Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidate?

Forums: Politics, Obama, Barack Obama
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Obama supporters have been accused of treating him like some sort of messiah, blindly supporting everything that he says or does. Well, I support Obama (although he wasn't my first choice), but I'm sure I'm like many others who don't agree with him 100% on all of the issues. This thread, then, is the place for Obama supporters to identify those issues where they diverge from their candidate.

As for me:

Iraq: Obama says that he will bring all of America's combat brigades home within 16 months. That's way too long for me. I'd send them home within six months -- or sooner if possible. Sixteen months just means there's more time to reconsider or get involved in some crisis that keeps the troops there past the deadline.

Cuba: Obama has stated that he will ease some of the restrictions on Cuba. That's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough for me. I favor a complete normalization of relations with Cuba -- just as we have been able to normalize relations with Cold War adversaries like China and Vietnam. The only thing that is keeping us from ending the embargo is a bunch of geriatric neo-Bourbon revanchists in southern Florida, and the only thing that is keeping the Communists in power in Havana is our policy of embargo.

Energy: Obama has far more realistic positions on energy, including the realization that our dependence on foreign oil is a security issue as well as an energy issue. But he showed in his campaign in Iowa that he is not above pandering to farm states by advocating federal support for ethanol made from corn, a wasteful technology that does more to drive up the price of food than drive down the price of gasoline.

Trade: Obama competed with Clinton and Edwards in the "I'm more against NAFTA than you are" sweepstakes during the primaries. As I have mentioned before, I think NAFTA is the Democratic equivalent to abortion for the GOP: lots of talk about getting rid of it but no action to change it. I hope Obama follows this pattern. The US simply can't change NAFTA unilaterally -- and opening up the treaty to revision will allow Canada and Mexico to push for their own changes (especially with regard to Canada's gripes about hardwood exports).

Education: As far as I can tell, Obama supports the No Child Left Behind law, he just thinks it hasn't been adequately funded. That's a mistake. NCLB is a bad law and a bad policy. It should be scrapped entirely.

I'll just add that McCain supporters are encouraged to start their own thread, where they can discuss all of the issues where they disagree with their candidate.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,706 • Replies: 112

No top replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat
Good idea, will definitely come back to this. A quickie:

joefromchicago wrote:

Education: As far as I can tell, Obama supports the No Child Left Behind law, he just thinks it hasn't been adequately funded. That's a mistake. NCLB is a bad law and a bad policy. It should be scrapped entirely.

I'm not sure that's how I'd summarize what is said at your link:

Quote:

No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind: The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Education Department and shortcomings in the design of the law itselfhave limited its effectiveness and undercut its support. As a result, the law has failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to adequately support and pay those teachers.

(Emphasis added.)

I know he's gone further than that elsewhere though, found this (from an Obama speech):

Quote:

There's no better example of this neglect than the law that has become one of the emptiest slogans in the history of politics - No Child Left Behind.

Now, we all know that the goals of this law were the right ones.

We know that making a promise to educate every child with an excellent teacher is right.

We know that accountability and standards are right.

We know that it's right to close the achievement gap that exists in too many cities and towns, and that it's right to focus on the inequitable distribution of resources and qualified teachers in our schools.

We didn't need some words in a law to tell us this, we already knew it, and every one of us is still willing to do whatever it takes to make these goals a reality.

But don't come up with this law called No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind.

Don't tell us that you'll put high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leave the support and the pay for those teachers behind.

Don't label a school as failing one day and then throw your hands up and walk away from it the next.

And don't tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend too much of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test.

We know that's not true. You didn't devote your lives to testing, you devoted them to teaching, and teaching is what you should be allowed to do.

This is what I'll be trying to leave behind when No Child Left Behind comes before the Senate for renewal, and if we don't fix the law then, I can assure you this - I will when I'm President. Let's leave behind that empty slogan.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaNCLB_2.htm

(He's against re-authorizing NCLB.)

The line I bolded here is what I most agree with -- that NCLB makes education too testing-centered rather than learning-centered.

As for my own preferences; I wish he'd back gay marriage as opposed to just civil unions. Might be too radioactive politically, not sure.

0 Replies

Obama said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee the other day, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." That sounds dictatorial to me. Every serious peace initiative I've seen pertaining to the Palestinians and Israelis support a 2 state solution using 1967 borders. Obama seems to e rejecting that. Olmert said, "The world that is friendly to Israel that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the 1967 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem." I dont think it speaks of the division of Jerusalem but the sharing of Jerusalem. But other than that mainly semantical point I agree with Olmert's statement more than Obama's. On the other hand Olmert is threatening an attack on Iran and should that happen peace initiatoves wont matter much. In the meantime I dont think Obama needs to be so dictatorial but should work with the international community and let the Palestinians and Israelis work out their own solution. Ultimately that will be largely based on 1967 borders.

0 Replies

The area I differ from Obama (my candidate) most notably is his approach to health care. I differ from all the candidates in that I am for absolute socialized health care. I don't think that universal health care (or whatever you want to call Obama's version) is enough, and if anything, it seems to create even more steps in the process.

Point A (the source of money)
Point B (the hospital/Doctor/etc)

Why is there something sapping money between point A and point B? That's inefficient.

In all, this is one area where I think Hillary was a little warmer for me.

T
K
O

0 Replies

On health I'm for a one payer system. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

0 Replies

http://www.pnhp.org/images/cartoons/hightower_cartoon.gif

That's funny.

0 Replies

Obama Walks Back Jerusalem Remarks
by Robert Naiman
Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama "quickly backtracked" from his remarks in a speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," a statement that had drawn widespread criticism from Palestinians, the Washington Post reports.

In a interview Thursday with CNN, Obama said:

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
Jewish Voice for Peace welcomed Senator Obama's clarification, noting that his original statement "undermined the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Obama promises to promote," adding

"Indeed, declaring Jerusalem as Israeli-ruled-only violates U.S. policy and international standards. It ignores Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem and the more than 240,000 Palestinian residents there, while implicitly supporting Israel's continued land expropriation, demolition of Palestinian homes, and expansion of settlement building, such as the 900 tenders issued to new housing for Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem this week."
While Obama's clarification certainly undoes some of the damage of his original statement, it's undoubtedly still the case that the net effect of Senator Obama and Senator McCain's appearances at AIPAC last week and their remarks there was to make the prospects of a constructive U.S. role in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace more remote.

Indeed, the same day Obama spoke to AIPAC, Palestinian President Abbas called for a resumption of dialogue between his Fatah movement and Hamas. While in terms of Palestinian interests, this is a very sensible policy, it's also a symptom of the breakdown of the current diplomatic process. President Abbas' statement has been interpreted among Palestinians as an admission that he's not getting anything out of diplomacy with the U.S. and Israel. Senator Obama's and Senator McCain's remarks at AIPAC have added weight to the widespread belief in the region that U.S. policy is beholden to the right-wing in Israel, there is no prospect of change on the horizon, and those who wish to secure Palestinian rights will have to look for friends elsewhere.

Senators Obama and McCain could easily do something about this. They could take this opportunity to affirm their support for Palestinian rights, as they have both done in the past - McCain, most famously, when in an apparently unscripted burst of empathy he explained to an interviewer his understanding of why Palestinians voted for Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.

If you agree that Senators Obama and McCain should affirm their support for Palestinian rights, Jewish Voice for Peace and Just Foreign Policy encourage you to ask them to do so.

link

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

joefromchicago wrote:

Obama supporters have been accused of treating him like some sort of messiah, blindly supporting everything that he says or does. Well, I support Obama (although he wasn't my first choice), but I'm sure I'm like many others who don't agree with him 100% on all of the issues. This thread, then, is the place for Obama supporters to identify those issues where they diverge from their candidate.

As for me:

Iraq: Obama says that he will bring all of America's combat brigades home within 16 months. That's way too long for me. I'd send them home within six months -- or sooner if possible. Sixteen months just means there's more time to reconsider or get involved in some crisis that keeps the troops there past the deadline.

Cuba: Obama has stated that he will ease some of the restrictions on Cuba. That's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough for me. I favor a complete normalization of relations with Cuba -- just as we have been able to normalize relations with Cold War adversaries like China and Vietnam. The only thing that is keeping us from ending the embargo is a bunch of geriatric neo-Bourbon revanchists in southern Florida, and the only thing that is keeping the Communists in power in Havana is our policy of embargo.

Energy: Obama has far more realistic positions on energy, including the realization that our dependence on foreign oil is a security issue as well as an energy issue. But he showed in his campaign in Iowa that he is not above pandering to farm states by advocating federal support for ethanol made from corn, a wasteful technology that does more to drive up the price of food than drive down the price of gasoline.

Trade: Obama competed with Clinton and Edwards in the "I'm more against NAFTA than you are" sweepstakes during the primaries. As I have mentioned before, I think NAFTA is the Democratic equivalent to abortion for the GOP: lots of talk about getting rid of it but no action to change it. I hope Obama follows this pattern. The US simply can't change NAFTA unilaterally -- and opening up the treaty to revision will allow Canada and Mexico to push for their own changes (especially with regard to Canada's gripes about hardwood exports).

Education: As far as I can tell, Obama supports the No Child Left Behind law, he just thinks it hasn't been adequately funded. That's a mistake. NCLB is a bad law and a bad policy. It should be scrapped entirely.

I'll just add that McCain supporters are encouraged to start their own thread, where they can discuss all of the issues where they disagree with their candidate.

With this many substantive differences, you must have drank the kool-aide.

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

joefromchicago wrote:

Trade: Obama competed with Clinton and Edwards in the "I'm more against NAFTA than you are" sweepstakes during the primaries. As I have mentioned before, I think NAFTA is the Democratic equivalent to abortion for the GOP: lots of talk about getting rid of it but no action to change it. I hope Obama follows this pattern. The US simply can't change NAFTA unilaterally -- and opening up the treaty to revision will allow Canada and Mexico to push for their own changes (especially with regard to Canada's gripes about hardwood exports).[/[/color]quote]

Oddly, I take that as a point in his favor.

Disclaimer - I am not an Obama supporter now that Clinton seems to be out of contention.

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

joefromchicago wrote:

Obama supporters have been accused of treating him like some sort of messiah, blindly supporting everything that he says or does. Well, I support Obama (although he wasn't my first choice), but I'm sure I'm like many others who don't agree with him 100% on all of the issues. This thread, then, is the place for Obama supporters to identify those issues where they diverge from their candidate.

As for me:

Iraq: Obama says that he will bring all of America's combat brigades home within 16 months. That's way too long for me. I'd send them home within six months -- or sooner if possible. Sixteen months just means there's more time to reconsider or get involved in some crisis that keeps the troops there past the deadline.

Cuba: Obama has stated that he will ease some of the restrictions on Cuba. That's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough for me. I favor a complete normalization of relations with Cuba -- just as we have been able to normalize relations with Cold War adversaries like China and Vietnam. The only thing that is keeping us from ending the embargo is a bunch of geriatric neo-Bourbon revanchists in southern Florida, and the only thing that is keeping the Communists in power in Havana is our policy of embargo.

Energy: Obama has far more realistic positions on energy, including the realization that our dependence on foreign oil is a security issue as well as an energy issue. But he showed in his campaign in Iowa that he is not above pandering to farm states by advocating federal support for ethanol made from corn, a wasteful technology that does more to drive up the price of food than drive down the price of gasoline.

Trade: Obama competed with Clinton and Edwards in the "I'm more against NAFTA than you are" sweepstakes during the primaries. As I have mentioned before, I think NAFTA is the Democratic equivalent to abortion for the GOP: lots of talk about getting rid of it but no action to change it. I hope Obama follows this pattern. The US simply can't change NAFTA unilaterally -- and opening up the treaty to revision will allow Canada and Mexico to push for their own changes (especially with regard to Canada's gripes about hardwood exports).

Education: As far as I can tell, Obama supports the No Child Left Behind law, he just thinks it hasn't been adequately funded. That's a mistake. NCLB is a bad law and a bad policy. It should be scrapped entirely.

I'll just add that McCain supporters are encouraged to start their own thread, where they can discuss all of the issues where they disagree with their candidate.

Joe, I think you capture my sentiment. Would I be wrong to say that our sentiment is that he's not (no candidate other than say Kusinich perhaps )left enough?

Finn - You can accuse me of being fed kool-aide, I'll accuse you of drinking straight poison.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

Diest TKO wrote:

Joe, I think you capture my sentiment. Would I be wrong to say that our sentiment is that he's not (no candidate other than say Kusinich perhaps )left enough?

I think that's a fair statement.

0 Replies

I oppose his purported willingness to have a non-situational metric for withdrawal from Iraq. America is morally responsible (under the "you break it you fix it" rule) to ensure the security of the democracy it enabled. The US invaded a sovereign nation under an illegitimate casus beli. Iraq did not possess WMDs and posed no significant military threat to anyone. Given that there's no strategic or legal justification for the war the only moral one, to improve the lives of the Iraqis by liberating them, is additionally important as it now represents the sole possibility for a positive aspect to the war.

And as bad as Saddam was, the result of the US invasion of Iraq has left them far worse off in the sort term, and unleashed crippling violence and social instability on the country that can threaten it's very existence as a contiguous nation.

If the withdrawal's power vacuum increases the violence and instability in Iraq the US has a moral obligation to reverse the withdrawal and stick it out regardless of the financial costs and unpopularity.

0 Replies

I agree with JoefromChicago's initial post, with the exception that I'm uninformed except in a general way about the education system so I won't comment on that.

On health care, dreamer that I am, I want more than anyone seems to have proposed- but I'll be back on that, am about to go out.

Just read Robert Gentel's post. See his point, am presently not able to come to the same conclusion.

0 Replies

The only real issues I have with any of his positions is on Social Security and the idea of dropping income taxes for some Senior Citizens.

From his WWW site:
"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."

I know other people have mentioned this for years but it seems short-sighted to me. The claims that the SS taxable income caps "aren't fair", while probably true, are just silly. No, they aren't "fair". But the system isn't "fair" on the other end either. People at the low income end get a higher percentage of their income calculated into the SS check amount at retirement time and that isn't "fair" either. The idea that you can have a "fair" system by only eliminating one of several unfair provisions is silly.

But beyond that, the capped income level is also used to calculating the size of someone's retirement check. Raising the cap means that those who are affected will also get larger social security checks when they retire. Being that most people take more out of social security than they ever pay into the system, raising the cap is a net negative to the long term health of the system.

He also says: "Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns."

In general I don't have a huge complaint with this but I question where the $50K number came from. In someplace like NYC, LA, etc.. that's probably a reasonable number for a married couple but in central Nebraska it's well above the median income - especially if it's $50K/person which would give a married couple a $100K exemption. If the idea is to eliminate income taxes on "poor" seniors (which I'd support) then the $ amount for what makes someone "poor" should reflect the cost of living where they live as opposed on finding a number that reflects the highest amount in the country. Even in Manhatten, $100K/year in retirement would be considered a fairly sizeable income.

0 Replies

I gather that Obama is too soft on illegal immigrants.

0 Replies

Seriously disagree with him on gay marriage and ethanol. Probably others, but those stand out.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I gather that Obama is too soft on illegal immigrants.

That's funny.... I don't think he shows enough compassion for illegal people.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Seriously disagree with him on gay marriage and ethanol. Probably others, but those stand out.

Yeah, I forgot about gay marriage. But then I am inclined to accept the argument that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. My position on marriage, therefore, is so extreme that I couldn't very well expect any candidate to share those views.

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

Diest TKO wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Obama supporters have been accused of treating him like some sort of messiah, blindly supporting everything that he says or does. Well, I support Obama (although he wasn't my first choice), but I'm sure I'm like many others who don't agree with him 100% on all of the issues. This thread, then, is the place for Obama supporters to identify those issues where they diverge from their candidate.

As for me:

Iraq: Obama says that he will bring all of America's combat brigades home within 16 months. That's way too long for me. I'd send them home within six months -- or sooner if possible. Sixteen months just means there's more time to reconsider or get involved in some crisis that keeps the troops there past the deadline.

Cuba: Obama has stated that he will ease some of the restrictions on Cuba. That's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough for me. I favor a complete normalization of relations with Cuba -- just as we have been able to normalize relations with Cold War adversaries like China and Vietnam. The only thing that is keeping us from ending the embargo is a bunch of geriatric neo-Bourbon revanchists in southern Florida, and the only thing that is keeping the Communists in power in Havana is our policy of embargo.

Energy: Obama has far more realistic positions on energy, including the realization that our dependence on foreign oil is a security issue as well as an energy issue. But he showed in his campaign in Iowa that he is not above pandering to farm states by advocating federal support for ethanol made from corn, a wasteful technology that does more to drive up the price of food than drive down the price of gasoline.

Trade: Obama competed with Clinton and Edwards in the "I'm more against NAFTA than you are" sweepstakes during the primaries. As I have mentioned before, I think NAFTA is the Democratic equivalent to abortion for the GOP: lots of talk about getting rid of it but no action to change it. I hope Obama follows this pattern. The US simply can't change NAFTA unilaterally -- and opening up the treaty to revision will allow Canada and Mexico to push for their own changes (especially with regard to Canada's gripes about hardwood exports).

Education: As far as I can tell, Obama supports the No Child Left Behind law, he just thinks it hasn't been adequately funded. That's a mistake. NCLB is a bad law and a bad policy. It should be scrapped entirely.

I'll just add that McCain supporters are encouraged to start their own thread, where they can discuss all of the issues where they disagree with their candidate.

Joe, I think you capture my sentiment. Would I be wrong to say that our sentiment is that he's not (no candidate other than say Kusinich perhaps )left enough?

Finn - You can accuse me of being fed kool-aide, I'll accuse you of drinking straight poison.

T
K
O

Young Jedi

I didn't accuse you of anything---at least not in this thread, but I appreciate the inner bonding you feel you have attained with Chicago Joe.

If, as you seem to want to accuse, I drank "straight poison" I would not be here to respond, now would I?

But your post sounds sort of cool and tuff so who cares how ridiculous it might be?

F
U
A

Finn

0 Replies

finn, glad to see you are a Obama supporter although it does suprise me a bit.

0 Replies

Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know