Obama Agrees With Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform

His thoughts on domestic and foreign policy try to hew to this consensus-building line. Some of his recommendations devolve into little more than fuzzy statements of the obvious: i.e., that America’s “addiction to oil” is affecting the economy and undermining national security, or that the education system needs to be revamped and improved. Others echo Bill Clinton’s “third way,” methodically triangulating between traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal ideas.

Mr. Obama writes that “conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html?ex=1182398400&en=027739670ff475a8&ei=5070

He recalls a meet-and-greet encounter at the White House with George W. Bush, who warmly shook his hand, then “turned to an aide nearby, who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.” (“Good stuff,” he quotes the president as saying, as he offered his guest some. “Keeps you from getting colds.”) And he recounts a trip he took through Illinois with an aide, who scolded him for asking for Dijon mustard at a T.G.I. Friday’s, worried the senator would come across as an elitist; the confused waitress, he adds, simply said: “We got Dijon if you want it.”

...The Audacity of Hope places Obama squarely in the DLC camp, even if he never applies for a membership card.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68

The similarities with Clinton do not stop there. He writes approvingly about Clinton's adoption of the "third way", with its hostility to the shibboleths of left and right and its mantra that "what matters is what works".

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/54400

In fact, Obama fits himself explicitly into the Clinton mold. "In his platform -- if not always in his day-to-day politics -- Clinton's Third Way went beyond splitting the difference," Obama writes. "It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of the majority of Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001653.html

...when are the folks who think he's the progressive messiah going to wise up? It will probably start when someone like KOS or Sirota really kicks Obama in the gut. Then folks on DU will follow up with "sell out" and "Republican lite" and "corporatist" and my favorite "whore."

There. Happy now?
















:evilgrin:

The only difference was when Obama disagreed with HRC and voted with the Republicans to confirm Gen. Pace...

I have no problem with them.

..that since entering the Senate, Obama has voted the same way Clinton has on Iraq.

:shrug:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

That says it all...and the line time he voted differently was when he went to vote for the Republicans. Yeah, HRC is a pro-war neocon while Obama is an anti-war progressive crusader--even though they vote exactly the same way and have the same platform on Iraq! :rofl:

:rofl:

I think Tipper's hair threw me.

Wyldwolf is citing that loonball from "BlackAgendaReport"!

I don't really see what your point is. Yes, some Obama supporters think he's more of a doctrainairre lefty than he really is. But the fact of the matter is that many, many legislators of Obama's generation have a third way streak. They don't reflexively look to paternalistic big government solutions, they have a skeptical view about both big business and big bureaucracy, and they try to think outside of the old ideological boxes. If anything, Obama is to be commended for this approach, and it's a large part of why I decided to support him once my first choice (Mark Warner) bowed out of the running.

Points of comparison, ya know?

If anything, Obama is to be commended for this approach

Which I have done in this thread. Still, it is an interesting show to watch those who DO believe Obama is (as you said) a doctrainairre lefty become uncomfortable at this.

like who?

...spin the substance?

Looks like you're supporting a DLCer without an official membership card.

You hate Obama and adore Hillary!

Next topic!

How can me posting a fact about Obama that I agree with translate into me hating him?

Sadly, wyldwolf, they are going to ignore the substance and spin the sources or attack you. Obama has a cult-like following. Like a cult member, many of his supporters simply shut-off when they are faced with information that contradicts the fundamental tents of the cult. Like the one of him be the antithesis to the DLCism of HRC while in reality they have identical Third Way platforms. :rofl:

==Looks like you're supporting a DLCer without an official membership card.==

Bingo!

Just because Obama never formally joined the DLC doesn't mean his is not a Third Way Democrat--he is...See my thread asking if there were any difference in the platforms of HRC, the prototypical DLC'er, and Obama. Answer? There are none, except that Obama is more DLC on health care. :rofl:

Working with the poor at the time, as I was, I saw the really horrible effects it had, especially on young, single mothers. It broke my heart.

If this ia a true representation of his position on Welfare Reform, then the one tip of one toe I had in his camp will be withdrawn immediately.

This would make him a no-go for me.

TC

he believes “in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised….”

He states, “I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military.”

Did Al From ghost write his book?

Also...

"In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal…."

He must read DU!

Thanks for the excerpts.

FWIW:

There's plenty of good information here to refute the WRA --

From Welfare To Poverty: In Direct Rebuttal to President Clinton's NYT Op-Ed
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Totally%20Committed/9

TC

but Its rather humorous seeing you guys doing so much "deep research" on Barack Obama. You don't get it. In '04 you guys were all up in arms because Howard Dean wasn't a leftwing liberal. Now, it's Barack Obama's turn.

What will really be amazing is when I see a post that is headlined
"I finally understand progressives and how I'm a business as usual pro status quo windbag"

In 2004, your guys tried to paint a centrist former DLCer in "progressive" colors. Now you're doing the same to Obama. What's the matter? Can't get behind a "true progressive?"

I'm waiting for a post with a headline from you: The "Progressive movement" is a sham and I'm a dupe for falling for it. We can't even choose a true progressive candidate!

does reversal of a post make it go away? Is this a new spell I'm unaware of?

You can't address the substance... again.

== Now you're doing the same to Obama. What's the matter? Can't get behind a "true progressive?"==

Another astute observation from wyldwofl, who knows a DLCer when he sees one. ;)

brought before her. She knew mens lives were going to be at stake. What did she do Nothing. You want to call this Bushes war. This war is just as much her's and everyone else's who voted for the war. Do we want someone to hold the office of the presidency who does not read what is before them. We will wind up in another war and she will not know how and the hell we got there. No THANKS

What did you have for breakfast? IRAQ!!
OK, how do you feel today? IRAQ!
What's 2+2? IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!

Ask yourself if the Republicans would rather face an enthusiastic early supporter of the war (for it before she was against it, been there done that) or an early and consistent opponent.

Then again, I don't expect an honest response.

Ask yourself - would the Republicans rather face someone who has been consistent on the issue or someone who says he's against it but votes for it everytime he can?

I don't expect an honest response.

she proclaimed loudly at the NH debate. She left out the, "which I authorized," part.

Nice to see you're adopting the repuke line equating funding the troops with support of the war. That's also what the extreme lefties, for whom you have so much disdain, say. But you're playing a losing hand here, so you'll do whatever it takes. Easy to see how Her Hillaryness appeals to you.

Obama - I was against this war, but I supported it in the Senate...

An overt DLCer whose every move will be monitored by progressives are a Third Way Trojan Horse who poses as a progressives that progressives will not scrutinize closely because they believe he is one of them? Obama also has charisma to help sell the corporate agenda that HRC lacks.

You're smarter than that.

We all know that Obama vocally opposed the war when it was politically unpopular to do so. We also know that Obama has continued to express disagreement with both going into Iraq, and with the way the war has been conducted. It's absurd to think that- especially in the Republican controlled Senate- he should be blamed because he approved funding for a war that was already in progress and which he opposed before it began.

Even if he had voted "no" to the appropriations bills, the votes would not have been there. His actions would have been viewed as political grandstanding at the expense of our troops.

But I suspect you already know that.

You're smarter than that.

We all know Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time the IWR votes were cast and has said that he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.

We also know that, because his opposition didn't mean a hill of beans back then, it was in itself political grandstanding. However, NOT supporting the bill in congress would have been standing on the principle he supposedly set before he was in congress.

which is surprising, because I'm guessing that was largely the reason Edwards and your candidate supported the IWR. They didn't want to be tagged as *weak on terror* or *unpatriotic*, the way other opponents of the administration had been. The made a political decision and it backfired horribly.

For the same reason, Obama's opposition to the IWR could hardly be seen as political grandstanding, when such a move was hardly popular to begin with. Granted, it was likely to go over better in his Illinois district than in many other areas of the nation, but knowing he had higher political aspirations, the safest thing he could have done is to have kept his mouth shut.

Hearing Hillary and Edwards supporters blame Obama for the war is like someone setting their own house on fire, and then blaming the firefighters for not extinguishing it quickly enough. It's quite frankly absurd.

He has consumed the Kill Obama At All Costs kool-aid.

...but, now, with Obama it does?

It was very easy for those not in the Senate to say they were against the war.

and therefore accountable to the public for his actions.

And I think you misunderstood my argument about the political climate at the time. Obama went against what was considered politically correct at the time (at the risk of his reputation and future political aspirations), while Hillary and Edwards did what they thought would be the least harmful to their political ambitions. In other words, they allowed ambition to get in the way of what was right.

having to cast a vote. Regardless of how unpopular something may be, it is relatively easy to "say" you are taking a principled stand on something. Rarely are actual votes that simple or easy though, as Obama has demonstrated perfectly. He is against the war but has yet to actually vote in a way that supports that position.

It is no more absurd to hold him responsible for that than it is to hold HRC responsible for her vote on a bill written by Republicans and at least partly designed to put Dems in a difficult position no matter how they voted, in which conflicting information had to be evaluated. In fact, HRC spoke (rather eloquently) against war even as she was voting for the IWR.

we get it.

Both want to keep a force in Iraq indefinitely to conduct military operations. I am sure you are aware of HRC's position, since Obama supporters love to criticize her for having the same position their hero has (unknown to them--which goes to the purpose of this thread: Obama is not what people think he is).

Obama's own words:

==And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. 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

==Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. 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. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

HRC

==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

Iraq votes

They have voted together 71 of 72 times. The only difference was when Obama voted with the Republicans to confirm Gen. Pace...

And she has admitted, without regret, to not reading the NIE before casting her vote.

we knew then what we know now, and that she certainly would not have voted for it if there were.

Please remember that the UN inspectors were not finished yet at the time of this vote, and had been busy destroying Iraqi banned and undeclared weapons for years, with significant resistance from the Iraqi government.

HRC says she sought out experts, including the authors of the intelligence reports used in the NIE, for their comments. As you may know, the NIE was a compilation of various reports from various sources and supposedly this one was at best ambiguous in it's conclusions, and probably slanted toward the "Iraq is a threat" angle.

It used to be that around here we complained about how the intelligence was being manipulated and the administration was forcing their perspective on the analysts, but where HRC is involved, as always, many are willing to team up with BushCo if means a chance to take a swipe at Clinton.

Here it is if you want to read it and see if it would have made a difference in the vote or if you trust the intel yourself:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_judgments.pdf

This kind of independent thinking is gonna piss off the "base"

...between either being a red face (conservative) or a blue face (liberal). So many people want to plant that binary idea in people's heads. To boil it down, it's false choices. Call it "third way", call it whatever you want... I don't think people are in politically binary modes. To think so misses the point.

He is brilliant in that he sells his Third Way under the clever rubric of "unity" (false choices are intended to divide us) so he slips past progressive defenses against DLCers...

that he speaks of. I'm sure you'll keep providing the props.

:)

:shrug:

Bill vetoed the bill twice before signing it.
So, how exactly does that make it "his" reform?

1. He sent it back until it was more to his liking.
2. He signed the bill.

Seldom does a bill recommended by a President return to his desk in the form he envisioned it in.

because Dole and the Republicans were going to use it against him during the '96 campaign.

He took their prime domestic issue away from them.

..and he sent the bill back two times. Welfare reform was what he wanted. He would not have gotten the bill he wanted from a Democratic controlled congress, either.

I am a Clinton supporter, but I also like Obama and see their views as being similar on many issues. I would gladly support him if he got the nomination.

:hi:

He's not the only candidate that is everything you want. He is not even your preferred candidate. But he is one of the candidates that would pursue your agenda.

And you respond by attempting to convince people not to support him.

I seem to recall a major assertion for supporting the Third Way was that it increased a candidate's electibility. Here you have a Third Way candidate who appeals to anybody from moderately Right to solidly Left ... and you spend all your effort in trying to tear him down.

You schizo or something?

And you respond by attempting to convince people not to support him.

Nope, I respond by pointing something out about him. Consider it a "Progressive Head In The Sand Removal Project."

Here you have a Third Way candidate who appeals to anybody from moderately Right to solidly Left ... and you spend all your effort in trying to tear him down.

He only appeals to the solidly left because they are missing a few little details about him.

Certainly you are not going to succeed with everyone. But for every Progressive you do educate, you cost your agenda a vote (unless they mistakenly embrace yet another Third Way candidate).

Some BO supporters act as if there is something wrong with not supporting the corporate media's designated candidates. This is a primary, not a corporate coronation. Kerry was nowhere a week before Iowa. Who is to say Richardson won't pull a Kerry? He could present a strong anti-war alternative with executive experience, as well as all-around experience. He has been rising in NH and Iowa.

Obama apparently is no dummy.

Yall got duped on that welfare reform garbage. In the same vane Bush duped a lot of people on WMDs in Iraq. The reason that straegy worked is because it's been used before. It's being used now by idiots like Lou Dobb's and other right wing blow hards on immigration.

Just like the Iraq WMDs, those that stood up and knew it was bunk were shouted down. There was not widespread abuse of the Welfare system. The averages in terms of time people spent on welfare was 1.5 years.

Anytime someone starts pointing to powerless people and proclaiming they are the source of all ills I'd suggest you do a double take. Because they are using a tride and true formula of scapegoating.

you'll change my mind that easily.

:thumbsup:

some years ago. Then again, I was happy enough to see Bill in '92.

and good for the future once Obama get's that experience under his belt. It's an EXCELLENT STRATEGY!

In fact...IT'S BRILLIANT! I'm being serious about this, btw...and not snarky. I'm waiting for GORE...but I do see the crafting of this as being a stroke of genius. And we need to remember that Bill Clinton was the only TWO TERM DEM since FDR...and no matter what the Right threw at the Clintons...they survived.

Obama deserves :applause: or his consultants or whoever. But, that's what Politics is all about. And Dems learning to "game it" once again after our years of abuse at hands of Repugs.