What does Obama hope to do in the WH that is so much better than Clinton?

[AJH032]

Clearly the central theme of the Obama campaign is hope. He advertises it, his supporters consistently repeat it. I'm just wondering, what is he "hoping" to do that is so much better/different than Clinton or any Dem would do? Why is he really all that much better, as Obama supporters claim? This is a serious question, not to be taken as an offense to Obama's message. I really want to understand. He speaks of hope. What is the substance underlying his hopeful plans?

Thanks in advance.

[yourout]

1. Get there.

Something Hillary CAN NOT do.

[Donnachaidh]

9. the OP asked a LEGITIMATE question

I hope at least ONE supporter can put together an intelligent thoughtful response. :shrug:

[K Gardner]

57. No you don't. You don't hope any such thing. Bullshit. You cant or wont engage in a

discussion. That is not the purpose of this thread.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. It's not what he will do, it's what he symbolizes

You obviously haven't been paying attention.

[Donnachaidh]

4. so you're voting for a SYMBOL?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AJH032]

6. huh?

I don't understand. I'm asking what he will do. The job of the president is to do, not to symbolize. The president of the United States is more than just a figure head.

[sandnsea]

46. He gets low income working people

and Clinton and most of the country don't. That's why so many people don't "get" how Obama will be different. But he will. It isn't just the symbolism.

[Donnachaidh]

3. ...

:popcorn:

[shaniqua6392]

8. Gimme some of that popcorn!!

Does it have extra butter? LOL!

[Donnachaidh]

11. oh yeah -- here ya go!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[shaniqua6392]

17. Thanks so much! Yummy.

I love that line up above about "so you're voting for a symbol"? This DU movie is hilarious. It is filled with drama, action, adventure and so much more.

[Donnachaidh]

19. crickets are REALLY loud in here, aren't they?

:evilgrin:

[HeraldSquare212]

5. For one, not start anymore dumb wars. nt

[Cant trust em]

7. Hope to bring the party more to the left

by building a coalition of people who wouldn't normally vote Democrat. Increasing our numbers.

[rug]

14. Yup, hope to do something is just the cure for 8 years of devastation.

[Donnachaidh]

16. I think the OP is asking for SPECIFICS.

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

10. *crickets*

[TexasObserver]

12. First and Foremost, NOT be the Clintons!!

That would be dramatically better than letting a family of grifters move back in and start selling off deals left and right.

Look at what they've done the past seven years. They are DINOs.

[Donnachaidh]

13. Legitimate question brings a clinton bash?

Wow.I'm.Impressed.

[K Gardner]

56. Here's the problem. You don't have legitmate questions because all you are doing is

waiting for people to answer you so you can bash them. This is sick stuff. Look downthread and look at your own tripe, all of you.

[incapsulated]

15. Hrm, got an answer to the question that doesn't involve

Obviously not being Clinton?

[AJH032]

26. that's not much of an answer

true, he wouldn't be the Clintons (which may or may not be a good thing, but that's another discussion). Again, what are his his plans? Surely, a politician who has such a following would have some solid agenda to warrant such support?

[TexasObserver]

30. If you have to ask, you need to spend more time studying and less time

posting

Do you have a TV?

Have you ever read a newspaper?

Try those, and contact me if you still can't figure it out.

[AJH032]

70. I spend a good part of my day every day reading the news

so you cannot accuse me of being blind. I have read his positions/watched the debates, and I do not see anything so substantially different from Senator Clinton to characterize his candidacy as so much more hopeful than hers.

Again, I pose my question.

[TexasObserver]

76. ok. fine. You're sincere and you just want to know.

I've already told you, and if you have to have explained to you why the Clintons are dirty, why they've abandoned the very principles that brought them to Washington, why they've sold out to oil barrons and dictators, why they will stoop to any action, no matter how sleazy, then maybe you need to read more.

I don't have any patience for people who either feign ignorance or won't take the necessary actions to cure their ignorance.

[AJH032]

79. you can explain his/her/their "dirtiness" all you want

What you have not done was answer my question, but that's fine, I've found some responses in this thread that at least try to. I do not care for your portrayal of the Clintons, as I know it is not without bias (and as a trumpeter of truth and knowledge, you should surely support me in that choice).

Anyway, you clearly do not deem me ignorant, because you've spent enough of your time here in this thread trying to convince me of Clinton's evil, and you would not have had the patience (according to your post) for such an endeavor if you had thought me otherwise. Thanks anyway!

[TexasObserver]

80. I'll summarize.

Talking to you is a waste of time, and I don't believe you're sincere.

[AJH032]

82. if it was a waste of time to you

you wouldn't have done it. Clearly you placed some worth on it at the time. In the end, all you've done here was attack the Clintons and attack me. If anything, it's been a waste of my time.

[incapsulated]

18. *crickets*

[Donnachaidh]

25. ya know, I can hear people breathing when the crickets quiet down

But it seems like not much is happening in the answer department. Anyone else want popcorn? :popcorn:

[K Gardner]

61. Are you having fun here, Donna? Because I don't remember you being this obnoxious when you supported

Edwards. But I guess Hillary changes all things.

[doc03]

20. Substance? He will leave 15 million

without health care.:popcorn:

[tishaLA]

21. His foreign policy goals are a lot different

for one thing. Susan Rice and Samantha Power are good examples of this. Power, especially, is a gem, whose work on genocide and Iraq have been very influential.

His plan for community service a a way of helping people attain college educations, and the importance he puts on community service generally because of his time as a community organizer, also distinguishes him. It is a way of forging responsible citizenship IMO.

There is a variety of other things I think he would do, but mainly because of his commitment to getting (nd keeping) people involved in public policy debates and his interest in government transparency.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. tisha, you are to be commended

for giving a real answer. :applause:

[Donnachaidh]

28. links? Please?

Especially on the foreign policy stuff. Thanks!

[K Gardner]

59. Try visiting his website, like you must have when you supported Edwards. And stop

harassing the people who attempt to answer your question, i.e., step into your trap where NOTHING will be good enough and every answer and answerer will be dissected.

[doc03]

32. What will he do?

Who are Susan Rice and Samantha Power? :popcorn:

[tishaLA]

37. google is your friend

[doc03]

55. Rice and Powers whoever they are are

not running for President.

[tishaLA]

62. The quality of the president is as much about the

quality of his or her advisers as anything else. Bush's incompetence, for example, is rooted in his incompetent underlings. To have people working with him who are superior in their field is something to be respected. I trust he will be as careful with his economic advisers, too.

[incapsulated]

35. tish, honestly

How does any of that really distinguish him from most dems?

Community service for education is as old as the hills, so is any long time dem doing community organizing, how does this translate into something new? And Bill Clinton practically reinvented the whole town hall, policy debate idea. It's not new.

We keep hearing about "Change".

I really don't see anything about Obama that is a significant change from any other garden variety dem. Or why, aside from some supposed willingness to work with republicans, which frankly has been more of a problem than a shortcoming on the dems side, he is going to get anything done in the White House in some radical new way. Hillary works with republicans, too, and it's usually used as an insult around here.

[tishaLA]

47. well...

Giving $4K educational credits for community service is a new way of tackling two problems: the problem with ballooning educational expenses and a way, other than faith based organizations, of getting help to the homeless, etc. As someone who just ended a bout of homelessness, I can tell you that more people working with that population would be really helpful. And they even get an education while doing it! I know Clinton had AmeriCorps, but this is something different.

I also really think that this whole idea of working with republicons is overstated or treated as if it were triangulation; triangulation is the tactic of the other candidate. What Sen Obama seeks is community involvement at the national level to get politicians to move toward a more progressive agenda, not appeasement to milquetoast or neoliberal policies.

[Cant trust em]

22. Have you watched the debates?

I don't mean for that to sound snarky, but your answers are all there. Go to the website. I could go there and cut and paste something but I'm not sure what you're asking for.

[AJH032]

29. I did

but it seemed like he and Clinton agreed on most things (with marginal differences). So, I ask my question again: why is Obama so much better?

[Cant trust em]

34. I have a hard time imagining a Clinton getting much done

with congressional republicans. Obama seems to have a knack for getting people to the table to hash things out that might normally get lost in a war of words. Clinton seems to get caught up in the war while losing sight of what really matters. See her vote on IWR. To sum up, while their policy positions are very similar, how they go about achieving those goals is quite different. I'm skeptical about Clinton's ability to rally people to do what she wants them to.

[incapsulated]

39. Clinton has been working in the Senate all this time

Without any problem. Obama didn't invent working with republicans and normally that is hardly something that endears you around here, especially since it usually means compromising your principles.

She has more experience in DC working the floor than he does, this isn't the State House and each of those is very unique to each state.

[blm]

52. Did you notice her ONCE the last 7 years stand tall AGAINST any of Bush's decisions

that OTHER Dems were sticking their necks out to oppose?

[Cant trust em]

I imagine it being much different if she were president

I've said everything I need to say on this subject. Maybe not to you, but to someone. I'm tired of this conversation.

Have a nice day.

[thoughtcrime1984]

64. He energizes a hell of a lot more people to actually get involved and be

interested in our government. Building from the ground up. He is also very pro-transparency in gov't. He has released his tax return for perusal. Will Hillary? Is there anything to hide with the Clintons? I think they are as far from transparency as one can get.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Be careful...

These kinds of questions get some people really stirred up around here.

:hide:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. I'm Hoping You Get Some Real Answers To Your Question.

[golddigger]

31. ...

:popcorn:

[pdxmom]

33. I'll take a shot at this. He's not hoping to "do" anything. He's trying to

get the people to buy back into their country. And no one can argue that the people have lost faith and hope in their country. They have given up on their country and government actually being able to accomplish anything. And he wants them to realize that this is *their* government and they *can* have a voice and make changes in the country.

If someone can do that, and if people actually do buy back into their government, then I do think things can happen. Right now, apathy is our friend. How many of us here are amazed at how few people care about getting up in arms about the war, illegal wiretapping, the run-amok justice department, etc? It's because people have decided that getting riled up doesn't matter. That the powers that be are going to continue doing exactly what they're doing, while the average guy/gal gets screwed. Obama is trying to get the people to get involved in the government again.
I don't see anybody else talking this way directly to the people.

So if you take the premise that Obama and Clinton, in general, have similar platforms and policies, and then you factor in the addition of inspiring the people in this country to become involved in this country, as opposed to just telling them what you are going to do, without asking them to engage themselves, I see a huge difference and one that I prefer.

[incapsulated]

41. How?

Get involved, how? What is he going to do that will make people more involved?

[pdxmom]

49. What makes you involved? Why do you send letters or vote or march against

the war? Do you think it will change anything? Did someone inspire you to do that?

There are millions of people out there who have decided that there is no longer any hope that they can affect change in this country or that this government can work for them. The first and most important component in any country is the people themselves.

If you can energize and inspire people and get them to believe that they can be actively involved and affect change, then change can happen.

And I also happen to like the majority of his policy positions.

[incapsulated]

74. What about people not personally moved by Obama?

Honestly, I see a lot of projection going on here, the assumption that everyone will feel as inspired as his hardcore supporters do. That just isn't realistic.

[pdxmom]

88. I was an Edwards supporter, so I think I've got myself pretty grounded

in reality. And even I can see that these hardcore supporters aren't the same as you and I may be. I already write letters and march and call. I would appreciate it if even 1% of those new supporters he has brought out will continue and start doing those things I already do. I don't expect that everyone will. That *is* unrealistic. But if even some of these folks will become involved, that is a lot more voices to add to yours and mine to hopefully affect change.

[doc03]

50. I have been around for many Presidential elections

and for the Democrats it is always(hope), that is nothing new. Bill Clinton was the man from Hope. Jesse Jackson wanted to keep hope alive. Howard Dean said we could make change we had the power. The Republicans it's always be afraid be very afraid. Hillary Clinton has been tested, the Repugs have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at her and she keeps on going. I don't think Obama has the fight in him he seems be too thin skinned to me and just going along to get along with the Repugs, we need someone that will get down in the trenches and fight.

[pdxmom]

90. And that's a legitimate concern you have. I think that he will be a fighter and

haven't seen anything to convince me differently. And I actually see Clinton as the one who has triangulated and compromised on things that were important to me.

[Saturday]

51. Inspiring the people in this country?

He didn't even inspire the Obama girl to vote.

[pdxmom]

91. Well, she's a twit. They don't count. N/T

[blm]

36. Open Government. Clintons support Closed Government and side with secrecy and privilege

as they protect the powerful elite like the Bushes and themselves.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

We already saw that in the 90s and with Bush2's continuous crimewave, we don't need another Clinton cleaning up for them and protecting his dictatorship, too.

[incapsulated]

43. Specifics

What is he going to do differently, show me.

[blm]

48. He already submitted a transparency bill in the senate and at the last debate

he said he'll urge cameras in ALL legislative negotiation sessions so lawmakers would be seen by the public if they choose to carry water for a special interest or lobbyist.

Ope government matters to some of us. We already saw what happens when a Dem president sides with the secrecy and privilege of closed government.

[incapsulated]

73. It's getting these bills passed that is the challenge, blm

I'm sure Clinton and every other dem has a laundry list of bills they would love to be passed into law tomorrow.

That doesn't mean they will get it.

[blm]

75. The biggest challenge in this country is OPEN GOVERNMENT. Clintons don't believe

in open government at all and sided with the secrecy and privilege whenever it came down to a choice.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Truth is all we have to protect the open government we were supposed to manage to keep. WE failed as citizens to protect open government because of the leaders we chose. But now we know so much more - and yet some Dems want to continue the protection of the powerful who keeps government closed to us?

[incapsulated]

78. This isn't about the fucking Clintons

Jesus christ, can you people discuss anything to do with Obama on his own merit?

[blm]

81. Yes it is. Obama advocates for OPEN GOVERNMENT. That is exactly what makes him different

in the most substantial way from Clinton.

[K Gardner]

38. Actually pass something in the House and Senate.

[incapsulated]

40. HOW???

How is he going to do this, by magically making all the republicans who live to filibuster and fight and refuse to compromise for *anyone else* love and adore him, where does he get this awesome power?

[pdxmom]

44. From the people. He's trying to get the people to engage in their own

government. That is not a bad goal, nor is it unachievable.

[incapsulated]

72. A stupid, hollow answer

Thanks.

[pdxmom]

89. No, thank you for your respect and willingness to engage in discussion. Now, why

do you think that is stupid or hollow? People are governed by choice, not by fiat. You want to know how to change minds and actions of the Repukes in Congress? That's actually an easy answer...you changes the Repukes in Congress. And the only way to do that, short of vermin traps, is to have the people vote them out. Can you get rid of them all? No, of course not. But is it possible to show the people that they are working against their own best interests by keeping them in office? I think it is, but first you have to engage them again in politics and government. I think that's' what Obama is trying to do. I also think there is meat behind his rhetoric in a majority of his policies which are of importance to me.

[K Gardner]

53. YES !!! You got it. Now fuck off, since what you wanted was NOT a discussion, but for people

to offer responses so you could bat them down. Such a typical Hillary tactic. No response = Coward. Crickets

Response = Make fun of them and call them cultists and denigrate anything they say. I'm so absolutely freaking sick of you people and YOUR candidate I cannot stomach it any longer.

[incapsulated]

71. Fuck off? I just spent 15 minutes answering a question here

Typical Obama loon response.

YOU fuck off.

[judaspriestess]

87. and vice versa

I'm sick of YOUR candidate and you people too.

ridiculous

[MH1]

His longer coattails will help elect more Democrats to Congress.

Of course if you don't believe he has longer coattails then that isn't a good argument for you, but it is a good argument for me because I believe it.

[Gloria]

63. What KIND of Democrats??????????

[MH1]

66. Um, people who vote with the Democratic platform 75% or more of the time

as opposed to 25% or less.

[MH1]

65. Other than electing more Dems, here is an example of HOW for anyone who is honestly interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.

[MH1]

42. 1) Ethics reform, sunshine laws, citizen engagement

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

The Problem

Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Wasteful Spending is Out of Control: The current administration has abused its power by handing out contracts without competition to its politically connected friends and supporters. These abuses cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

Barack Obama's Plan

Shine the Light on Washington Lobbying

* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
* Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
* Support Campaign Finance Reform: 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.

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: 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.
* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: 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.
* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. 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.
* Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: 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.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

* Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.
* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.
* Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence

* Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.
* Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.
* Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

On edit: oops, I missed the "how is this better than Clinton?" part.

I guess if someone posts Clinton's plan (in a similar summarized format) people make their own judgments.

My belief is that opening up government is not a big priority with the Clintons. They won't release their tax returns; they won't release the donor list for the Clinton library; and I have never heard them make a strong case for how they would address the issue of government secrecy.

If you want more details of Obama's plan and the opinion of a technology law guru who has endorsed him, go to Lawrence Lessig's blog:

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html

Or read Obama's technology plan at http://lessig.org/blog/Fact%20Sheet%20Innovation%20and%20Technology%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf .

[incapsulated]

69. Ok....

Shine the Light on Washington Lobbying

* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Ok, good idea but that is a lot of work, who will be doing it?

* Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.

Not without a huge fight from Congress.

* Support Campaign Finance Reform: 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.

I'm for any reform of campaign finance but he can't do it without the repukes signing on, and they won't.

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: 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.

If he does this, for real, good for him.

* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: 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.

Who will be organizing, tabulating and overseeing all this data collection and so forth?


* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

This is a reaction to Bush, mainly.

* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. 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.

Meh, once again this is a reaction to Bush.

* Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: 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.

Good luck with that.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

* Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.

Meh.

* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

We will see, doubt it.

* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

Ok, that is good.

* Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

So is he going to throw out the existing language?

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence

* Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

Two years? Not much different.

* Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.

Uh, not very meaningful, frankly, "I'm not here because I'm a dem?" Once again, this is a reaction to Bush loyalty oaths.

* Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

How is saying "my appointees will be qualified" reform? Anyone other than Bush appointees will be better qualified.


I see a lot of promises, most of which I doubt will see the light of day and others that will be rejected by the congress.

Some good ideas but every candidate has such a wish list of ideas.

[MadHound]

45. For some of us, it is simply the choice of the lesser of two evils

We know that Hillary is a warmonger, what with her IWR vote, her support of war funding, her support of Kyle/Lieberman, her promise to keep combat troops and combat missions going on in Iraq. Obama has only supported the funding, therefore it comes down to the lesser of two evils:shrug:

Am I happy with it, no, but I can at least stomach it.

[Armstead]

54. Visit his website -- He has a whole host of proposed policies and goals

[Straight Shooter]

58. He hopes to change into someone who can do the job at least half as well as Hillary. n/t

[Gloria]

60. PRAY and talk about it alot...UGH

[MH1]

67. Have you read this great article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html

[Gloria]

92. He's not in ILL anymore, in a safe district...he his now courting

Republicans, on their terms.

[sniffa]

68. No need for yet another thread that's been posted a brazillion time

Don't get worn down by wasted energy. This is a distraction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4468754&mesg_id=4468754

[flordehinojos]

77. there so much hot air comming out of, yes, another set of lying lips ... just like bush's

[Jane Austin]

83. He promised to have his Health Care Task Force televised on C-SPAN

where We the People can see who is proposing what, and who is promising what to whom.

This would be in start contrast to Hillary's secret Health Task Force a decade and a half ago.

[Evergreen Emerald]

84. Nothing. They are nearly the same on issues. He just talks pertty

[EMdamascus]

85. Heard his radio ad in Tucson

The ad was full of warm fuzzys, but what is his platform? No substance, all show, pandering to emotions. I worry about any debates ahead should he get the nomination.

[Samantha]

86. I'll take a shot, although I have not signed onto his campaign and

am not as educated as his official support base might be.

Looking at the bigger picture, he will start with a relatively clean slate on which to attempt compromise, working with Republicans and Independents. While Hillary has promised she can reach across the aisle, the simple fact of the matter is the Clintons do have a lot of baggage from Bill's terms in office. During the time of the impeachment debacle, the mood here in the Country was very depressed. I thought the Republicans were simply gunning for him and were obviously in the wrong, but Bill Clinton allowed the controversy to drag on too long and did not take control over the situation. The Country suffered as a result of that, and I feel that is part of the baggage the Clintons carry. I am not convinced that we will not have more of the same stress as a result of the Clintons having to do battle with those in Washington who literally do despise them, and that will subtract from the attention we need to give to our really pressing problems.

Yes, the economy was great. I have always appreciated that about his two terms. However, he did cut, as a result of Republican pressure, many of the so-called entitlement programs. Social Security Disability, for instance, became a lot more difficult to acquire, even by very legitimate applicants. I could write more about this because I saw first-hand the direct impact that had on two people I knew, but on to other issues.

With regard to Social Security reform, Obama said he would strengthen the plan itself by raising the cap. The cap should have been raised long ago. Hillary responded with the trite saying that this would be a tax increase (how Republican-like). Hillary said as far as reform, everything will be on the table. She does not eliminate raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. That's a significant difference between the two.

I am strongly against mandates under a national health care program. I did feel, until Hillary's feet were held to the fire on this issue, that she would not qualify whether she would attach income from those who failed to make payments, whether those payments could be deducted from a low-income senior citizen's social security income. Quite frankly, it is my personal belief she is more in the pockets of the HMOs and PPOs than concerned about the impoverished among us. That's a personal opinion and not a fact, thus no link. I simply don't trust her when it comes to entitlement issues.

Bill Clinton came to office in 1992 with a private resolve to get Americans to quit smoking and drink considerably less. He had a lot of success with the smoking issue but literally none with the drinking issue. The reason for the latter failure was that the alcohol lobbyists were much stronger than the tobacco ones were. I strongly feel that people's personal habits do not belong under the purview of the President of the United States, as long as those habits are in fact legal, but Bill Clinton obviously did not share that feeling. His proclivity for interfering in people's personal lives and not being upfront about it, I feel is disingenuous. I fear she is cut from the same cloth due to the lack of candor she has shown on some issues. That's a gut call, not a fact-based position.

The salient difference to me between the two is the support of the war. I was very angered when Hillary signed that resolution to give Bush* the authority TO DO ANYTHING. My feeling at that time was he would abuse any authority given to him; and I made that call based on a question I repeatedly asked here: if a person cannot tell the truth about an election, why would one assume he would tell the truth about a war. Many DU'ers thought Bush* could not be trusted on this issue at the time it occurred. For Hillary to say, if I knew then what I know now, I would not have supported that resolution simply does not pass the smell test. It indisputably shows either a lack of good judgment or a lack of candor. Either way, I cannot support her. While she does not reference Barack's 2002 speech but then bats it down with his votes to fund the war, that argument does not sway me. There were only a handful of Democrats who actually summoned the courage to stand up and speak out at that time. It took a lot of courage to do so due to the post-9/11 tension in the Country. But this he did, and it's a matter of record. For that I applaud him, and I stand strongly in his corner on this issue.

These are my primary reasons for preferring Barack's positions on some of the issues over those of Hillary but I will leave it at this. As I said, the base of his support I am sure can give clearer distinctions.

Sam