I am sick to DEATH of seeing people - individuals who I would have otherwise said I found intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful - knocking Barack Obama for being all hope without substance behind the oratory. Have you finally sunk so low in your blind advocacy of not-Obama that you can't simply go out and read and recognize that Obama HAS positions on the issues, positions which you can actually read?? Shame on all of you for picking up a Rovian smear and propagating it into this forum.
So I'm going to give you a summary of Obama's POSITIONS vis-a-vis Edwards' POSITIONS so that you can no longer say that you weren't made aware that each actually HAVE THEM. I'm sorry to leave out Senator Clinton, but this is addressed primarily to the Edwards supporters, since they are so quick to spout the "hope isn't a policy!!" smear.
More over the fold.
WARNING: This is a LONG diary with a LOT of information. Please refrain from commenting prior to having read the diary itself. You cannot have gotten the important parts of the body content by only reading the diary introduction. As a courtesy, feel free to respectfully comment however you choose but do me the favor of having actually read it first.
My primary source for this is OnTheIssues.org, a site that aggregates where a politician stands on a host of different issues by "combing campaign Web sites, speeches and news stories. With the quiz's results, there are links to candidates' position papers and biographies" (link). I'm going to break out selected important issues that the site covers and plop them in a table that allows side-by-side comparison of Obama and Edwards. Items highlighted in BOLD are ones that are (more or less) matched between the two candidates. For reference, Obama's page can be found here and Edwards' page here.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Abortion | - Voted against banning partial birth abortion
- Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
- Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion
- Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters
- Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill
- Protect a woman's right to choose
- Supports Roe v. Wade
- Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance
- YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives
- NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
- YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines | - Gov't should not decide for women on partial-birth abortion
- Right to abortion is constitutionally protected
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
- Expand embryonic stem cell research
- NO on banning partial birth abortions
- NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions
- NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime |
Clearly they both want to expand embryonic stem cell research, they both oppose the ban on partial birth abortion, and they both absolutely support a woman's right to choose. They also both have a good "rating", even though it comes from different sources.
NET: They are very similar in their views on this issue.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Equal Opp. | - Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act
- Racial equality good for America as a whole
- Supports affirmative action in colleges and government
- America's race and class problems are intertwined
- Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance | - Racial inequality is at heart & soul of my campaign
- Equal opportunity needs to be active principle, not passive
- I support affirmative action
- Affirmative Action needed 40 years ago & still needed today
- Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business |
Again - they both support affirmative action, pay equality, and racial equality.
NET: They are very similar in their views on this issue.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Same Sex
Benefits | - We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions
- Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
- Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is
- Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws
- Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance
- NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage | - Get rid of DOMA; get rid of don't-ask-don't-tell
- On journey about same-sex marriage, but does not support it
- Exactly the same healthcare rights for same-sex couples
- Opposes gay marriage due to his religion; but conflicted
- Governments don't belong in bedrooms, including gay bedrooms
- More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes
- YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation
- YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes |
Both Edwards and Obama oppose same-sex "marriage", but both seem to try to compensate for this view by endorsing legal civil unions. I like what Edwards says about rescinding don't ask, don't tell, and I like that Obama emphatically endorses a "NO" vote on any ridiculous Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
NET: They are very similar in their views on this issue.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Prayer in Public School | - Listening to evangelicals bridges major political fault line
- Religious concerns ok, if translated into universal values
- Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation
- NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration | - Ten Commandments in courthouses cause more trouble than good
- Supports individual school prayer, not teacher-led prayer
- Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record
- NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors
- YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools |
One thing to note. If you follow the Edwards link for OnTheIssues, he is listed as FAVOR on this issue whereas Obama is listed as OPPOSE. I find slight differences in their stance on this issue in that I see Obama as more absolute with respect to church-state separation and Edwards as somewhat smushier in his stance. He's certainly far and away from rabid right-wing Republicans, but it disturbs me greatly that he allows ANY prayers or religious symbols OK. It's church-state SEPARATION - not church-state SOMETIMES INTERMINGLING BUT NOT MUCH.
NET: I think they are more similar in reality than dissimilar on this issue, but I am a strict church-state separatist and Obama edges Edwards out on that one for me.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Death Penalty | - Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment
- Videotape all capital punishment interrogations
- Battles legislatively against the death penalty | - Death penalty OK despite flaws, on state-by-state decision
- Capital punishment needed-some crimes deserve ultimate
- Supports the death penalty
- Require DNA testing for all federal executions |
Again, I find their opinions more similar than dissimilar. I will note that there are many articles out there about the fight Obama undertook in the Illinois legislature to protect the integrity and auditability of confessions by videotaping them. Both seem to say that some crimes deserve the death penalty regardless, which helps blunt the blow of Edwards' entry that he supports the death penalty.
NET: Neither reflect my views on this issue absolutely, but both seem to hold similar views.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Health Care | - Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets
- National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage
- National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance
- The market alone can't solve our health-care woes
- Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary
- Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few
- Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported
- Ensure access to basic care
- YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics
- YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug
- YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D
- YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D | - Cover every child and vulnerable adults
- Health care crisis requires fighting big corporations
- It is morally wrong to leave so many Americans uninsured
- Start providing health insurance for every child in America
- Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations
- Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
- NO on limiting self-employment health deduction
- YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare
- NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit
- NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit |
It's difficult in a way to compare the two statements. It's useful to note that both are listed as FAVORS on the strict question "More Federal funding for health coverage". I think both lean towards universal healthcare coverage for all Americans and favor that healthcare is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Both seem to favor bulk prescription purchases though Edwards places the qualifier that he believes this should occur at that state level (I disagree - I believe it needs to be nation and equally available to all).
NET: While they differ on details, both favor Federal support of healthcare so that it is available to all Americans.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Privatize SS | - Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market
- Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security
- No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500
- Stock market risk is ok, but not for Social Security
- $2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
- NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security | - We can't grow our way out of Social Security crisis
- Social Security has lifted 13M seniors out of poverty
- Don't divert payroll taxes to private accounts
- Keep stock market out of Social Security
- Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
- NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions |
The key here is that they both oppose the privatization of Social Security. I don't know in comparing these lists where Edwards stands on raising the cap on Social Security earnings (a move I support, and one which will affect me personally), and that's a move I think simply has to happen, but they're both good on their stance regarding Social Security.
NET: On the important points of Social Security privatization, both oppose it.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Replace coal & oil | - 3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror
- Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency
- 20% renewable energy by 2020
- Invest in alternative energy sources
- Increase CAFE to 40 mpg
- Renewable Fuels Standard
- Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence
- YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%)
- YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR
- YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
- YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning
- YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies | - No new nuclear power plants; no liquified coal either
- 80% greenhouse emissions reductions by the year 2050
- Cap carbon emissions & invest in carbon sequestration
- Protect ANWR, lead in global warming battle
- Keep climate change in EPA "State of the Environment" report
- Rated 37% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment
- Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy
- YES on defunding renewable and solar energy
- YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards
- NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling
- NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months
- YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill |
I've italicized two of Edwards' positions because I'm not clear on what they mean. The way I'm reading it is that Edwards is FOR CAFE fuel efficiency standards and, in another article, I found a citation that he is FOR the same 40mpg requirement as is Obama. Some of their standards differ, and I believe that Obama supports nuclear power where Edwards does NOT. This seems to be a key energy policy disagreement between Edwards and Obama (and with Clinton, who favors nuclear power in the equation as well).
NET: A quantifiable difference in the how of getting an environmentally friendly energy policy. Both seem to support the major issues of the what.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Repeal tax cuts for wealthy | - Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class
- Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs
- Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation
- NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends
- YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
- NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends
- NO on permanently repealing the `death tax'
- NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts
- NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million
- NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax | - Shift burden from taxing work to taxing wealth
- Offer tax cuts that will help the middle class families
- Repeal tax cuts for earners over $200,000
- Shift tax burden from taxing work to taxing wealth
- Revise the capital gains tax rate
- Millionaires should not pay lower taxes than nurses
- Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities
- Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes
- NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax")
- NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'
- NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts
- YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates
- YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction
- NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years |
Both support rolling back the tax cut for the wealthy. Both support keeping the "Death Tax". Both have similar positions on the capital gains tax. Both support tax policies that ease the burden on middle class Americans and stop giving breaks to wealthier Americans.
NET: Both are strong proponents of a tax policy that supports working Americans.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Patriot Act | - The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties
- America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions
- Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus
- NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision
- YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act
- YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees
- YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods
- NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad | - President is not above law; no spying on Americans
- Cannot sacrifice rights & freedoms that define America |
The knock here will be against Obama for voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Too bad none of the nine Democrats who voted AGAINST the reauthorization are running (Feingold, Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Harkin, Leahy, Levin, Murray, Wyden - source), and too bad John Edwards wasn't in the Senate during the reauthorization to actually go on record yay or nay.
NET: Although Edwards' points on OnTheIssues is minimal, both are against torture and wiretapping and for FISA restrictions and habeus corpus.
NET: It's difficult to compare given that Obama has a vote that Edwards does not that creates controversy. I still find their overall position on the Patriot Act similar.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
US out of Iraq | - US policy should promote democracy and human rights
- War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment
- We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave
- NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007
- YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 | - America should lead by extending a hand, not a fist
- Reorient US aid to support open societies
- Bring UN, allies and friends to Iraq
- Work with other nations in war on terror
- Apologized for Iraq war vote; others must search conscience
- On voting for Iraq War: "I was wrong" |
Gotta say - I'm not overly satisfied with any of the candidate's positions on the subject of handling the Iraq War. They're all against it, they all want to bring troops home, but none have provided a solid explanation of how that will be accomplished. Obama gets the same bump that Edwards got on the issue of the Patriot Act in that Obama came out against it, on record, LONG before anyone came out against it AND Edwards has the vote FOR the AUMF, for which he has apologized. Suffice it to say they both want to bring the troops home and get us out of Iraq but neither has a very solid articulation of how that occurs.
NET: Disappointingly similar on the subject of the War in Iraq.
All of the issue comparison I've extracted above comes from the VoteMatch section of each candidate's page. VoteMatch covered more issues than the ones I reiterated above. Additionally, VoteMatch scores each candidate on the topic question. The possible score is "Strong Favors"; "Favors"; "No Opinion On"; "Opposes"; and "Strongly Opposes". The site makes the claim that these scores are assigned based on an aggregation of web sites, public statements, and voting records to determine where the candidate stands most accurate with respect to any particular issue. I have included ALL the issues covered on the site in a comparison chart between Edwards and Obama below. Highlighted in BOLD are those areas where their scores were different.
Issue | Obama | Edwards |
Abortion is a woman's right | Strongly Favors | Strongly favors |
Require hiring more women & minorities | Strongly Favors | Strongly Favors |
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits | Strongly Favors | Strongly Favors |
Teacher-led prayer in public schools | Opposes | Favors |
Death Penalty | Opposes | Favors |
Mandatory 3 strikes sentencing laws | Opposes | Opposes |
Absolute right to gun ownership | Strongly Opposes | Opposes |
More federal funding for health coverage | Favors | Favors |
Privatize Social Security | Strongly Opposes | Strongly Opposes |
Parents choose schools via vouchers | Opposes | Strongly Opposes |
Replace coal & oil with alternatives | Strongly Favors | Favors |
Drug use is immoral; enforce laws against it | No opinion on | Opposes |
Allow churches to provide welfare services | Favors | Opposes |
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy | Strongly Favors | Strongly Favors |
Illegal immigrants earn citiz. | Favors | Favors |
Support & expand free trade | Opposes | Opposes |
Expand the armed forces | Favors | Strongly Favors |
Stricter limits on political campaign funds | Strongly Favors | Favors |
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties | Strongly Favors | Strongly Favors |
US out of Iraq | Favors | Favors |
Look. I'm not trying to shit on your guy. My point is simple: your guy has issues, opinions on those issues, and approaches to those issues. So does mine. The fact that your guy talks about being the son of a mill worker doesn't detract from the fact that he has a wide range of experience on a variety issues that are NOT just related to the middle class and to the economy. The fact that my guy chooses an inspirational oratorical style doesn't detract from his record or capabilities, either. Moreover, it doesn't mean that ALL HE HAS TO OFFER is hope and inspiration.
Each candidate comes, for me, with a fair amount of plaudits and a smaller amount of complaints. Behind the "all he has to offer is HOPE" argument quickly comes the "he's a shill of the Corporate right" argument. You argue that your guy is better BECAUSE he's "not a shill of the Corporate right". Yet I don't think the overall numbers bear you out. The chart below shows contributions, by industry, expressed for each in total dollars AND expressed as a percentage of total fundraising by the candidate in question:
The original source for the actual dollars can be found here. You can use the drop-down to look at contributions by industry. Please note that these are not specifically special interest donations - a contribution by a nurse would count under "Health Professionals" and a contribution by a bank teller would count under "Commercial Banking". I could take and twist these numbers and highlight those areas where Edwards' percentage is high and make specious claims around that figure, but it would be meaningless.
The best measure, I think, is the PAC contributions. Both Obama's and Edwards' are LOW. Also, as a percentage of their total campaign contributions, the percentage donated by lobbyists is pleasantly low - compare that to Hillary Clinton, who has taken more money from lobbyists than ANY candidate, Republican OR Democrat, coming in at $567,950, or 0.63%. For reference, her percentage PAC contribution is 0.82% ($748,052). All figures are based on disclosures through September 30, 2007. Candidate total funding summary (for the basis of calculating percentages) can be found here.
So you know what? Your guy doesn't suck. I have no reason to believe that he will be a shill for those industries where he has received assistance. The only possible complaint I could have with your guy is that he has served only one six-year term in public office which makes his record somewhat hard to verify from a voting perspective. That means that, on those issues where the public record contradicts his current stance OR there IS no public record, I have to take him at his word. And I do that.
Yet many of you shit all my guy, claiming he will be some kind of special-interest shill. You largely opine that he is substanceless and, in making that argument, decline to address his record, good or ill. He's going on his 12th year of elected office, and his past public record show that he's not a shill to anything outside of his own principles. If I take your guy at his word, you have to consider my guy's record, and it's not one that points to pandering to special interests. So drop the Rovian attack line, will you? If you disagree with his principles and approaches, so be it. Argue that.
I don't expect you to "come over" to my side. I am proud of the fact that we have so many viewpoints here at Daily Kos and further of the fact that MANY are articulated in an intelligent, issue-oriented fashion. But the ceaseless "HE HAS NO SUBSTANCE DAMNIT WHY DON'T THEY LIKE MY GUY" argument is tired and inaccurate and makes you (the arguer) look petulant. It also makes you look like somewhat of a shithead, frankly, because your argument is that "we can't run on HOPE for chrissake". But you know what? Hope, backed by a RECORD (and yes, there is one) isn't such a bad message nor is a bad campaign tactic.
I apologize in advance for my tone - but MY GOD - I'm at my wit's end. This place and the people in it are SO MUCH better than what I've been seeing lately, regardless of whom they support. ((sigh))