Without an insult - answer this: What is the difference between an Obama Dem and a Clinton Dem?

[RiverStone]

We are ALL Democrats. We collectively find Shrub and his minions repulsive. We will work together to WIN BIG in November!

WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM. :pals:


So here is the challenge question:

What is the difference between an Obama Dem and a Clinton Dem?

((((((but wait)))))

Please try and answer this question without dissing the other candidate or his/her supporters.

And by the way, if you find the restriction stupid - just skip the thread.

On theory, I'm guessing we can express differences without insults --- but, we shall see.



peace:)

[MannyGoldstein]

1. We Give Up... What?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Howard Dean DNC vs. Terry McCauliffe DNC

I prefer the former. I really like what Dean is doing with the party, the 50 state strategy. I don't want a return to the top-down, DLC style of McCauliffe.

[jackson_dem]

6. Why do folks associate Obama with Dean?

The DLC has no beef with Obama. Al From is no fool. He knows both Hillary and Obama are in line with the DLC philosophy.

[Recursion]

12. Because he will campaign in red states

The McCauliffe / Dean split isn't (to me) so much about left/right shifting as it is about who we're willing to ask for votes. Dean (I'm on the Dean side so this will be positively biased) wants to expand the party; the "reach out / don't reach out" fights we're seeing are largely an extension of the McCauliffe / Dean pissing match.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Exactly.

In the Dem party circles where I live the Clinton/Obama camps seem to have sorted out that way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Dean will be gone if HRC gets the nod. nt

[Ediacara]

30. I really don't buy the idea that Clinton would sac Dean

Carville already tried this idea out and it went over like shit on toast.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

43. They'll push him out if she gets the nod and replace him with Harold Ford. nt

[Ediacara]

46. Like I said, Carville floated that idea and it went over like shit on toast

She's smart enough to know not to do that as her number one act as president.

[Recursion]

3. Look at the two "event" threads

The difference seems to be primarily aesthetic; a "gut" thing. I found Clinton's thing on TV tonight horrible. It just felt fake. Clinton supporters found it inspiring and informative. I found Obama's rally inspiring and informative. Clinton supporters found it scary and cultish (or shallow and devoid of substance).

It's a surprisingly deep divide, to me. Obama talked for a long time about specific policies and initiatives he wants to enact but for whatever reason he couldn't communicate it to a lot of Clinton supporters on here because they keep saying he was all style and no substance. Similarly, I'm sure that Clinton in her own way was making a very strong and profound connection with her supporters but I couldn't get over a very strong feeling that the whole thing was appallingly insincere. Somehow they seem to have stumbled on to a very wide aesthetic gulf in this country because I honestly don't think either has been actively trying to alienate the others' supporters.

As to what causes the divide? You've got me. I don't get what the fundamental difference is but it's hard to deny. It's also hard to articulate, which may be why we're having such emotional reactions to each other, because it's hitting at a very deep part of our souls.

[buff2]

4. That's easy.......

One is an intelligent candidate with 35 years experience and the other is a smooth talking snake oil salesmen with NO experience who worries too much about pleasing the repukes. It's as simple as that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. All the class of a hillshill... nt

[Straight Shooter]

17. And calling someone a "hillshill" is class.

You stay classy, NCevilDuer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Never laid a claim to class.

Just honesty.

[Straight Shooter]

39. Honesty is admirable, but it need not be brutal.

Here's to tempered honesty. :thumbsup:

[gravity]

5. "On theory, I'm guessing we can express differences without insults"

I bet you will be proven wrong

[RiverStone]

26. so far ....half right, but half wrong too

:) :-(

[nonconformist]

7. Obama = upper middle class, conservative/moderate Democrats, young first time voters

Clinton = lower middle class, life long Democrats, older voters

[RiverStone]

27. Excellent -and insult free! Thanks!

:applause:

[TexasObserver]

9. over 50, under 50 mainly

Hillary has older Democrats, by and large. Obama has everyone else.

[blm]

10. Open Government Democrat v Closed Government Democrat

That was easy.

[lurky]

11. Isn't it obvious? All the difference in the world!

[RiverStone]

21. Live long and prosper!

Actually, I think that episode of ST was cutting edge at that time for what it said about judging someone (or not) by the color (or colors) of their skin. As I recall, the end message was anti-racism.

Remember what the episode was named?

[lurky]

"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"

was the name of the episode. When I saw that as a kid, it did bring home the stupidity of racism. Considering the state of most TV I've seen from the 60s, I think Star Trek was pretty revolutionary.

[Straight Shooter]

29. One of my favorite episodes!

"But don't you see? He is white on the right side. I am white on the left side."

[lurky]

35. I thought it was appropriate.

:hi:

[Straight Shooter]

38. Good choice!

Another favorite episode was The Oreganians (sp?) where they stopped the war between Kirk and the Klingons. Spock, "Why, to them, we must look like insects."

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. That's awesome! I wish I could K&R this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. self delete

[Armstead]

13. I'm a Wellstone Dem who supports Obama by default

I'd rather take a chance on Obama than have more Clintonian GOP lite centrism.

[Indenturedebtor]

14. I believe that once in a generation

A leader comes along who can unite us to go to the moon, save us from global warming, get lobbyists out of government, etc ;)

I believe! :bounce:

In truth: Optimists and Pessimists. I'm ready to hope again. Lets see what happens eh? :shrug:

[RiverStone]

24. Here's to hope....thanks!

[gravity]

15. Clinton represents the establish democrats

Think Bill Clinton, but a little more to the left

Obama wants to take the party in a new direction. He has less experience, but challenges the conventional wisdom with the politics of the party

[RiverStone]

23. Thanks - well shared....n/t

[riverwalker]

16. Bill n/t

[Beausoir]

18. Maturity.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Good and Bad

The supporters from each group who really are dedicated to making the world a better place differ very little. It's among the misbehavers that you can see differences clearly. But those differences are usually only by-products of the pressure of the campaigns, not its core.

I find the zealous reliance on The Obama Narrative to be unsettling. The idea that if I don't support a particular candidate I'm against hope and the future is insulting. The emotion-driven supporters are just plain frightening. Fortunately, they appear to be few in number.

"But Hillary's people do it, too!" Well, no they don't. Many of them are indeed rude and jerks, but Hillary is not campaigning on emotionalizing. I think it explains a lot of the misbehavior in the Obama camp, as well as the irony of the large number of anti-nuclear activists who back a guy who supports nuclear energy and its industry. Obama is walking on a knife-edge using a demogogic technique to promote idealism.

So, is this a "diss"? I don't think so, but many Obama supporters (and probably a few Hillary supporters) may say otherwise. And I apologize to you, RiverStone, if you also see it that way. But unless I'm sparring or wisecracking, I endeavor to stay as fact-based as I can. And that is why I bolded the first paragraph, to make sure no one misses it.

In short: no major difference(s) among those who act as positively as they can; many differences among those who are acting badly, but differences which are incidental to the campaign(s).

--p!

[Bonobo]

20. Obama Dems want to destroy the enemy by convinving them our ideas are in their interest.

Clinton Dems don't necessarily think that is as important as building our own machine to its maximum effectiveness.

[zulchzulu]

22. It really gets down to what you think of Bill Clinton and what he did

You've seen the list from Hillary supporters. It's all glitz and rather odd in my book. Saying things like "we opened by opportunities for Mexico" and "we got China to share their good and services with the US" or basically in that broad brush of faux nostalgia.

But if you look at what Bill Clinton did in the White House (even excluding you know what), he comes across as a pretty decent Republican.

Hillary uses his resumé to pad her experience as First Lady. OK, big deal. Whatever... we all do that, right?

Well, is that what we want? Is this continuation of family dynasties the best we can do?

I don't look at this as a binary Obama OR Hillary conjecture. There were other candidates who ran directly against the idea of having the Clintons being back in power. They have dropped out and we now see what is a fundamental difference in the choice of direction for this country at this time.

Do we want the Clintons to be the nominee and empower the GOP, who have NOTHING to run for? Do Hillary supporters care? Are they educated on her issues?

Equally, some support of Obama is purely because they like him...a lot. They don't necessarily know all the specifics of all of the issues he stands for.

It's about not caring if we go back into the past vs. going into the future, even if it seems uncharted.

[sandnsea]

25. FICA tax credits for everybody

verse tax credits for the upper income only.

Knowing that, in the words of Deval Patrick, you can't end homelessness by mandating everybody buy a home.

And knowing that Perle and Wolfowitz were shoving an ideological war down our throats.

[Ediacara]

28. Obama Dems seem to be more idealistic, Clinton Dems more pragmatic

It's a fight between the heart and brain of the party. Unfortunately for the heart people, the brain side has better ideas (as well as some bad ones).

[RiverStone]

31. Maybe NOT knowing more is exactly what some people want....

I tend to trust my heart over my head...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

33. Work horse Show horse

[Emit]

34. I was a Clinton Dem before I was an Obama Dem

But I was a Kucinich Dem before I was an Edwards Dem and an Edwards Dem before a Clinton Dem.

I thought I'd cast my vote for Clinton, but I just couldn't go there in that last minute decision time. With all I've read over the preceding years, I just didn't feel comfortable going with Clinton. So I became an Obama Dem.

It's all been by default for me. :crazy:

Bottom line: Clinton is a known quantity, wise, a doer, determined but a bit rapacious, representative of the status quo with too many entrenched connections to the past that have divided us all as a nation and too close to the powers that be, in general.

Obama is an unknown, smart, charismatic, an excellent orator of planned speeches but somewhat haughty at times one on one, offers an apparent alternative to the status quo but seems naive in a manner, is quite vulnerable to being used as a panacea by the powers that be who are behind him, and, a gamble, really.

[Recursion]

40. There's also the religious aspect

I've noticed Obama supporters don't mind (and in many cases strongly like) Obama's speaking about religion and faith, while I've heard a lot of Clinton supporters be very, very leery of it. This may be part of the "inspiration gap", for lack of a better term.

This is also where trite generational analyses come in because 20- and 30-something Democrats seem to be a lot more comfortable with religion, in general, and 40- and 50-something Democrats.

[eridani]

41. Both think that triangulation and capitulation are the way to go n/t

[tishaLA]

42. Lakoff explained this really well I think

Supporters of Sen Clinton tend to love policy and think that is what politics is about. They are also interested in a candidate who has "experience" and who is "ready on day one" to navigate the halls of power.

Obama (and followers of Obama, I would say), on the other hand "understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer."

Sen Clinton believes in achieving policy goals based on triangulation, etc., whereas Sen Obama aims to move the "center" of centrist policy towards him. Both approaches can work, but they tend to produce different results.

I hope I haven't unintentionally offended supporters of either candidate. Trying not to be negative.

[RiverStone]

52. Good analysis there...

The irony is on paper, Obama is very progressive - on the surface, there are some Dems that see him as right (of left). Maybe simply because many indies and even a few pukes are also going Obama's direction.

On paper and in person, I think his message resonates with greater numbers than Clinton. And I really like what I hear! But we shall see today what happens.

Thanks for sharing :)

[AshevilleGuy]

44. Perhaps we think about winning the general election?

I have yet to hear an Obama supporter even address this. Nominating is NOT necessarily electing, you see.

[Jed Dilligan]

45. Belief in people vs. belief in government

[Seabiscuit]

47. Neither one has a workable health care plan.

Beyond that, the main differences have to do with skin pigmentation, hair color, gender, and of course, clothing.

[Didereaux]

50. Clinton plan is present Congressional health care plan.,.it seems to work just fine for them.

[Seabiscuit]

51. No it's not.

What congressmen get "tax credits" to reduce their contribution to the plan? What they get is a form of universal health care. They pay nothing for it. Clinton's plan has absolutely nothing in common with that. Under her plan, If poor Joe Schmoe can't pay the premiums up front, no amount of "tax credit" next April 15 is going to help him this year pay the outrageous rates of private HMO premiums.

[joshcryer]

53. You're wrong, all plans have a Federal insurer.

An insurer which will cover you guaranteed.

[Seabiscuit]

64. You obviously have no idea what Barack and Hillary are proposing, do you?

[OzarkDem]

54. Clinton does

[Vinca]

48. Vision. nt

[Didereaux]

49. one has age and wisdom, the other youth and energy!

[boston bean]

56. about twenty years, in mind and body

[MethuenProgressive]

57. One "hopes" their candidate will do well, one "knows" their candidate will do well.

:hi:

[Iceburg]

58. Doers versus Dreamers /nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. This question is amazingly hard to answer in a positive way.

Unbelievably, shockingly hard.

Which, in itself, is a really sad commentary on what's happened to my party.

[RiverStone]

63. It will be a lot easier to answer if somehow...

They end up on the same ticket. :think:

Of course, that remains to be seen.

[robbedvoter]

61. An Obama Dem has the media on their side, Hillary's are in GE mode media-wise

I believe a lot of tension comes from it. Obama supporters think they are entitled to the positive coverage - because their candidate earned it.
Hillary supporters think the corporate media merely maneuvers primaries as always and once the nomination settled will turn on the Democrat - whomever he/she is.

[LibDemAlways]

62. I think Obama supporters are generally more idealistic. Hillary

supporters are generally more pragmatic. My 2 cents.