Posted on 02/05/2008 12:13:13 PM PST by OldGuard1
It has become a common view among pundits observing the Democratic primary campaign that there isn't a great deal of substantive disagreement between the frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and so the contest between them comes down to a contest of style - more specifically, Obama's style and Clinton's lack thereof - or perhaps, if Andrew Sullivan is right, a tectonic generational conflict. To the extent that both the media and the leading campaigns are propelling the idea that the underlying dynamic in the race is "change versus experience", it's true, and self-fulfillingly if not trivially so, that substantive ideological and policy differences will not settle the Democratic nomination.
But the fact that campaign strategies, and the media narrative enfolding them, have obscured genuine, substantive disagreement between Obama and Clinton, does not entail that no such disagreement exists. On the contrary, there is a deep and profound disagreement between the candidates on how to approach public policy questions, one that implies highly discrepant visions of governance. Every so often, in speeches and in debate, either Obama or Clinton or both offer glimpses of their philosophical differences. Saturday night's presidential debate was one such occasion.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk ...
Thoughts? Do you think that he's right, that Hillary is more outright socialist while Obama is more for trying to tweak the free market to achieve socialist goals without devolving into socialism itself?
the idea he is any kind of libertarian is a joke, just a lib
No.
If you head far enough to the right....
You’ll eventually meet the left.
Left authoritarian.
Obama is a dolt, but I think his approach is more pragmatic.
We know Hillary is a socialist pig
I’ve have wondered what I found reminiscent about B. Hussein Obama, this article helped me put my finger on it. B. Hussein Obama’s rhetoric reminds me of Tony Blair.
That statist is no libertarian.
There is no "left wing" in American electoral politics. Even Kucinich, who doesnt stand a chance, is a centrist in European political terms. Both Obama and Clinton are right of center. The Repug candidates are further to the right.
What type of socialist hellhole has Europe become if Kucinich is a considered a centrist?
What’s a “Libtertarian”?
Whereas Hillary is fond of saying "We're going to take your profits" or "We're going to garnish your wages", Obama seems more inclined to couch it as "We're going to raise your taxes".
No matter who wins, you lose.
Yep, that’s what bothers me about Europe.
I have English friends, and even the “conservatives” among them are way to the left. When the stuff hits the fan in Europe, which it will again at some point, I am not sure that the will exists there to even put up a fight.
The left-libertarian label is not at all appropriate.
Libturdtarian?
I have to admit that I tripped over that statement and couldn't muster enough willpower or masochism to read any further. Andrew Sullivan hasn't been right about anything whatsoever, for years and years. It's as if someone had written, "if Bill Clinton is being honest and truthful, then...", or, "if what Baghdad Bob is saying is correct, then...".
She is more of a communist pig, in the sense that the implementations of communism have ended up closely resembling fascism.
She plays lip service to personal freedoms, but only supports them when they are being used to advance her goals.
Liberalism, in theory resembles libertarianism in many ways. Much of the Democratic Party has abandoned the term liberal for sake of the term progressive. They really aren't liberal in the traditional sense of that word, they are power hungry fascists that seek to advance their agenda which they consider to be progress.
If Obama is really a left-libertarian, he might be a better choice than McInsane. However, I really doubt that is the case. Even if he is, I doubt he could put such policies through Congress and get them turned into laws that would protect individual freedoms and the free market.
Most Democrat politicians wouldn't support him because his goals are not theirs, and the Republicans would oppose him because he's a Democrat.
The most hilarious thing here is the notion that empty suit Barack is embodiment of ideas and carpetbagger Hillary is embodiment of experience.
“if Andrew Sullivan is right..”
That’s even less likely than Dick Morris being right about something.
The Racism around Obama and his strongest supporters:
http://card.wordpress.com/?s=Oprah&searchbutton=go%21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3qbibh8Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB7XkZUIHEQ
Obama Corruption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwjnT4eJJvs&eurl=http://www.obamatruth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC8BE-2T_k&eurl=http://www.obamatruth.org/
Unfortunately, Obama's platform statements tend to be so jargonized that it's impossible to get specifics on what he would actually do. As one commenter responded, it's all written in new-age economic catchphrases.
ping for later
Which is why his winning POTUS for four years won't do that much harm to the USofA. We will stagnate to a certain degree, but nothing he proposes will pass through the grinder of Congress unscathed. It will just be a "lost" four years.
B.H.Obama reminds me of a black Jimmah Cahhtah.
As long as Pelosi and H.Reid fumblebum in Congress, I do not believe that the USofA will be vastly harmed. However certain elements, like al Qaida and Islam, may see a weak Presidency as a time for them to infiltrate our society even more openly. We already allow the Koran to be used in the swearing in ceremony. And we falsely perpetuate a connection between Islam and Judaism, which historically does not exist.
Aren’t the comments a riot? Europe is so far left these days you wonder when they’ll run into oncoming traffic ;) I loved all of the people ticked off that Obama *just might possibly maybe perhaps could consider* letting the free-market not get stamped out.
It’s easy to complain about the liberals in the US, but European liberals are a whole different breed.
There might legislative gridlock, but what about judicial nominees? I have little faith that Obama would appoint conservative or originalist judges and justices, which means he could still do a lot of serious and lasting harm.
However, I have no more faith in McCain than in Obama in that regard.
Um, no, not even close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.