What are the major policy differences between Obama and Clinton?

[MonkeyFunk]

To listen to some here, there's a huge gulf between them - Obama is a progressive leader, and Clinton is a republican-in-disguise.

So let's talk about the differences in policy - not personality, not the past - real substantive policy differences that they would work to enact if elected.

I predict some mindless, stupid bash will occur within the first ten responses.

[mmonk]

1. The best way to look at it would be to examine who

is aligned and helping each campaign in different policy areas.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. No, that's not the best way to look at it.

Tell me what the differences are that the candidates themselves have outlined.

[mmonk]

4. You too.

I look at who is positioned to different areas of government because politicians will say what they think people want to hear.

[BootinUp]

21. Will say what people want to hear, like

Everyone will be able to afford insurance under my plan but we shouldn't force people to get it if they can't afford it.

Shit like that?

[JackORoses]

34. or worse someone who calls Mandatory Health Insurance 'Universal Healthcare'

someone who doesn't really care if people understand the truth, just so long as they vote for her.

Shit like that?

[mmonk]

54. Glad to see I started some discussion in a sub thread.

The difference between myself and others is I'm an activist for disability rights, constitutional rights, and human rights. I'm not a inside political activist. My views are a little different as is my approach at things.

[laban]

3. Healthcare and deep knowlege on the issues..or lack there off by Obama

[JackORoses]

35. you mean Health Insurance, right?

[MonkeyFunk]

44. And what is Obama's plan for universal health-care?

What's the biggest difference from Clinton's plan?

[JackORoses]

45. Obama is concentrating on getting low prices

Hillary just says make it a law and trust that the Insurance companies will lower their rates just because they have been given permanent customers.

Obama knows that the Insurance companies will not give you anything. He plans to force them into open Public negotiations, so that they have nowhere to hide.

All Hillary's plan does is guarantee profits for the 3rd Party Insurance companies. She pretends it is a Governmnet program like Social Security. She never mentions her plan means mandated, guaranteed Corporate profit.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. I think that's a rather one-sided description

Obama doesn't offer healthcare any more than Clinton does. I find the differences in their plans to be minimal.

[JackORoses]

49. exactly. neither offer universal healthcare. glad you can admit that.

The big difference is that Obama thinks low rates should be the main objective, Hillary thinks getting everyone an Insurance policy is the priority.

I think it is extremely unlikely that the Insurance companies will willingly decrease their rates just because they are given more customers.

You have to drag them into Congress and make them tell you what we are paying and why. Then pass legislation that regulates these prices.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. You're glad I can admit it?

I've never said otherwise.

[JackORoses]

55. why won't Hillary admit it? She continually lies and says she is providing Universal Healthcare.

How can you support a person who decieves the American public in this way?

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Obama also refers to healthcare

when he means insurance.

[JackORoses]

58. But he doesn't claim to provide Universal Healthcare.

Do you not even think twice about Hillary's deception here? And she continually uses it to try and attack Obama.
The hypocrisy stinks.
She keeps saying he doesn't provide Universal Healthcare all the while knowing that she doesn't either.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. Now you're being silly

They both refer to health coverage as "healthcare".

And no, Obama doesn't claim his plan is "universal" because it manifestly isn't.

[JackORoses]

62. neither is Hillary's, but that doesn't stop her from lying about it

Do you support her mischaracterization of Insurance as Healthcare?

[MonkeyFunk]

64. Exactly as much

as I do Obama's mischaracterization of Insurance as Healthcare.

I really don't understand you. You're attacking Clinton for something Obama does, too.

[JoFerret]

59. That's a big issue for me

...universal health insurance. Medicare for all.

[Breeze54]

5. Kudo's to you MonkeyFunk!

:yourock:

:kick: & Recommended

[avrdream]

67. Agree with the above, MonkeyFunk.

Kicked - the only decent thread I could find in the top 20.

Off I go to explore pages 2 and 3.

Why do I bother?

[Eric J in MN]

6. Obama wants to meet with all the world's leaders.

Hillary Clinton doesn't want to meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, etc. until human rights improves in those countries.

Though, apparently she will meet with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, and Russia regardless of their human rights records.

I prefer Obama's approach. I want the US president to be in communication with all the world's leaders.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I'm sure that's exactly what she said

I thought it was a rather silly distinction between meeting with or without preconditions. I don't believe Clinton has said she wouldn't meet with them at all. And I think both have further clarified their answers so that they're pretty much in agreement.

[Eric J in MN]

13. The US may have a crisis regarding Iran or Cuba before...

...they have improved their human rights.

I want the US president to have met with their leaders before that crisis.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. I don't recall human rights improvements being a precondition

of talks. Do you have a link to such a statement?

[Eric J in MN]

30. Link

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/429861.html

Asked at Thursday's debate in Texas whether he'd meet with Raúl Castro, his brother's likely successor, Obama said he would. ''I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies,'' he said. "That's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.''

Though Obama said he would be willing to meet with the Cuban leader ''without preconditions,'' he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

Clinton took a more cautious approach, saying she wouldn't meet with Fidel Castro's successor without "evidence that change was happening."

[Breeze54]

12. I understood it that she did want to meet with them but not in the first days of the Presidency...

They both said that they would meet with them but Obama wanted to do it right away and HRC said
she'd wait (as in not to be duped) until she knew all that was going on with those other leaders.

I believe the disagreement was in when, not if....

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Riiight. Like he refused to have his picture taken with SF Mayor Gavin Newsome?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/9425/36459/359/450174

[mculator]

7. Obama 16!

Clinton/Obama 08.

[BlueJac]

17. Obama cool/ drop Hillary

Hillary has betrayed the party by supporting Mc Nut

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Ah, it took 17 posts

for an unequivocal example. Highlight the OP and see my prediction. I was off a little. Post 9 almost fit, but this is a clear winner.

[boston bean]

8. .

[GodlessBiker]

9. She approves of cluster bombs, he opposes them.

[onehandle]

10. Almost none. They're both Centerists that happen to be socially liberal.

No great revolutions will be coming from either.

[tekisui]

14. There is very little difference in their policies.

And the differences equal a wash when you consider the variables to get policy implemented. Once bills work through the House and Senate, I don't think there would be any difference in their policies.

They both want to bring Healthcare to a many a possible. They both want to do what is possible to reduce out troops in Iraq. They both want to take a look at NAFTA.

The Centrist Democrats are the ones left to vote for. The Progressives didn't win or got pushed out. That is where the policy differences were.

Interestingly, the Party is divided between personalities, now, not policy.

[hedgehog]

15. How about a very basic difference: what does each candidate think about where we get our food?

Senator Clinton:

"You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you
worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food-
related roles. Your Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" was
planned withTroutman Sanders, Monsanto's lobbyists.

Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all
come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world's
largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE's most controversial project
(DP&L's - now Monsanto's - terminator genes), the world's largest
meat producer (Tyson), the world's largest retailer and a dominant
food retailer (Walmart).

The inbred-ness of Rose's legal representation of corporations which
own controlling interests in other corporations there and of
corporate boards sharing members who are also shareholders of each
other's corporations there, is so thorough that it is hard to
capture. Jon Jacoby, senior executive of the Stephens Group - one of
the largest institutional shareholders of Tyson Foods, Walmart, DP&L -
is also Chairman of the Board of DP&L and arranged the Wal-Mart
deal. Jackson Stephens' Stephens Group staked Sam Walton and financed
Tyson Foods. Monsanto bought DP&L. All represented at Rose.

You didn't just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow
of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart's board, you
were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days
before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens
strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating
$100,000).

Food and friends, in Clinton terms:

Bill's appointed friend Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, who
immediately significantly weakened federal chicken waste and
contamination standards, opening the door to major expansion of
Tyson's chicken factory farms. Espy resigned, indicted for
accepting bribes, illegal contributions, money laundering, illegal
dispersal of USDA subsidies, .... Tyson Foods was the largest
corporate offender.


But what Bill did for Monsanto "genetic engineering" goes beyond
inadequate concepts of giving corporate friends influence: He
unleashed genetic engineering into the world. And then he helped
close off people's escape from it.

Genetic engineering is many orders of magnitude different
from "normal" (even polluting) business in its potential biologic
ramifications. The warning myth of Pandora'a Box - letting
irretrievable things rush out into nature - has become real. The
harrowing change to the world from nuclear fission and fusion is the
closest parallel.

What did Bill do?

1. Bill's put Monsanto people in at the FDA, as US Agricultural Trade
Representatives, on International Biotechnology Consultive Forums,
and more ... or http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html or http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm

2. Bill's FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH (a GE bovine
growth hormone), the first genetically engineered product let loose
on us (or did tomatoes with fish DNA get there first?).

3. Despite reports of bovine illness and death, Bill's FDA did not
recall it or put warnings on it. Even "a very angry, very vocal
nationwide consumer base" had no impact. "


4. Bill's FDA wouldn't even label rBGH as "present" in milk.

5. When dairy farmers tried to label their own milk rBGH-free so the
public could choose, Bill's USDA threatened all dairies that their
products could be confiscated from stores. Michael Taylor, USFDA
Deputy Commissioner, was formerly Monsanto's counsel.

6. How were consumers to protect their family, given Bill's FDA
enforced public blindness, except to buy only organic? But Bill's FDA
tried to close off that last escape, proposing to include
in "organic" standards, "the dirty three" a : genetic engineering of
plants and animals, use of irradiation in food processing and use of
municipal sewage sludge as a fertilizer. (My emphasis.) The FDA
backed down.


Had this gone through, Monsanto could have finally labeled rBGH
milk ... as "organic." And animal waste from factory farms, a
pollution nightmare for Tyson and others, could have been sold as
fertilizer.

USDA head Dan Glickman: "This is probably the largest public response
to an rule in modern history." In fact the
response was 20 times greater than anything ever before proposed by
the USDA. "

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/626639


Senator Obama:

Barack Obama's Plan

Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Obama is a strong supporter of a packer ban. When meatpackers own livestock they can manipulate prices and discriminate against independent farmers. Obama will strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections to ensure independent farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices.

Regulate CAFOs: Obama's Environmental Protection Agency will strictly regulate pollution from large CAFOs, with fines for those that violate tough standards. Obama also supports meaningful local control.

Establish Country of Origin Labeling: Obama supports immediate implementation of the Country of Origin Labeling law so that American producers can distinguish their products from imported ones.

Encourage Organic and Local Agriculture: Obama will help organic farmers afford to certify their crops and reform crop insurance to not penalize organic farmers. He also will promote regional food systems.

Encourage Young People to Become Farmers: Obama will establish a new program to identify and train the next generation of farmers. He will also provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm.

Partner with Landowners to Conserve Private Lands: Obama will increase incentives for farmers and private landowners to conduct sustainable agriculture and protect wetlands, grasslands, and forests.

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

[Dinger]

16. K & R, Finally Some Substance (not hate) Here. Thank You Monkeyfunk

I sure do appreciate it:)

[rug]

19. Barack smokes.

:hide:

[joshdawg]

20. Differences?

It really doesn't matter which one wins the nomination. Either would make a good president. Even tho' I voted for Obama in the Primary, I would vote for Clinton if she gets the nod. There really isn't much difference between the two. At least not enough to gripe and complain about one or the other. As Pelosi said, stop bickering and get on with beating the crap out of McInsane and the immoral GOP.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. That's my feeling, too

I just can't understand the extreme positions people are taking here. I think they're both good candidates, either would make a good nominee and a good President. I happen to prefer one over the other, but that doesn't mean I need to denigrate the other.

The vehemence here is entirely out of proportion to the real differences between them.

[QC]

23. They are both timid corporate centrists.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

That is why the campaign is so vicious--it's what Freud called "the vanity of small differences."

[Breeze54]

24. Kicking because all need to participate in this, imho.

:dem:

[Orangepeel]

25. Very little

Health care mandates and how much of DOMA should be repealed are two differences that come to mind, although, of course, neither of those things are under the control of the president.

In terms of voting record, Clinton voted for the IWR and Kyle-Lieberman and Obama spoke against the first and spoke out against but missed the vote on the second. Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill and Clinton voted for the one that failed and spoke out against but missed the vote on the one that passed. Obama voted for a mandate forcing automakers to achieve 40 mile-per-gallon average fuel economy by the year 2017 and Clinton against it.

IMO, one of the reasons that supporters of each candidate get so emotional and engage in personal attacks (and, of course, both sides do this), is because there is so little in terms of either rhetoric or record that differentiates the two. The differences are mainly campaign tactics and personality. So that's what gets criticized.

[KittyWampus]

26. Open Government. Net Neutrality. Poverty. All strong issues for Obama & not Hillary

[MonkeyFunk]

28. What are the exact differences

on those issues you mention?

[KittyWampus]

27. Oh, and the 50 State Strategy which Obama is pursuing right now. It's not a policy but

that's probably why a Hillary supporter would try to limit a discussion to policy.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. To be fair

it's a 48 state strategy.

[hedgehog]

31. We aren't electing a policy statement, we're electing a person.

You need to have a good policy to begin with, but then you have to have someone able to lead people to carry out that policy. As an Obama supporter, I see him as someone who calls out the best in the American spirit. I see Hillary as someone who gets sidetracked into fighting instead of winning.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. And we've had a thousand discussions on personality

and temperament. Surely there's room for a little policy discussion, no?

My premise is that there's no significant difference between them on policy, and the actual differences between them don't warrant one percent of the vitriol shown here.

[Redbear]

32. The only one I could find was the Israeli/Palestinian question

On his website, Sen. Obama specifically endorses the "two state" strategy (the one John Hagee says God will punish us for). He also has voiced the idea that we have to remember that there is a difference between being Pro-Israel and Pro-Likud.

While I may be wrong, I could not find any recent statements from Sen. Clinton that agreed.

It is interesting because as First Lady she supported an independent Palestinian state before that was a popular notion.

But look on her website now and its all "I {heart} Israel."

Great question, MonkeyFunk.

[stillcool]

33. Bottom up...

Top down.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. That's a policy difference?

Try again.

[stillcool]

47. actually my opinion is that...

the policy differences stated today are identical for the most part and there is a reason for that. A person running for President in this country is allowed only so much rope. Dennis Kucinich comes to mind. We are an empire in free-fall. I do not believe any policy stated today will be executed as planned in 2009. Not only that, I do not believe policy positions now reflect reality. Like the mortgage 'crisis' is going to stand suspended in time until 2009. The choice for President for me, what I like to read about, is who they are, what is their past, who their advisers are, who their backers are, and what I might ascertain from all that to be their goals for the future. It is a leap not of faith, but of insanity, hoping that the results this time might be different. The idea that people will vote for a candidate who has mobilized people to involve themselves in politics is in my mind not only impressive but necessary. I would prefer when the bottom comes up and slaps us in the face there will be some modicum of unity, especially for those who's future depends on it. I know it's crazy, but what isn't?

[C_U_L8R]

36. One difference is ...

Obama supporters are astute enough to read your "invisible" text

hehehe ; - ))

[IndianaJones]

37. Obama would like to see gays healed so they can live discrimination free lives. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Everything, apparently.

Obama promises fireside chats. Hillary doesn't.

Other than that, who knows? Obama doesn't really get specific - other than to say that healthcare should be both universal AND optional.

Obama's promises should be treated, like the bible, as allegorical.

[IronLionZion]

40. universal like car insurance and income tax and obeying the law

wow, it's a good thing there are no uninsured drivers or tax evaders or criminals out there. I feel really safe now. Do you come from a country where everyone always does what they are "required by law" to do?

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. A person who decides to risk not having auto insurance

won't get his car fixed by his neighbors.

In a world where health insurance is optional, choosing to not buy it is a rational economic move. If you get sick the suckers will indemnify you from that risk.

Why buy milk when you can milk the neighbors cow through the fence?

[IronLionZion]

56. Is that what happens now? Who exactly is getting free healthcare now?

If you get sick you're not going to milk anything. The ER will hopefully give you some emergency treatment to keep you from dying, but that's about it. You won't get your operation or medicine or physical therapy that you need unless you have a way to pay for it.

Forcing people to line the coffers of insurance company executives is sick. Telling insured people that they are somehow paying for the non-emergency healthcare of others is a cruel hoax that is meant to scare you into supporting the mandatory filling of insurance executive bank accounts.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Hospitals and governments are picking up the tab

for a LOT of "free" healthcare.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Their major difference is found in their characters and demeanor.....

I believe that Obama's character is far better than Hillary's.

I also believe that Obama has a better chance of gaining what we want in Washington. It is one thing to promise, quite another to deliver. The right will fight Clinton with all of their might, and probably will succeed (evidenced by the type of policies Clinton put in place; Welfare Reform, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, etc....)

Obama on the other hand, the Republicans haven't had experience with. They don't know how they will manage him.

Just that, by itself, makes Obama's policies much more real....and that is a great big difference, IMO.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. Thanks

for posting exactly what this thread isn't about. I can always count on you.

[ProSense]

53. For starters, Obama's policy on Cuba and diplomacy with foreign countries.

and his approach to fighting poverty

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Barack is at least leaving the door open for loosening the idiotic sanctions against Cuba

Hillary is unequivocally pandering to the hardliners just like her husband did when he signed the Helms-Burton Act. Another reason I hate the electoral college.

[AtomicKitten]

63. You answered your own question.

Obama is a progressive leader, and Clinton is a republican-in-disguise.

:thumbsup:

[scheming daemons]

66. Their policy differences are small.... the big difference is this

A) Obama would have LARGE coattails and give the Dems a supermajority in the house and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

B) Obama would win all of the blue states from 2004... plus a half-dozen red states that Hillary WOULDN'T win.


Their policies are similar... but Obama - because of the above - would have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of implementing them.