how ineffective Clinton I and Carter were in their first two years because of their inexperience.

[madrchsod]

21. first two years in carters presidency

Camp David Accords

"During his first month in office Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion. One of his first acts was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea"

"On Carter's first day in office, January 21, 1977, he fulfilled a campaign promise by issuing an Executive Order declaring unconditional amnesty for Vietnam-era war resisters and pacifists."

"Carter signed legislation greatly increasing the payroll tax for Social Security, and appointed record numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics to government and judiciary jobs. He also initiated a comprehensive urban policy. His Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act created 103 million acres (417,000 km²) of national park land in Alaska. He was also somewhat successful in deregulating the trucking, rail, airline, communications, oil and finance industries."

"convinced the Democratic Congress to create the United States Department of Energy."

"Jimmy Carter's reorganization efforts separated the Department of Health, Education and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. Efforts were also made to reduce the number of government departments and employees as Carter had done when he was Governor of Georgia. He signed into law a major Civil Service Reform, the first in over a hundred years."


and this

"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.... I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might."

"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation"

he had setbacks during the first two years mainly from his own party,the oil/energy crisis,and the economy that he inherited and by the end of his term was rebounding.

given what he had to work with that`s not bad for not having any experience in first two years

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Ok. Here is one major difference: Universal health care

HRC: Has emphatically said the health care plan she will propose in a few weeks will provide universal coverage
Obama: Has a Third Way-style plan that will--even under the rosiest scenario concocted by Obama's team--would leave 15 million Americans uninsured

This is a huge difference on the chief domestic issue of this election. This alone would be enough to favor HRC over Obama, assuming HRC keeps her promise (Obama also promised universal health care before unveiling his actual plan).

It is amusing that on the one major substantive area they disagree it is the DLC'er HRC who is more progressive than Obama, who is posing as a progressive "change" candidate...

[papau]

22. Obama is into taking smaller steps & bringing all on board - his energy plan includes coal n/t

n/t

[NYCGirl]

24. What's that have to do with health care? NT

[papau]

25. The OP's question was "platform aside from Health Care"

"What differences are there between the platforms of Obama and HRC?

Edited on Mon Jun-18-07 05:29 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
Aside from health care--concededly probably the biggest domestic issue in this election--there seems to be no real difference in their platforms. They both seem to be running on traditional Third Way platforms. If this is true, then we might as well favor the real McCoy, the one with experience who won't fumble around for a year or two while learning on the job (remember Bill Clinton's first two years? Or Carter's?).

There has been a lot of talk between the two camps on everything but the substance of their campaigns. Let's move beyond the smallness of our politics and compare what they are actually running on."

[NYCGirl]

27. It was posted under "Ok. Here is one major difference: Universal health care"

which is why I was asking.

[papau]

32. no problem - only problem is my mind works not always the same as other folks :-) n/t

n/t

[NYCGirl]

23. What about Edwards' health care plan? I've looked all over and can't find how he'll

cover the uninsured.

[papau]

26. Under Edwards there are no uninsured - it requires all American residents to get insurance with poor

getting help to pay for it.

[NYCGirl]

28. So it's very much like Obama's (and I haven't looked up Clinton's yet), except

that everyone is required to buy into the system.

[papau]

33. "universal" is only possible with the "mandate" if you do not go single payer via taxes. 75% of

the plans that are out there are details on the way to get savings out of the system, so in that sense there is a Hillary plan because she put out a 28 page speech on the savings and how to get them out of the system.

But she has not formally put out the coverage proposal that gets you universal (Edwards) or near universal (Obama). Richardson's Medicare begins at 55 with mandate below that age is another universal idea that is out there.

I expect she will use the same mandate system as Edwards and not bite the bullet on single payer - but I have my fingers crossed hoping I am wrong and that instead she makes us all surprised and happy by going single payer.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. No. Edwards' plan covers everyone; Obama's plan leaves at LEAST 15 million uninsured nt

[NYCGirl]

41. John Edwards' Fuzzy Insurance Math:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/06/15/john-edwards-fuzzy-insurance-math.aspx

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Anyone? I thought Obama was a progressive "change" candidate and HRC a corporate DLC shill?

That is the story we have been told. Are we now being told by those who pushed this story that Obama is the same as HRC? That everything they have said about HRC's politics applies to their own candidate as well?

[FarOut]

30. Hillary has experience, Obama not so much

But, Hillary also has a tin ear for us little folk, and Obama just might have better hearing! I am taking a closer look at Kucinich, until Gore gets into the race.

[zulchzulu]

35. Welcome to DU!...

You should know that Obama has 8 years in the Illinois State Senate as well as 3 years as Senator (besides all his other diverse background, thus making him MORE experienced than both Edwards and Clinton).

First Ladies don't have legislative power.

Clinton having more experience, not so much...

[LBJDemocrat]

31. Hahaha. I've asked this question before

and didn't get many answers.

It all goes back to how Obama was against the war when he wasn't even a US Senator (or campaigning).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Exactly. It is both amusing and scary

How could a candidate get so far based on smoke and mirrors? He is HRC (more right-wing than her on the critical issue of health care so HRC-lite would be unfair to HRC), yet his supporters seem to think he is an electable incarnation of Kucinich!

[zulchzulu]

34. Aside from the fact that Obama respects the Constitution and doesn't like "dumb" wars...

...there is a massive difference.

Obama is not for making desecration of the flag a federal crime, nor did he bite the bait from Chimpy to go into Iraq. He does have a very solid healthcare plan and has a voting record to prove he's solidly progressive on all fronts.

Besides recent polls showing he is more electable than any other Democrat against a Republican, he also actually would win. Compare that to the best intentions and plaform policies with a proven divisive character with a lot of baggage and you see there is only one intelligent choice.

If you're REALLY interested in Obama's platform and policies, go to his website www.barackobama.com. Sign up for email updates and discuss what you think is relevant.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. So the only real difference is on flag burning?

That is a very tangential issue that neither side is running on.

On Iraq, they are, as this thread's silence suggests, identical today and going forward.

On health care he is more Third Way than progressive, even to the right of HRC. HRC will offer a universal health care plan; Obama's plan leaves at LEAST 15 million people uninsured.

==If you're REALLY interested in Obama's platform and policies, go to his website www.barackobama.com . Sign up for email updates and discuss what you think is relevant.==

I've done that. They are both the same on the key issues.

Electability is not a platform issue.

[ripple]

36. For starters, the ability to actually carry out the platform

I'm convinced that Hillary won't win the general. I know some here disagree, but they can't show any numbers to back it up. Everyone knows who she is, so it's not like people don't know her- instead, their minds are already made up. Her support is within the inner trenches of the democratic party and largely comprised of primary voters. That doesn't mean jack in the general.

As fractured as the republican party is right now, she is the one candidate that could succeed in unifying the republican base- in order to oppose her. Even if she were to squeak through the general, I can all but guarantee we would lose control of one or both houses of congress before the end of her first term.

In other words, her platform would go nowhere.

There are other clear distinctions between Hillary and Obama, though, such as the differences in approach to our nation's security (and where it's at today, in light of our global actions), their approach to cleaning up the environment, campaign finance reform and lobbying, advocacy for Darfur, veterans' benefits, disaster relief, etc.

I know you're an Edwards guy, but your attacks on Obama have bordered on bizarre. Until, of course, I realized that you are looking to somehow mitigate his distinction from Hillary and your guy.

Obama was against the IWR when it wasn't exactly PC to take that position. Your candidate had the poor judgment to co-sponsor the damned thing, while Hillary voted in favor of it.

As long as we're talking about differences, let's not overlook the elephant in the room. More importantly, let's not overlook the people who got the elephant there to begin with.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. Thanks for the response

Electability is not a platform issue and that is routinely discussed here. This is a thread about their substance.

==There are other clear distinctions between Hillary and Obama, though, such as the differences in approach to our nation's security (and where it's at today, in light of our global actions), their approach to cleaning up the environment, campaign finance reform and lobbying, advocacy for Darfur, veterans' benefits, disaster relief, etc.==

Such as what? On security and foreign policy they are carbon copies of each other. What differences are there on, let's say, the environment and campaign finance reform?

==As long as we're talking about differences, let's not overlook the elephant in the room. More importantly, let's not overlook the people who got the elephant there to begin with.==

It is always comes back to 2002 with Obama supporters. The thread is about their platforms, not what they did half a decade ago. The fact is that HRC and BO are identical on Iraq today. What is Obama going to say to the families of those who die in Iraq while conducting military operations under him? "Well, I'm sorry your son died in Iraq, it is 2010 but I was right on Iraq in 2002. That should make you feel better!".

==I know you're an Edwards guy, but your attacks on Obama have bordered on bizarre. Until, of course, I realized that you are looking to somehow mitigate his distinction from Hillary and your guy.==

There are clear differences between Edwards and Obama. I will explore those in a separate thread. You seem to conflate HRC and Edwards. There are stark differences between them, differences that do not exist between HRC and Obama.