What's the most striking POLICY difference between your candidate and others?

[Sparkly]

Set aside their past votes, their speeches, their personal characteristics, etc... What's one (or more) policy stance or proposal your candidate holds -- preferably one with a good chance of coming to fruition -- that sets him/her apart from all the others?

[ret5hd]

1. Mine is the only one FOR the working class: Kucinich

[Sparkly]

2. His policy differences

He's the one I see as having the most clear differences in policy -- his positions on NAFTA/WTO and healthcare, just to name two.

The others don't seem all that different to me when you get right down to proposals and what they might actually do. :hide:

[antigop]

3. Policy differences?? I thought this was all about image and "electability"

Heaven forbid we should talk about policy differences.

..and name recognition.

[Totally Committed]

4. Kucinich... peace, trade, corporatism, and healthcare, just to name a few.

Should any other candidate enter the primaries, (s)he will have to measure up to him on those issues, among others.

The candidate that wins the nomination will also have to get over those same hurdles.

TC

[Rainbowreflect]

8. And his past votes prove where he stands!

[CTyankee]

5. With the top three it is just variations on a theme, which is why electability is such an issue.

Only the most die hard Hillary haters will actually sit out or vote green in the 08 election if she is the Dem candidate. So this kabuki political theater is really about which Dem can win.

It's gonna be one of the top three so as for me, I am looking for the Dem who can get the votes and beat the Repugs slime machine. This country simply cannot take another Republican administration.

[nevergiveup]

6. You said it well

There really isn't a dimes worth of policy differences among the top three and any one of the top three can win but my present mind set thinks one of them will have a better shot with independents and perhaps pull some moderate Repubs. This is where my support is for the moment but I am flexible if trends change. Whatever, I will work and vote for the winner. The thought of another Republican appointment to SCOTUS plays havoc with my ulcer.

[Sparkly]

7. Pragmatism

I know what you mean. Both parties want a candidate who can win, so there's that practical matter of winning over independents and even voters from the other party.

Ideally though, we all vote for who we think would do the best in the office -- and thus the best person ends up with the job. (I said "ideally!") In the past, the candidates I've supported were both the best ones and the most electable ones, as I saw it. This time, it's less clear to me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. See post 12 for some key differences between JE and Clobama nt

[Sparkly]

9. Looks like this will be my unanswered question of the day.

Monday's was this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3481117

Can't anybody but Kucinich supporters articulate their candidates' policies in comparison with others??

[Cameron27]

10. It's a good question Sparkly, I'll give a kick for more answers.

[Sparkly]

11. Thanks, sb.

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Just three big differences between Edwards and Clobama

1) Health care: Edwards has a universal health care plan, Obama's plan would leave at least 15 million people uninsured, and Clinton has no plan yet.

2) Iraq: Edwards wants to end the war and take all the troops out of Iraq. Clinton and Obama will keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified length of time. Just have "faith" that it won't wind up being 75,000 troops for 8 years.

3) Poverty: Edwards has made poverty a central theme of his campaign and has a $15 billion a year plan to reduce it. Obama mentioned poverty once--which just "happened" to be during Edwards' poverty tour. Clinton apparently is unaware that poverty exists. (aside from the token Clobama references to poverty before certain audiences--Edwards says it everywhere.)

There are more but here are 3 huge ones off the top of my head.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. 4) Liquid coal

Obama is a corporate whore for it, Clinton supports it but Edwards opposes it.

5) Nuclear power

Clobama support it, Edwards opposes it. Obama has received 191k from a top nuke firm--including money from most of its executives.


These two are crucial differences regarding the environment, an important issue imo.

[Sparkly]

17. Could you link to where you're getting this...

I'm trying to wade through their websites...

http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/energy/

Those more familiar with the campaigns might point out where any key differences lie. The general goals and ideas seem pretty much the same to me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Sure

For Obama's corporate whoring for the coal industry at a tune of $8 billion see: http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-senators_obama/
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:w_X26gG0aRAJ:www.futurecoalfuels.org/documents/010507_bunning_one_pager.pdf+Obama+Bunning+coal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a

For the Sierra Club position on the Obama-Bunning bill on behalf of the coal industry: http://www.sierraclub.org/legislativetracker/110S155.asp

For why liquid coal is bad: http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/liquidcoal/


Al Gore on liquid coal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNImXTEkNA

For Mitt Romney's support for liquid coal: http://www.timeswv.com/westvirginia/local_story_228234130.html

Both Obama and Clinton reiterated their support for liquid coal during the Youtube debate. Look for a transcript for that online or video on Youtube. They also stated their support for nuclear power during that debate. Edwards stated his opposition to both during the debate.

More on Edwards on liquid coal and nuclear power, from an April speech on the climate crisis: ==When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.==

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070823-hanover-speech/

For Obama's $191,000 from a major nuke firm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marilyn-ferdinand/obamas-green-screen_b_61385.html

==Candidate Obama also wants to include nuclear energy in the mix. It's no wonder -- he has received $191,000 in campaign contributions from Exelon, a leading producer of nuclear power, including $21,500 from 11 of 13 of Exelon's corporate officers. Although Senator Obama proposed legislation in 2006 requiring nuclear power plants to report leaks, again, this measure is rather tepid. It doesn't halt nuclear energy or call for shutdowns. It only calls for reporting. If the energy source that created the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters represents one of his ideas for saving future generations from global catastrophe, I'd like a better definition of what he thinks catastrophe is.==

[Milo_Bloom]

24. LMAO

Another couple of issues that I guess Edwards made some of his trademark "mistakes" on when he was in the Senate

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/person/John+Edwards

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S14

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC108S12

[Cameron27]

28. Let's spell those bills out:

Energy: Subsidized Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants

This vote was on an amendment (Amdt. 2983)offered by Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) to the Senate energy bill (S. 517), which would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. Price-Anderson provides an unfair taxpayer subsidy to nuclear plant operators by limiting their liability to the public in the event of a nuclear accident. This mitigates the industrys investment risk and dramatically reduces the cost of retaining liability insurance. Estimates of the value of the annual subsidy range from $366 million to $3.4 billion. Passed 78 Yea to 21 Nay.

Edwards voted Yea

Energy: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site

This vote was on whether to override the state of Nevadas veto and approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump (S.J.R. 34), despite broad-based opposition from environmental and public interest organizations. The Department of Energys recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site has been plagued by compromised research and numerous safety issues. Far from solving the nuclear waste problem, sending waste to Yucca Mountain would require tens of thousands of radioactive shipments through communities in 44 states. Passed 60 Yea to 39 Nay.

Edwards voted Yea


Energy Policy Act

This vote was on passage of the Senate energy bill (H.R. 6). The legislation would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which provides important consumer protection to electricity ratepayers; authorize incentives and subsidies for new nuclear power plants; and provide tax breaks to the coal, oil, and gas industries. The bill fails to promote energy independence through improving car and SUV fuel economy standards and requiring a percentage of energy generation from renewable energy sources. Passed: 84 Yea to 14 Nay.

Edwards voted Yea

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Can you post the bills so we can see the details of bills that passed 84-14?

Thanks in advance.

[Cameron27]

31. I'm not sure what you're asking for...the total votes?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. The bills. They were passed easily so surely there may have been something positive in them

The two Obama-Bunning coal bills were both defeated--even when Republicans controlled the senate in 2006...

[Milo_Bloom]

35. But isn't it Edwards' strategy not to compromise his principles?

These Bills prove that he is absolutely willing to comporomise his "principles", despite his rhetoric to the contrary.

[Cameron27]

36. If you think you can find something to justify Edwards' yes votes,

go ahead, but these summaries appear to be more than adequate. (I have read through these legislative votes, plus his vote in support of mountaintop removal and other bills, so I'm satisfied with this representation. If you're not, well, I'm not inclined to do your work for you)

[Cameron27]

15. #2

"I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe."

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr/

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Nice from someone who talks about credibility...every U.S. embassy has troops

Name one candidate who will leave the U.S. embassy in Iraq as the only undefended one in the world. You are conflating that with Clobama keeping 25,000 or 75,000 troops in Iraq. We don't know how many they will keep and for how long because they have not told us, although Obama has told us what his name means. :eyes:

[Cameron27]

21. I'm not conflating anything. The US embassy is the size of a small city,

and Edwards hasn't specified the number of troops he'd keep to defend it. (Just as he won't tell us what republicans made it to his potential cabinet list.)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. List how many American embassies are undefended

Thanks in advance. Embassies need to be defended. Surely a Clark supporter would be aware of this...

[Cameron27]

26. Of course they should be defended, but that's not the point of

your previous post. Edwards wants a residual force left in Bagdad to defend the largest embassy in the world, and he never provided the number of troops that would involve.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. You're comparing troops at an embassy to keeping troops in Iraq for military operations?

That is very "credible." How many troops does a typical embassy require? Can you tell us of any undefended American embassy and any candidate who is calling for the embassy in Iraq to be undefended?

The size of the embassy means little. As if having a few extra square feet means 10,000 extra troops are needed. :crazy:

[Cameron27]

29. The size of this embassy is significant,

and Edwards should specify the number of troops he's reserving for that purpose. He's also leaving them in the region for the purpose of dropping them back in if needed. Link to Obama's statement please.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. How many square feet bigger is it than the 2nd largest embassy?

Why don't we calculate how many troops per square feet are deployed at an embassy to get a ballpark figure for Iraq? I am sure a few extra thousand feet equates to a few thousand more troops, right? :crazy:

Edwards will redeploy them to Kuwait, Jordan, and the Persian Gulf. Richardson has a similar position. No responsible president is going to do evacuate the Middle East.

The links were posted above.

Can you tell us of any undefended American embassy and any candidate who is calling for the embassy in Iraq to be undefended?

[Cameron27]

34. The American Embassy and other personnel...

"We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel." Why so touchy, I'm just asking for some specific troop numbers that he's reserving for this purpose. Let's have a statement on an approximate number and exactly what they'll be doing besides defending the embassy before drawing any conclusions.

[Sparkly]

16. Comparing their websites, I don't see striking differences....

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

Looks like they all want "universal health care" by making health INSURANCE "affordable."

On Iraq, I think they're all saying "end the war," "redeploy," no "permanent" bases, and no "combat" troops.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

On poverty, Obama seems to have a clear focus as well:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/

I'm not seeing a separate page on "poverty" at Clinton's site, but she shares a lot of ground with the others in terms of policy for women, children, "working families," taxes, unions, etc.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. The devil is in the details. It isn't what they say. It is what they don't tell voters

Obama doesn't tell you his plan, even under a rosy scenario, would leave 15 million Americans uninsured. Clinton has no plan yet. Let's wait until she releases it to assess its merits.

On Iraq Clobama give us a slight hint, although they don't tell voters clearly and specifically how many troops and for how long they would retain in Iraq (why do you think Obama places so much emphasis on his 2002 position on Iraq and not what he would do in Iraq if he is elected?).

==The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.==

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/


Ever see him mention that during a debate? At a forum? Before an Iowa or NH audience?

==She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations.==

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

They are being, at best, cute, and at worst misleading, when they say "no permanent bases." You could have "temporary" bases for 8 years...

Here is more. This is an article written by Obama himself that has gotten little attention. The article was written for the foreign policy elite in Foreign Affairs magazine. Those who read it would already have know of his real position on Iraq. Don't expect Obama to pen an article in Time stating this...

==We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.==

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Again, no definition of "minimal." They refuse to answer that even though Richardson has asked for a ballpark figure.

=WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.==

==However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.

Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."==

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

As to poverty, how often have you seen Obama and Clinton speak about it? That tells you a lot about how much importance they place on the issue.

For Edwards' views on poverty check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Poverty-America-Restore-American/dp/1595581766

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Policy positions become MEANINGLESS

When you can't believe a word that comes out of their mouths based on their past votes and lies.

[lyonn]

23. Biden's plan for getting out of Iraq

Making 3 regions in one country makes sense, no borders, just local politics controlling regions with equal, percentage wise, divisions of oil.

[elizm]

37. Obama's foreign policy...

....Talking with foriegn leaders, lifting sanctions against Cuba, acting on actionable intelligence in Pakistan if Musharraf won't. Obama knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to dance around the issues. He is the only candidate I trust with the ability to mend our relationships and restore our credibility around the world.