The Difference Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Interesting - I come to almost the exact opposite conclusions about them. You saw the opposite in Hillary with the health care plan. It was hers or nothing - she even killed a compromise plan that almost definitely would have passed.

On the other hand, with Obama, it seems like he consistently compromises, to the chagrin of many. His police bills and health care bills in the Illinois Senate were two of his major legislative achievements and had great support, but were both criticized by the ideologues for compromising too much with the other side.

 

I don't entirely disagree with your general premise. We part company on the idea that Obama is stubborn or has a tin ear regarding the will of the people. We also part company on the idea that Clinton's willingness to change is rooted in populism rather than self preservation. (I don't believe for a minute that Clinton's support for the Iraq war - nor Kerry's, Edwards' or Gephardt's - was either sincere or born of any populist tendency, but was rather born of an interest in running for president.)

The Clintons found DLC-style moderation when Bill lost a re-election bid for Arkansas governor. He (and I can only assume she) went through a profound change as a result of that loss. And, since then, they have both tried to portray themselves as centrists in policy while I believe they are both extremely liberal personally.

This tact wins elections sometimes, but it makes the winning a little less worthwhile. I often point to gays in the military as an example. Bill Clinton had promised to make allowing gays in the military an early priority of his administration, much like Carter had promised to make amnesty for draft evaders one in his. But while Carter, recognizing amnesty was not popular, went straight to the White House to sign amnesty into law on Inauguration Day, Clinton floated trial balloons and read polls until he decided on Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a compromise that endorsed (for maybe the first time) institutional closeting and set gay rights back not forward, benefitting no one on either side of the debate.

His welfare reform bill too was positively draconian coming from a Democrat -- and was a direct result of his third way political strategy. Similarly, Kennedy (whom you mark as a Progressive "ideologue") was more hawkish in policy than in person in a nod to political realities.

 

Here's a story on the police thing:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31759.html

But I don't know how much ideology was involved there, so it might not be the best example for what you're looking for. Let me see if I can find something about the health care bill - I remember he was criticized on the left for being too friendly to the "industry" - but I don't know the details.

 

Your need another "epiphany". Calling Hillary a populist who "believes in the will of the people in setting policy" is a laughable. This concept only applies to her when political survival is at stake. In fact, a better description for what you say is that Hillary is a "survivor" (who will morph as needed to stay alive). I don't want a survivor as president.

 

I think your observation is correct despite some Obama supporters argue otherwise. The truth is the highly educated young people and blacks form the Obama. These people resonates more with an ideologue.

It is possible that Obama is not an ideologue himself but he is selling himself as one and that's why he attracts the like-minded people who buys into his salesmanship.

 

I have deep-rooted problems with both of them, as I see their ideological positions on key issues as being very harmful to the interests of our nation. At least with Hillary, we know what we are going to get. She is a known commodity.

Obama is not. He does not have enough experience to get a good gauge on him. And we know that for the last 20 years, his brain has been polluted by a racist, America-hating bigot at his church. I'm just scared of what impact this hate has had on Obama that hasn't come to light yet. He puts up a good facade, but what is really behind him? No one knows , which is troubling. It's just too big of a risk to elect him to the most powerful office in the world without knowing what's truly behind him. That's why I think his supporters are very naive.

 

LOL at some of you guys actually answering as if you really ever consider either of these candidates. One you guys have been insulting since I've been on this site and the other you've tried to label the angry black man since the campaign has started. as if you would vote for a democrat libpig anyway.

I guess when your own candidate goes to the middle east and needs his younger brother democrat to whisper the correct answers at press conferences in his ear, you might as well try to bash the dem candidates.

 

We agree. Hillary is a know commodity. But I see this as her biggest weakness. Wingnuts have been bad mouthing her since '92. HRC will help wingnuts fund raise and will help them with their voter turnout. (If HRC got elected there would be some liberals who would get great pleasure from seeing the wingnuts blowing their gaskets about how the world was going to end.)

Policy wise, BHO and HRC have a few differences, for what little that is worth. As President, BHO and HRC would likely sign and veto the same set of bills.

 

From her emergence before the political spotlight, I, for one of many, have detested Hillary for her low ethical threshhold, hypocrisy, her consistent whopper-telling etc. etc. (I would be accused of belaboring the point if I continued), so lay off the wingnut talk lest it come home to roost.

BTW, a wingnut is a very necessary part when it comes to holding machinery together. That just goes to show that your insult is ill-conceived.

 

That lady is a saint compared to the current President.

 

Disagree. I'd vote for George W. every day and twice on Sunday before I'd vote for Hillary.

 

Good lord. Now I've seen everything.



Impeach Bush. A Defining Moment that would Mean Something.

 

Wow. That is why we are down 9 trillion.

 

Better than $90 trillion under Hillary. She's one of the few Democrats that would push me to re-establish my moderate Republican credentials. As President she would be the worst of all possible worlds.