Clinton's case: My positions = Democratic party's

Well, she has to say that because this week's meme is all about her tied to the GOP.

While an aide to Sen. Barack Obama, who spoke at a town-hall meeting yesterday in Los Angeles, tried to explain away the altered policy changes, analysts excused him, noting the passage of time and less-liberal competition.Barack Obama, senatorial candidate 04, is very different from presidential candidate of 08.Videotapes of debates and speeches obtained by Washington Times shows Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half-dozen issues ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal aliens that conflict with statements during his run for the White House. For example, in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare he opposed decriminalizing marijuana But as a U.S. Senate candidate, Mr. Obama told ILL college students January he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use. What is
Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he favors granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted twice in debates? About Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Hey, check it out, Obama and Mittens the "conservative" agree that the government should be able to take all our guns.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-romney-mi.html

Obama is absolutely right for America. He is a breath of fresh air that will change the way we feel about politics in the future. No more special interests running the show. Out with the old, in with the new.

Obama, "breath of fresh air" ... What are you talking about? In democratic party many people during the last few decades have said EXACTLY what Obama is saying. Have you forgot about Jimmy Carter? He was what Obama is now.
Obama is fine, but he is by far do not own the word change, and he is also not the most qualified candidate. We have a woman who holds the deliverable promise of change, and her name is Hillary :).

Jimmy

Kennedy will be in charge when Obama gets elected and your breath of fresh air will smell like stale whisky and cigarettes.

I think some of us are too quick to leap on the Obama bandwagon. His policy is so confused, his experience lacking.

Granted he is quite the orator, but here in Britain, we've seen it all before in Tony Blair. All style and little substance, and many thought that was a revolution in British politics - and it was, but for all the wrong reasons.

We replaced an elite establishment, albeit a reasonably accountable one with a new type of elite, only this one rides roughshod over opinion, opposition and democracy.

Trust me, a vote for Hilary is a vote for a stable and dependable Democrat. A vote for Obama is a leap in the dark with no indication of where we'll find ourselves.

If nothing else, I implore you to examine the policies of Clinton and Obama before you decide who to vote for. Don't squander your opportunity to elect a promising Democratic candidate, because of another who talks a good game.

Make an informed choice.

Hilliery will do and say anything to anyone at anytime if she thinks it will further her own selfish personal emotionally empty soulless goals.

Obama must be totally conceited to this that after only three years as a US Senator that he is qualified to run the executive branch of the U.S. Government. After three years in The U.S Senate you are not even an effective Senator. The U.S. voters needs to wake up and nomminate HRC as she has years more expereince. Obama will not win a general election against Mc Cain. And if he does win the country is in for a very rough ride as he spends the first twi years firguring where the rooms in the White House are located never mind how to run our Government.

Excuse me Hillarys' healtcare plan will not succeed, universal healthcare is a disaster in Britian and in Canada and will be a carbon copy in the USA. They talk about a balanced budget no way are the dems going to balance the budget without taxing the american public out of their socks.

Martin:

Can you respond to Paul on on the issue of Universal Health Care in Britain...is it a disaster?

RE: Paul Jaeger

I take exception to that unqualified remark about universal healthcare being a disaster in Britain.

I have had every drug and procedure I've ever needed within four to six weeks of seeing my doctor in the first instance in cases where treatment was elective, and within a matter of hours when it has been an emergency.

I have never paid any more that £7 for a course of drugs (thats $24), some of which would have cost around £500 to purchase privately.

It isn't without its problems, but i don't have to bankrupt myself to get treatment, I don't have to travel hundreds of miles to get treatment, I don't get denied treatment because i failed to disclose a prior illness, I don't have to have it pre-approved by an insurance company.

I'd say compared to the current system in the US, we've got it all sewn up here in Britain, so make sure your arguement is informed before you blindly believe republican claptrap.

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Does anyone realize yet that Obama is the "John Kerry" of the 08 election?

The republicans pundits are either talking him up or at least refraining from bashing him in the same way that they are bashing Hillary. This is for a reason. Nothing would thrill republicans more than to be running against an inexperienced and untried candidate who is known for flip flopping. At least Kerry had a war record and many years in the senate under his belt.

Hillary on the other hand strikes fear in the hearts of those who want to perpetuate the Bush agenda a) because you can't bash her anymore without looking foolish and b) if she wins, she'll take them out.

Win or lose, Obama is the best bet for the bushites.

Remember - reaching beyond partisan boundaries is code for "I'll do the bidding of the neocons if they push me into a corner."

Sorry - I'm a realist. I'm not buying into the hype.

Here's a place where you can see a point-for-point list of all the votes where Hillary and Obama differ. There are some noticeable places where Hillary veers sharply to the right. These candidates aren't quite as 'identical' as we are led to believe.

http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/01/actual-differences-between-barack-and.html

Did you catch this piece when it hit NRO?
http://www.whwg.com/thefirm/sample.php/181/Clark_S._Judge

I've never thought about the election this way -- Clark Judge makes the argument that this election centers around one question: "How does America deal in a world without walls?"

Now that the Cold War "walls" have been pulled down, global issues such as immigration, terrorism, the economy, and the environment are THE issues that our country faces. And Mr. Judge makes a compelling argument that while the Democrats are reverting back to pre-Cold War ideals (Hillary=Truman, Barack=Eisenhower) that won't work in today's world, the Republicans are correctly focusing on the challenges that our changing world has brought our way.

Am voting for Edwardsin the primary and I urge everyone to do the same. Let's shake out how the media are going to TRULY treat each of these candidates a bit more. I see Obama as a great veep, perhaps, but I change my mind hourly. I'd like to see what the media will do to our candidates for a little bit longer...

Better than airborne--nasal sprays! I like the one with saline and glycerine and eucalptus. There's so damn much pollution in the air these days from the 'clean coal' plants.
It's nice to see some civilized coverage of Hilary, instead of the vilification we've been seeing. I hope it continues. I'm voting for edwards tomorrow as I don't want to commit just yet--I wanna see how the press treats our candidates still standing before picking a horse. Since it's covered like a horse race, and I have to seek out real information on line from progressive press, I have to act like a track place-better instead of a citizen. what a shame. Hope that changes with media regulation in the coming administration.

Hillary's positions, Obama's positions, and Socialist canidate Brian Moore - can anyone tell the difference:

http://www.votebrianmoore.com/issues.htm

Someone had posted this as a comment on another site - am reproducing it here:

On Legislative Experience:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record. . . .

Go Obama 2008!

Her positions are the democratic parties. Obama's positions are the democratic parties.
And so are socialist canidate's Brian Moore's positions:

http://www.votebrianmoore.com/issues.htm

Is there any substantial difference?

"It makes no sense for me to basically buy the Republican argument that we can't cover anybody," she said contrasting her healthcare plan with Sen. Barack Obama's.

Sounds like the team that "changed welfare as we know it" and couldn't pass healthcare reform in the '90's wants to shove "mandatory" healthcare down our throats.

If it didn't work after 20 years of experience, what has she learned in the last 15 that thinks America wants to go back to socialism?