The new Primary Thread

[DinoDoc]

Well to be fair, Ann Coulter views Hillary as being more conservative than McCain. So he probably still is a hard core conservative.

@ Ramo: Where might I find the information you are claiming and why don't I get more of that substance from his speaches rather than indubstantial fluff? I disagree with a good portion of it but I can't be the only one (possibly liberals as well) wondering what the hell his positions are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think Clinton's proposals are fairly bold... The difference is that I don't know if she can bring along a Senate amenable to them.

I'm not sure they are in that there is some wiggle room. For example, Obama is calling for an actual date that troops leave Iraq, Clinton is saying we'll pull X amount out by this time and then for the rest, we'll have to look at everything to make a decision.

The Healthcare is bold, no doubt... but all Dems are and have to be after Edwards took the debate there.

What "wide variety of issues" are you talking about? And again, why exactly do you think that his proposals in the oval office would be to the left of his proposals when campaigning for the Dem nomination?

They would be necessarily to the "left", but bold proposals tend to scare folks in the other party. Hillarycare had popular support when it was first announced, but it was too much, too soon and the Republicans rallied around it, convinced people it was socialist medical care and defeated it.

As for a wide variety of issues, I'm talking about everything that comes up during the 4-8 years of a candidacy.

Like, as DD has brought up, what is he going to do with North Korea? People aren't really campaigning on every single thing that will have to be dealt with in an administration.

[Ramo]

barackobama.com, then issues.

He had plenty of policy speeches rolling this and more out. His stump isn't littered with specifics, though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
We all get wiser with age.

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Thue
I still remember when Imran Siddiqui was the very definition of a hard-core loyal conservative .

To be fair, the republican party is probably not what it once was. I think one of the breaking points for Imran was when Bush worked against a free trade agreement created by Clinton.

Hell, if Obama wins the Dem primary, I may (MAY, not will) vote for McCain for President . Maybe it'll restore that cred .

[Ramo]

For example, Obama is calling for an actual date that troops leave Iraq, Clinton is saying we'll pull X amount out by this time and then for the rest, we'll have to look at everything to make a decision.

They both have fairly rigid timetables to get combat troops out. They basically have the same positions here, and you have to squint to see any differences (Obama is slightly closer to saying no residual troops, but not by much, and there's plenty of wiggle room here).

Like, as DD has brought up, what is he going to do with North Korea? People aren't really campaigning on every single thing that will have to be dealt with in an administration.

What has Clinton said about NK?

The Healthcare is bold, no doubt... but all Dems are and have to be after Edwards took the debate there.

I think most of Clinton's domestic program is bold, and I'd be content with it. It's a significantly more liberal platform than what Kerry or Gore were putting out. My major problems with her are that I don't think she can bring enough Senators with her, and that I don't trust her on foreign policy (as in, say, the vote for the IWR).

They would be necessarily to the "left"

Whatever, but the question still holds. Why do you think his domestic policy is going to be any bolder in the oval office than on the way to the Dem nomination?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

And that's why I don't trust anyone over 30.

[Dinner]

http://www.barackobama.com/images/blueprint4change.jpg

That's a written copy of Obama's policy plan.

This is is proposals for each issue: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


And that's why I don't trust anyone over 30.

Well, at least your eyes are open when voting for presidents.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
They both have fairly rigid timetables to get combat troops out. They basically have the same positions here, and you have to squint to see any differences (Obama is slightly closer to saying no residual troops, but not by much, and there's plenty of wiggle room here).

So Obama was lying during the California debate about Clinton's position?

It seemed to me during that debate, Obama was saying everyone out by 18 months. Seems to me that precludes any residual troops (and he seemed to slam Clinton for not committing to getting everyone out)

What has Clinton said about NK?

Two issues here. Firstly, NK was an example of issues that candidates have NOT had to campaign on, but may be an important issue.

Secondly, Clinton has said that we should work with China on disabling NK's nuclear program in an article she wrote in Foriegn Affairs. Though I don't think she's really said anything in the campaign about it.

Whatever, but the question still holds. Why do you think his domestic policy is going to be any bolder in the oval office than on the way to the Dem nomination?

Can't they be as bold? As we've seen with the Clintons, they prefer an incrementalist approach (we've all seen the Clinton administration after all), so she may be more willing to make some deals with her plans (which I know, probably will scare you off a bit).

[Ramo]

Two issues here. Firstly, NK was an example of issues that candidates have NOT had to campaign on, but may be an important issue.

Secondly, Clinton has said that we should work with China on disabling NK's nuclear program in an article she wrote in Foriegn Affairs. Though I don't think she's really said anything in the campaign about it.

This is not a campaign issue because everyone has the same position (i.e. the post-Bolton Bush position).

So Obama was lying during the California debate about Clinton's position?

I didn't see that debate. What are you talking about specifically? As for lying, this campaign has entirely been about turning small distinctions into large ones.

Can't they be as bold? As we've seen with the Clintons, they prefer an incrementalist approach (we've all seen the Clinton administration after all), so she may be more willing to make some deals with her plans (which I know, probably will scare you off a bit).

Everyone is willing to make deals with their plans. That's what governance is about. That's why Obama isn't pushing mandates very much. This is a pointless distinction.

[Dinner]

Huckabee wins hillbilly country... er, West Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/05/super.main/index.html

[Dinner]

I believe Hillary has only said she wants most US troops out of Iraq by 2012. Four years leaves a lot of wiggle room as does the term "most".

[Ramo]

Obama on Iraq from his web page:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

[Ramo]

And anyways, my point is that they are roughly equally bold on domestic policy - where Congress has the most discretion, and that Imran's original objection (that his proposals would be killed by Republicans) is bull****.

He has differences on foreign policy, and I find that very appealing. But Congress certainly isn't going to care about having 5,000 troops in Iraq instead of 20,000 (or whatever the distinction in numbers happens to be) if they can't do anything about getting 150,000 troops out of there. If anything, Clinton's position would be less tenable.