Facts about Obama--issue differences rather than silly attacks

[Evergreen Emerald]

After months of character attacks from her opponents, Hillary responded with the facts. The following is a rundown of some of the contrasts that Hillary highlighted in her speech today in Iowa:

Hillary: “A couple of my leading opponents, directly and through surrogates, have spent months criticizing me without having to answer any of their own questions. They’ve been attacking my character. As I have said repeatedly, I prefer to attack the problems of the country and let my opponents run their own campaigns.”

Sen. Obama attacked Hillary.

Sen. Edwards criticized Hillary for using doubletalk in the debate. "The Democratic debate on Tuesday was a defining moment in this election. From my perspective it is important for the next president of the United States to be honest and sincere and trust-worthy given what's happened with Bush over the last seven years. Instead of straight talk, there was a lot of doubletalk in the debate from Senator Clinton on some of the most important issues facing the American people."

Hillary: “When it comes to health care, one of my opponents believes it’s acceptable to leave out 15 million Americans. That would be 100,000 here in Iowa. Leave them out from his health care plan because universal coverage might be too hard to achieve. I disagree. I don’t think we should start by giving up on 15 million Americans. That’s why my health care plan covers everyone.”

Sen. Obama’s health care plan would leave 15 million uninsured.
Hillary: “When it comes to social security, one of my opponents uses the Republican talking points and has been open to raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. Now he says he is for lifting the payroll tax, which would be a trillion dollar tax increase. Again, I disagree. I don’t think we should fix Social Security on the backs of our seniors and the middle class. I have always fought for Social Security, I have always stood up against privatization and as president, I will restore fiscal responsibility so we can keep Social Security as a sacred promise to our seniors.”

Sen. Obama refused to rule out raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for social security.

Sen. Obama conceded that his plan on raising the cap for social security could impact middle income people. Sen. Obama said, “Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax.” When pressed on how he would structure the tax increase, “Well, it—you know, I have not specified exactly how we would structure it. Conceivably, you might have the equivalent of a doughnut hole, although this one would be a good one, as opposed to the bad doughnut hole that Bush set up for, for prescription drugs where you have a gap between people who are of middle income and very wealthy people.”

Hillary: “When it comes to Iran, I took a stand for aggressive diplomacy. One of my opponents made a different choice: He didn’t show up for the vote. He didn’t speak out during a presidential debate that night. And finally, he decided to play politics and claim that the vote he missed – a vote for diplomacy – was really a vote for war. Well if he really thought it was a rush to war, why did he rush to campaign and miss the vote?”

Sen. Obama missed vote, and failed to speak out during a presidential debate.
Sen. Obama criticized Hillary for voting to give George Bush the green light for Iran. Sen. Obama wrote, “Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq…I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment.”

Hillary: “Now, there’s been a lot of talk about yes or no answers to complex questions. But most people don’t know that for legislators who don’t want to take a stand, there’s a third way to vote. Not yes, not no, but ‘present’ – which is kind of like voting ‘maybe.’ Well, in the Illinois State Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted ‘present,’ instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a women’s right to choose. Two of those votes were on measures to protect families from gun violence -- one of which was a measure about firing guns on or near school grounds.”

As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted 'present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.

As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school: The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school.

As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would reduce the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Hillary: “A president can’t vote ‘present.’ A president can’t pick and choose which challenges he or she will face. My opponent’s campaign said that voting ‘present’ was a strategy to provide political cover. The Chicago Tribune said the present votes were the equivalent of taking a pass. Well, instead of looking for political cover or taking a pass, we need a president who will take a stand. And stand there and do whatever is necessary for their country.”

Chicago Tribune: Sen. Obama’s explanation for 'present' votes is questionable; 'few of the other Democrats who voted ‘present’ on abortion bills recall such a strategy' as Sen. Obama did. Sen. Obama "said he worked out an arrangement with abortion-rights advocates to encourage Democrats to vote ‘present’ on some bills if they feared a ‘no’ would look insensitive and endanger their re-election. But few of the other Democrats who voted ‘present’ on abortion bills recall such a strategy. And, like Obama, they weren't politically vulnerable."
12/3/2007 4:56:48 PM #

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

There are lots of links to reports confirming the facts...I am just posting this one.

[hedda_foil]

1. Looks like Hillaryhub, Link please.

[rinsd]

4. It is. Feel free to dispute what is presented.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. A Super Simple Analysis

Clinton: Even though there was no credible evidence that Iraq was going to attack us, or that they had WMD, she voted for the Iraq war, which has cost almost 4,000 US lives, untold Iraqi lives, and $2 trillion+. Most of the other Congressional Democrats voted against going to war.

Obama: Was openly against the war.

Everything else is a detail, really. The health care thing is not arguable because Clinton has not said how she would enforce forcing everyone to buy health care.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Well, that is why we are in the trouble we are in--because of super simple

analysis like yours. And of course regurgitation of the Obama talking points that are not the truth (he was not opposed to war "from the beginning.")

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It's Called Weighting (And He Was Against War from the Beginning)

For example, if I make a stupid decision that gets someone killed, it's a lot more importnt than a decision where someone loses 10 cents. Unless, of course, we've entered ClintonWorld.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. take a look at his statements at the time of the IWR vote

He said that he does not know how he would have voted. He never said he was against the war at that time. He is attempting to change history.

And I guess this is what I would ask of you: you seem to have a double standard when it comes to statements Obama makes and Statements Clinton makes. I would ask you to at least give his comments the same scrutiny. If you do, I think you would find something different than what you clearly hold now as a steadfast belief--based on what?

[frazzled]

11. What he said at the time--please at least check your facts

I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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.... 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...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 U.S. 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.

And that is only a part of that speech he gave at Federal Plaza in October 2002. Read it all, so you don't embarrass yourself again:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

13. He Was On TV Prior to The War Strongly Stating That he Was Against It

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ

Well after the war began he said that he didn't know how he'd vote because he was in a situation where he didn't wat to show someone up - probably not the best thing to do, but his outspokeness prior to ware makes that very believable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. oh. I see. He is now exclaiming that he lied before because he did not want to show someone up>

[Tempest]

6. Obama may had been openly against the war

But he's voted all but once for funding it.

Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[aquart]

8. So you and Obama are one issue?

That's good. Because there's no way in fucking hell he can justify his "present" votes on abortion to me.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. "Present" votes on Abortion--a pattern with him of having it both ways

Have you noticed that he is gone for a number of votes, or votes "present" and then can claim to be supportive of the issue and yet play it safe just in case.

This is an interesting pattern.

[frazzled]

10. Correcting some of your "facts"

(1) Sen. Obama’s health care plan would leave 15 million uninsured.

This is opinion, not fact. In an editorial today, former Clinton Labor Secretary and professor of public policy at Berkely wrote:

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

(2 ) Sen. Obama refused to rule out raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for social security.

Obama has made it abudantly clear his plan is to raise the cap, not to raise retirement age or cut benefits for social security. In point of fact, HRC has not ruled out any of those three: she's just going to kick the can down the road by "appointing a commission." Let's see what Reich had to say about that:

HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

(3) Sen. Obama conceded that his plan on raising the cap for social security could impact middle income people.

The quote you use to "support" this contention does the opposite: he says any raise would be structured to obviate any "middle class" tax. But it's a non issue anyway: a couple could earn up to $98L + $98K ($196K) before any raise would kick in. That is in no way middle class.

(4) Hillary: “When it comes to Iran, I took a stand for aggressive diplomacy." That is batshit crazy. She did exactly what Obama claimed: "..the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq…I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment."

(5)As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted 'present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.

Obama was one of the strongest defenders of abortion rights in the Illinois Senate: that's why the nutcasers are against him

It is hardly unusual that a Democratic candidate would receive unfavorable attention from anti-abortion groups. But Stanek and other anti-abortion crusaders in Illinois are targeting Obama because he voted on a package of legislation collectively known as the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

The legislation came about after Stanek, then a nurse at Christ Hospital in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn, witnessed late-term abortions “where babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room” of the hospital, in her words.

Stanek, who said she held one of those infants until it died after about 45 minutes, began reaching out to public officials, testifying before both

state and national lawmakers.

From 2001 to 2002, Obama voted either “present” or “no” on the legislation. In his floor speeches at the time, he cited in particular his concerns about the constitutionality of the definition of a “born alive infant” and the inclusion of potential civil and criminal penalties for doctors in these situations. He also warned that the bill might compromise the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

The measure failed in the Illinois statehouse in both 2001 and 2002.

In one speech in the spring of 2001, Obama said he agreed in principle with the need to protect infants, but argued that the measure went too far in its definitions of fetal viability.

“This is an area where potentially we might have compromised and … arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how … a pre-viable fetus or child was treated by a hospital,” Obama said at the time.

At the same time, similar legislation made its way through the federal process and was eventually signed into law by President Bush in August 2002 in Pittsburgh. Stanek, now a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com, attended the signing and was mentioned by Bush.

(6) Obama also had one of the best records on gun control (if you're for gun control) ever, and has spoken out on this issue many many times. You do the research ... I have to go make dinner.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. is this from Robert Reicht? He has a significant axe to grind with Clinton

and is well-known to dislike her. I would not trust his biased opinion.

Obama talks alot about his beliefs--he makes grand speeches and at debates lays out his agenda. Yet his actions show--someone unwilling to follow through or too afraid of commitment.

All talk / no action.

[MadBadger]

14. So you wont trust him, but we are supposed to trust hillarys fact hub.

Like they arent incredibly biased.

[zulchzulu]

15. The funniest of this OP is "my health care plan covers everyone"

It "covers" everyone because... (drum roll) because... (ready?) because...



...you're forced to BUY health care insurance!

That's like saying everyone will get fed at dinner because they will be tied down and forced to eat. Plus it's dog food.