Who is more economically/fiscally progressive: Obama or Clinton?

[LBJDemocrat]

Can someone set the record straight about which one of these candidates is more progressive?

Some people say Obama is a blank slate and a puppet candidate. Others say the DLC isn't fond of him. Some people say Hillary Clinton is Wall Street's candidate. Others say that she has some union support.

Can you people please explain how they differ on issues such as trade, progressive taxation, and government services?

[autorank]

1. Neither.

I see them as tight book ends on the same spectrum. Clinton's health program was unimaginative and uninformed (she forgot mental health as part of the picture, can you imagine!). She's a war supporter in the past, "tough on defense," and has a nice set of metaphors for community and so forth but where's the beef.

Obama has a good voting record on liberal items and he's extremely charming and civil which is such a refreshing change. He also doesn't give up much to the press, which I find very positive. He is wise beyond his experience. But other than that, he's had such a short career, it's really hard to tell. I see him as beyond Clinton on the liberal agenda, far beyond.

Now here's the problem. We've screwed up the planet, all of us, not just the USA. China and India will dwarf our damage. It's literally life and death. This is not hysteria, it's mainstream science. So where are these two on that issue? Seriously. That's the threat, even the Pentagon thinks so as of 2004.

What will it take for someone in office to enunciate this. I find it tragic...I don't see any of our candidates as suitable because of this failure to mention the obvious and threatening future we face and the horror that our children will inherit.

But it's early who knows, one of them might get it and hit one out of the park. If so, I'll bet it's Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Edwards is certainly the most economically/fiscally progressive

For instance, Edwards has a $15 billion a year plan to cut poverty by a third in 10 years and eliminate it in 30 years. He has a $8 billion a year plan to allow every qualified person to attend at least one year of college, and studies show that getting through the first year is the key. Where are HRC and Obama on poverty and expanding opportunity? Let's see actual policy proposals, not generic rhetoric...

[mnhtnbb]

20. If you want economically/fiscally progressive, you want Edwards.

[Totally Committed]

12. Ditto.

Great post! (as usual)

TC

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Obama is Wall Street's main horse with Giuliani and HRC close behind

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

==Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
Big Banks' Employees Gave Senator $479,000 in 1st Quarter

By Kristin Jensen and Christine Harper
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; Page D02

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) on their home turf in the first quarter, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

The Illinois senator raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Giuliani collected $473,442, and Clinton got $447,625. The figures are based on employers listed by the donors; in some cases, names are incomplete or missing.==

==The employees of Goldman Sachs and UBS gave Obama more than $260,000 combined. His top fundraisers include David Heller, a managing director at Goldman, and Robert Wolf, chief executive of UBS Americas.

"I've never had a higher hit ratio in terms of asking people for money and them saying yes," said James Torrey, an Obama fundraiser and chief executive of New York-based Torrey Associates, a $1.3 billion fund of funds.==

They both seem to be the same on economic/fiscal issues. It is hard to say since Obama has not really told us what he intends to do as president and how he intends to do it. His Wall Street success, though, suggests a great deal about his economic views..

[Telly Savalas]

7. Rich people don't contribute to Edwards' campaign?

[LBJDemocrat]

10. Of course, they do

But not to the same extent. And the rich people contributing to Edwards' campaign are less likely to be top officers of investment banks.

[Ken Burch]

4. Obama started from a clearly more progressive position on both counts

However, given the fluidity of his campaign positions and his seeming obsession with distancing himself from the progressive wing of the party(despite the fact that they're the only Dems who'd back him in the primaries)it is hard to tell if he'd stay to Senator Clinton's left when in office. If he comes in focused on "bipartisanship", you can assume he'll basically cave to the GOP on everything that matters, since they never compromise with Dems, and the result is that Dems who try to compromise with them just end up surrendering.

[LBJDemocrat]

18. I think I agree

HRC seems like she'll be more resistant to that sort of thing, even if her platform is rather centrist.

Also, Obama is good at making people think he represents them. HRC isn't. I think Obama would be able to get away with more.

[Mojambo]

5. Wall Street doesn't fear either one of them. n/t

Which is why they are the two front runners on our side.

[gobblechops]

6. I sure do miss

Progressives having a chance at president,seems like you have to be Republican lite or rightwing wacko to be considered for president anymore.

[doggyboy]

8. About the same

It's hard to tell because Obama doesn't have as full a record as Hillary, but I've seen nothing that indicates that he is more progressive than she is. They are both liberal on social issues and moderate on most everything else.

[hollowdweller]

9. Have any supported a bill banning permanent replacement workers in strikes?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

11. Neither

They both seem to me to be just wrapping themselves up with liberal-progressive and/or populist lingo. To me it's branding instead of policy stance.

I'll vote for the Dem, because at least we will have an influence over their administration (the netroots is a big force nowadays), but I'd rather we cut with the bullshit and go straight to the bread and butter.

[OHdem10]

13. Only DLC Candidate or Candidate APPROVED BY DLC

will be acceptable and our candidate. Our Corporate-Run
State has shown this over and over. If I am proven wrong
I will apologize and be very happy.

The Media are the Handmaids of the Corporations. Watch
carefully how they aim a a candidate and slowly bring him
down. The person left standing will be a Corporatist.

Sometimes I think it would be better to let the Republicans
win this election--completely put the country in the Hoover
Ditch. It is headed there big time. The American people
would finally wake up to what Economic Conservatism does
and how wrong it is.

On issues that matter to the future of this country--it is
often difficult to distinguish the two parties.

Mark my word. The DLC Candidate is the winner of the Primary.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

14. But don't you know that Obama is the new Jack Kennedy???

:sarcasm:

[LBJDemocrat]

15. Does this mean that...

that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can be the DLC candidate?

[OHdem10]

16. It means Hilary is Primary or DLC Favorite.

It also means that should Obama overtake Hilary, he will have
to bow deeply at DLC Shrine.

Last night on CMatthews, one of his guests was the Guy who has
MADMONEY, a business program on CNBC. His name escapes me
but he is a screamer. He said Edwards scares Business and
Wall Street to death. Could this be why the handmaidens (Corporate
Media) have ganged up and are piling on Edwards.

In the end, what business wants business gets.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

17. K and R

:kick:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

19. Gotta keep pushing left

Can't give anyone a free pass.