Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

What I mean here is policy-wise, personality-wise, or anything otherwise that will lead America in a significantly different direction as compared to the other contestants.

I'm not saying different is good or bad. It could be either.

[Kuros]

Hillary and Barack are identical on the issues.

McCain is distinct from each.

All are similar in that they are candidates of good character, and could lead the United States. Although I have my personal preference, I think all are able to exceed the minimal standards of the job.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'll go along with what Kuros said. That was fairly stated.

[Gopher]

Well said, Kuros.

[Pluto]

I've got my preferences, too. Although, I wouldn't be all that upset with an Obama presidency. I just worry about the gentleman from Brooklyn's tax proposal.

[bucheon bum]

[Kuros]

[cbclark4]

Big difference betwen Obama and Clinton.

Obama wants parents to pay a fine when seeking care for their who are
uninsured in his National Health plan.

Clinton has no honor and will not honor agreements she made in the conduct of her campaign (FL, MI) Obama has honored his agreements.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Justin Hale]

McCain explicitly endorses nuclear energy expansion. Hillary seems to have a contradictory position on the matter, explicitly endorsing it on one occasion and saying she's "agnostic" on another. Obama is open but not enthusiastic.

Obviously, McCain is radically different to the two Dems on Iraq. Obama is unique amongst the three for not having supported it from the very start.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hillary's position is rather interesting:

[twg]

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/69733/Obama-v.-McCain...-A-Look-At-Their-Voting-Records.htm

This guy here looks at the voting records of McCain and Obama, and they're not that far apart on a number of issues.

The key difference is that Obama has been offering "That hope thing" that his opponents have been trying to spin into a negative. Especially since hope hasn't been seen since the neo-cons slithered their way into power back in 1980.

Hillary is business as usual. She's George Bush with a husband instead of a daddy making decisions for her.

[Pluto]

[mithridates]

Hard to say which one's different since you can look at it in a few ways: in terms of bare-bones policy or in terms of how the overall political atmosphere would be after one of them becomes president. I can think of a few posters on the board for example that would agree with me in most areas on policy if we were to run for office somewhere, but that I don't consider similar to me at all.

By taking a look at the way they've been running their campaigns, Clinton has been running on the assumption of victory (a bad assumption to make) while McCain largely lucked out after being on fumes for so long (had he received 30% to Huckabee's 33% instead of the other way around it probably would have spelled the end right there), whereas Obama has run a very successful campaign that doesn't underestimate his opponents, assume victory, Giulianify results by pretending there's a big smashing victory right around the corner that'll make everything all right or spend more money than it has, so in terms of knowing how to actually run something that works I'd say he's different than the other two.

It's really hard to tell though. George Bush in 2000 looked like his policy was going to be smaller government and no nation-building, so you never know. That's why I don't think it's a good idea to just compare policy proposals and assume that one candidate is like the other because they are similar there.

[bucheon bum]

[stillnotking]