For many months now, the media and the public have been urging Sen. Barack Obama to draw contrasts between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton and he finally did so a few weeks ago. Now, its Sen. Clinton's time to do the same and she's letting the contrasts be known:-On healthcare:
"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 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."
-On Social Security:
"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."
-On Iran resolution:
"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?"
-On Obama's Legislative record:
"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 woman’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. 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. 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."
For all those who hate Sen. Clinton just because her name happens to be Clinton, I ask you to pretend, just for a moment, that you didn't know who said these statements and who that person was referring to. Would you agree with those statements or not? Thats the question that has to be answered. Quite frankly, you don't have to personally like a candidate, but if you agree with them on the key issues, then why not support them?
5 comments :
I like the fact that Senator Clinton is talking about what she would do if elected president. There is not enough of that during the debates. The moderators ask the majority of questions concerning the past. The viewers already know about the past. The election and campaign is about the future.
If a candidate is willing to ignore even a small number of the populace for political gain, why should that number vote for her? I have two MAJOR problems with Hillary Clinton. The first is her refusal to stand up and support rights for EVERYONE, including gays. How hard would it be for ANY candidate to say that the government should not be involved in the running of churches and the question of who can and cannot marry should be a church issue, not a governmental mandate?
The conservatives talk about the tradition of marriage being threatened but the government didn't start sanctioning marriage until the 18th century and that wasn't because of moral reasons but because of legal issues; taxation, health care, inheritance, etc.
The second major problem that I have with Hillary is her fight in Congress to pass the free trade with Peru act. The NAFTA has been a disaster and yet these corporate puppets want to continue shipping our jobs overseas. I think it's awfully shortsighted to not see what these agreements will do to what's left of our industrial base.
Talk is cheap. Hillary and Bill had a window of opportunity in his first term in office to pass comprehensive health care reform but couldn't keep their own party behind them when the HMOs started pressuring them. What makes anyone think 2009 would be any different? Especially a Congress as weak-willed as this one.
If this link doesn't work, google "taking marriage private" and it'' give you a link that works. Sometimes the NY Times won't allow you to link straight to one of their articles but will allow it coming from a search engine. Go figure!
http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html
^Well in all honesty I have no problem with gay marriage, but the fact is that the only Democrats who support it are Kucinich and Gravel, and we both know that the have no chance of winning. I understand this issue is extremely important to you, but isn't civil unions better than nothing? If not, then I suppose you're saying the only democrats you will vote for are Kucinich & Gravel. And by saying that, you're basically saying you refuse to vote democratic in '08 anyway.
As far as the act with Peru, Obama is just a big supporter of it as is Hillary, so don't make it out to be that Hillary is the only backer of it.
And shouldn't we give Hillary credit for at least trying to get healthcare passed? It was the Republicans and moderate democrats who stopped it from happening, not Hillary. Hillary stood for universal healthcare when it wasn't popular and she's stood by it ever since. Obama doesn't support universal coverage & Edwards just started supporting it in this run for the White House; he was against it in '04.
As far as the act with Peru, Obama is just a big supporter of it as is Hillary, so don't make it out to be that Hillary is the only backer of it.
^Oh. I'm not for Obama either. He lost any chance at my vote when he campaigned in South Carolina with a known gay basher at his side. I've supported Democrats in many elections in the past because they were "closer" to my beliefs than the Republicans. However, I believe in the phrase "liberty and justice for all" and civil rights is just another "don't ask, don't tell" compromise.
There's an old saying in this part of the country about "throwing the dog a bone." Basically, it's where you gorge yourself on a steak and satisfy the dog with the bone. That's what civil unions and "don't ask, don't tell" represent to the gay community. I've decided to stop being that dog. If a candidate doesn't support my rights, they can forget about garnering my vote.
BTW, I CAN and WILL vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary. If he wins, great. If not, I'll wait and see what each candidate offers in the general election. I'll never compromise my vote because of the premise that my candidate doesn't stand a chance.
Post a Comment