A reading of the two Democratic candidates' platforms

Font Size:

BY JOE CARLSON
jcarlson@nwitimes.com
219.933.3364 | Sunday, May 04, 2008 | (28 comment(s))

Perhaps the reason flag pins and "misremembered" helicopter landings are getting so much of attention is because so many voters have already cast their ballots. Perhaps it is because the Democrats' proposals are so similar on so many issues. Maybe it's a reflection of society in general.

Whatever the case, The Times read many of the lengthy and detailed platforms published by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with an eye toward commonly talked-about issues. The results are below.

The economy

With middle-class wages stagnant and the cost of living skyrocketing, both candidates have laid out extensive agendas to reach out to average voters who find the American Dream further out of reach than ever.

Barack Obama plans to expand the various tax credits and tax breaks to certain segments of the population, while much of Hillary Clinton's economic platform focuses on improving America's ability to keep jobs and improve free trade agreements.

In all of her appearances in Northwest Indiana, Clinton has reminded the public she is the only candidate who would declare a "time out" on all existing trade deals. The agreements, including NAFTA, are allowing the export of jobs while allowing trading partners like China to cheat by manipulating their currency values and barring import of American goods.

Clinton would also create the job of "trade prosecutor" and double the staff of trade investigators to aggressively go after violators of the retooled trade deals.

Both candidates pledged to invest heavily in new "green" jobs and industries, but Obama said he would also make permanent the tax credit that companies now receive on research and development spending.

Obama said he would make sure senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year would pay no federal income taxes and would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011.

Obama would also make tax credits for parents more accessible for middle-class families, and create a new $1,000-per-family tax credit to offset income taxes that hit low-income families the hardest.

Clinton said she would return to the federal tax structure of the 1990s, in which higher-income earners paid larger shares of their incomes in taxes than they do now.

Both candidates would create new tax credits to make college more affordable, with Clinton proposing a tax write-off of $3,500 toward tuition, and Obama proposing $4,000.

They both also said they would create funds to help homeowners hit by the foreclosure crisis afford more stable loans. Clinton said she would create a $1 billion assistance fund, while Obama would create a similar fund whose size he did not specify.

Clinton said she would also help homeowners stay in their homes by reducing energy costs through a $1 billion heating assistance program and home modernization initiative that would give away such items as weather-stripping and window insulation.

Obama vowed to get tough on the credit industry by making all credit card companies provide standardized rankings of their products and obey a credit "Bill of Rights" that gives consumers more protections.

Health care

About 47 million Americans are without health insurance, a figure that grew by 3 million in the past five years, studies show.

Yet the profits and administrative costs of insurance companies went up 12 percent between 2000 and 2005 -- the largest single component of health care spending, according to a 2007 study by the Commonwealth Fund Commission.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing large-scale federal efforts to improve health care for those with insurance, to extend coverage to those without it, and to modernize the industry and lower costs for everyone.

Obama estimates his plan will save the average family $2,500 a year, while Clinton used a more conservative $2,200 per-family estimate.

Perhaps the most talked-about provision in both plans is universal health care. Neither proposal would cancel any insurance plan already in place or simply allow anyone to walk into any doctor's office and demand care.

Rather, both plans would create a new federal insurance program similar to Medicare that anyone in America could buy into, regardless of medical history or employment status.

Clinton would make this plan affordable by offering tax credits on income tax forms, while Obama would use direct subsidies to lower the up-front cost based on a family's income.

Clinton and Obama both said employers who don't offer health care plans to employees -- such as large national retailers -- would be forced to pay part of the cost of the new federal insurance program.

Both plans would also allow any individual or company who is dissatisfied with their current insurance to pay for the same program that federal employees and congress members have.

Clinton's proposal would directly extend the existing federal employee's plan to anyone in the public, while Obama's proposal would create a new plan "similar" to the federal plan.

Obama said he would create a new organization called the National Health Insurance Exchange, a watchdog group that would publish information about insurers like profits and administrative costs to help consumers choose the best company for them.

Obama would also force insurers to invest a "reasonable share" of their profits into patient care in markets where corporate mergers have not left enough insurance companies to make up a competitive market.

Clinton's plan relies on tax credits to ensure that any given family's insurance premiums will "never rise above a certain percentage of family income." The plan did not specify the percentage.

She would also offer tax credits to small companies that offer their employees good health insurance and to industries and public employers who need reinsurance to cover large populations of retirees with many "catastrophic" expenses.

Obama's plan does not say how his programs would be funded or what they would cost. Clinton's plan said she would use $54 billion from rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000, along with ending subsidies to health care plans for wealthy families.

And paper? Forget about it. Both candidates said they would offer financial assistance or incentives to doctors and hospitals that switch to more efficient electronic medical billing systems, realizing up to $77 billion in annual cost savings for the whole industry.

The war

With an economy teetering on the brink of recession and a health care system in crisis, the Iraq war gets shoved to the back of the debate in many public forums.

But the United States is spending $10 billion per month on the war, and more than 1 million troops have served in the conflict, which reached its five-year anniversary on March 21.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say the conflict has now become a civil war among Iraqi factions, and withdrawing American troops on a mass scale will be one of the first orders of business if a Democrat becomes the next president.

Clinton said she would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to begin drawing down troops within 60 days of taking office.

Obama said he would withdraw all combat troops by mid-2009 by removing one or two brigades per month, beginning with those in the most peaceful areas. Obama would likely leave a "residual" number of troops in the country to defend American personnel and continue to fight al-Qaeda In Iraq.

Obama would also have the United Nations lead the Iraqis in holding a constitutional convention that would give the nation's minority Sunni Arabs more rights than under the existing form of government.

Both candidates would convene a regional conference of leaders from surrounding countries to pledge not to interfere in the ongoing civil war and make good on previous aid commitments.

Clinton voted for the Oct. 11, 2002, congressional resolution to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, although she has since tried to deauthorize permission for the war because its stated goals -- toppling Iraq's former government and ensuring nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction -- have been completed.

Obama was an Illinois lawmaker in 2002 when Congress approved the resolution, though his campaign frequently quotes his outspoken opposition to the war at the time.

Gas prices

At prices expected to hit $4 a gallon for regular unleaded this summer, the cost of gasoline is recently looming large on the campaign trail as it drives up not just the cost of commuting but also goods shipped by truck, such as groceries.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both released new proposals in recent weeks as prices at the pump continue to rise.

Both have recently called for a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies, which are reaping record profits as commuters pinch pennies.

Clinton would use the proceeds of the new tax to fund a "gas tax holiday" that would eliminate the 18.4-cent tax on regular gas and 24.4-cent tax on diesel during busy summer months.

Obama would use the windfall tax to give families assistance on their heating and cooling bills for their homes.

Both candidates said they would also use federal powers to prevent oil companies and traders from manipulating the market for their own profit.

While Obama did not lay out specifics, Clinton said she would have the Federal Trade Commission enforce market manipulation rules. She would also push for changes in the law to force oil futures traders who are driving up costs to report their electronic sales so they can be regulated.

Clinton would also use the World Trade Organization to pressure the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to release more oil onto the world market. And she would allow the U.S. Justice Department to sue OPEC in U.S. courts for antitrust violations.

Both candidates have also fought to end the $7.5 billion in subsidies the oil industry receives from the federal government.

Energy and the environment

Energy costs are rising to the highest level in decades at the same time that many Americans are becoming convinced that the time to act to stop global climate change is upon us.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have rolled out proposals to hit both problems with one solution by investing heavily in new "green collar" jobs and industries.

By and large, the proposals are remarkably similar. They would also use alternative fuel sources to generate power so 25 percent of the nation's electricity comes from renewable energies by 2025.

And both would use "cap-and-trade" systems to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. A cap and trade system implements a limit on the amount of carbon a company can release, and then allows companies to sell their caps to other industries as they modernize. Gradually, the overall pollution level is reduced, and companies have a financial incentive to pollute less.

Both plans would invest $150 billion in "clean energy" jobs and research.

Both would increase fuel efficiency requirements for passenger vehicles. Obama would double the existing standard, from 25 mpg to 50 mpg, by 2027. Clinton would increase the standards to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030.

Clinton also had a similar phased-in approach to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Clinton would ban the sale of traditional incandescent bulbs in the 40-watt variety in 2012, and take all varieties off the market by 2020.

Obama said he would phase out all traditional light bulbs by 2014.

Street crime

The number of murders and bank robberies in Northwest Indiana has increased several fold in recent years as the economy has stalled and gang membership has risen.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton proposed similar proposals to fight violent crime.

Both use as a blueprint former President Bill Clinton's COPS program, which put thousands more officers on city streets by funding local police department payrolls with federal dollars. Funding for the program was slashed under President Bush.

Obama has supported a $600 million bill restoring funding for 50,000 officers on the street, while Clinton has proposed a program called "COPS 2.0" that would put 100,000 new officers on the street but did not disclose the cost.

Both said they support the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which they said would keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals without impinging the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

The candidates also said they wanted to reduce recidivism by training inmates in jail and after release, and keeping some out of prisons in the first place.

Clinton has also proposed specifically eliminating the mandatory minimum federal sentence for simple crack cocaine possession.

Back to story 28 comment(s)

Please note: Comments from readers will be screened and may not be posted immediately. If you don't see your comment perhaps:

It wasn't clear, concise or focused on the topic in the story.
It was a personal attack, vulgar, explicit or degrading, used actual or implied profanity or contained potentially libelous statements.
It accused someone of being guilty of a crime.
It promoted violence or illegal acts.
It contained telephone numbers or street addresses, or e-mail addresses and links to Web sites other than nwi.com or government agencies.

In no way do these comments represent the views of The Times or Lee Enterprises.

Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude and profane language and personal abuse are not welcome.

Reader comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined. They may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.

If you feel a posted comment has violated these guidelines, please email our New Media team the commenter's name, the comment and a link to the article.

For more information please read our Terms of Service.

to Brenda wrote on May 5, 2008 8:08 PM:

" I noticed you did not answer or refute any of the factual and logical statements I made in my posts. Instead, you went off on a tangent talking about your meds or something...try to focus like a laser beam and try to refute some of the facts I presented on the economy, jobs, taxes and the war. You can't, because they are all true and you know it so you are running scared. "

Brenda wrote on May 5, 2008 5:37 PM:

" To the posts at 2;25, 2;31, 2:34 and 2:38. I think this is all the same person. What makes you an authority of everything. What? If your not for McCain you must be stupid...We are all entitled to our opinions. Cool off - Did you forget to take your meds. You can get your point across without all the hostility and if you did that maybe people would consider what you have to say. Personally you sound like a wacko. "

to Robertsdale Resident wrote on May 5, 2008 5:10 PM:

" You are either misinformed or willfully ignorant about John McCains health care plan.
McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will also have the option of receiving $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

Hillary and Obama want to rob your neighbor who is doing slightly better than you, take his money and punish him for his success, and make him pay for your health care. But that’s not the worst of their program….they would socialize health care which always leads to rationing and reduced quality health care where ever it is tried. We don’t need them ruining the world’s best health care system.

Now, Robertdale, how exactly does giving families $5000 and allowing individuals to buy their own health insurance, that they take with them regardless of job, help those rich republican owners? "

maria on energy wrote on May 5, 2008 2:38 PM:

" The polor bear and the caribou would not be affected by the small area of drilling in ANWR. It is an area comparable to the airport in your nearest city. Does putting down a runway in a small amount of acreage affect the wildlife in the vast national forests? Of course not. In fact when we put oil exploration in Prudhoe Bay, the caribou actually congregated around the oil equipment because it was warmer. The caribou population THRIVED and grew by 5 or 10 times. So the anti-American anti-capitalist enviro-wackos are wrong on this.
Expanding drilling and production both offshore and in Alaska would produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil, enough to cover five years of U.S. energy use without a single import. Barack Obama and Hillary are beholden to the wacko leftist environmentalists and will not extract the oil we have under our own soil. "

Maria is for John McCains plan for Iraq wrote on May 5, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Maria says she wants us to "stay and focus our efforts on development and humanitarian aid so a generation of Iraqis-- who have known nothing but war--- have hope and not animosity toward the US. Iraq should be developed and stabiilized so those young Iraqis lack any incentive to hate the US and join Al Qada."

That is exactly what we are doing, it is called "The Bush Doctrine". We must help free people from the clutches of evil dictators who hate America, and that is just what we have done. If you read Michael Yon's embedded reporting, the Iraqi people are on our side...have you heard of "The Awakening"? This is part of the "surge" where Iraqi people are working with the United States to keep al qaida from taking over their country.
So welcome home, thank you for agreeing with McCain. I agree with you also, I don't think Hillary or Obama's plan to pull out and leave a lot of death and a mess is a a good plan. "

terrorists and their state sponsors wrote on May 5, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Maria, so you agree with President Bush when he said Saddam Hussein had nothing, not one thing, to do with the September 11 attacks by Islamofascist terrorists against the American people and our freedoms. But that is not why we decided to liberate Iraq after a 14 month national discussion. We liberated them because Saddam had USED WMD against his own people, and he would not agree to show how he destroyed the WMD that the UN documented him to have. He also refused to live up to the 1991 cease fire agreement and he was shooting at our airplanes. Saddam was also harboring and paying terrorists, yes, even al quaida as the non-partisan Iraqi study group conclusively showed. Yes, it is true, now al quaida sees Iraq as their biggest front in the war on terror, they want us to leave and the Iraqi people to lose, so they can take over the country and subdue it like they did with the Afghani people with the Taliban in Afghanistan. So thank God we removed them from there, and are not allowing them another place to launch terrror from "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 5, 2008 2:28 PM:

" Maria: The war in Iraq was started so that the Bush Administration could remove the sanctions and get the oil out of Iraq. They just had a good excuse which was 9/11 and used it. And what did that even do for us $4.00 a gallon gas. "

nice try Maria wrote on May 5, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Nice try, MariaVotes, trying to say the reason you can't refute my facts is because "you don't have time"! LOL

The real reason is there is no answer, my facts are correct. Anyone can look them up in 2 seconds on bls.gov

Also you say "when you have time" (LOL) you will find evidence that "real incomes have dropped here". Sorry Maria...incomes are UP based on the actual, reliable, non-partisan data. Sure you can find some anecdotal story that "Joe Blow's income went down", but of course there are 10 others stories where other people's incomes went UP! That is why we have the overall statistics, to show the trend, which is UP on wages and jobs (bls.gov)

Then you spew out some unbelievable anecdotal stories about people and insurance. But if you look at John McCain's health plan, it makes perfect sense and it doesn't involved the long waiting lines and reduced quality that Obama's or Hillary's socialized medicine would give us. McCain's health care plan is explained very well at his web site, but I don't expect koolaid drinkers like you to actually read anything "you don't have time", right?
"

Robertsdale Resident wrote on May 5, 2008 2:25 PM:

" McCain has a market based health care program. McCain is going to have us purchase our health insurance directly from the carriers. Do you know what that means. It means that the employers won't provide it. He has already said that. In other words, the employer also won't contribute and you will be paying the entire premium. Right now employers pay a portion of your health care. You see, the people McCain runs around with have millions and he has the best health care in the world and probably doesn't pay anything. How would he know what it is like to have to scrimp to pay your health benefits or bills. You need to get all the facts. If you are a business owner you love McCains plan. Thus typical republican get behind the big corporations and the heck with the little guy. "

Karin wrote on May 5, 2008 12:51 PM:

" I think it's refreshing to hear about other candidates besides Hillary and Obama. I actually enjoyed reading all the "wrong on" posts on this article. In my opinion, not enough has been said in this paper about McCain. Sure, he's seemingly the Rep. candidate we'll see on the November ballot, but I'd actually like to see more comparisons between McCain/Hillary and McCain/Obama. Same with local/state candidates. I mean, you want me to be an informed voter tomorrow, right? "

Maria wrote on May 5, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Re: energy. We need to move to a post-oil future. America will never be independent on oil-- we don't have enough. Period. We need to invest in new technologies and renewable fuel sources to replace oil.

In the mean time, we have a boatload of coal, still a dirty fossil fuel... but we have plenty. I personally think the mining industry is dirty and horrible to human health and the environment (even seen a mountain top removal site?), but maybe coal-to-liquid technology with carbon capture and sequestration can stabilize us in the short term.

The truth is, we don't really know how much oil is up in the 10-02 area of ANWR. We do know is that it is not enough to make a true difference or sustain us for long. It is not politically feasible however and won't happen. The polar bear is too iconic and will likely be listed as endangered in the next month. Try drilling in ANWR after that. "

Maria wrote on May 5, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Saddam Hussein had nothing, not one thing, to do with the September 11 tragedy.

True, the disaster that is Iraq has opened it up to being a hot spot for Middle Eastern terrorism. But, we have to be honest with ourselves. Al Q did not exist in Iraq until we invaded it.

The war in Iraq is a cluster. It just is. I think we should stay and focus our efforts on development and humanitarian aid so a generation of Iraqis-- who have known nothing but war--- have hope and not animosity toward the US. Iraq should be developed and stabiilized so those young Iraqis lack any incentive to hate the US and join Al Qada. I am not sure if that is any one of the candidates' plan, but that is where I stand.

Like the Pottery Barn metaphor-- you break it you buy it. We broke Iraq. We preemptively invaded based on this Administration's lies and it now lie in ruins. We have no choice but to repair it. "

MariaVotes wrote on May 5, 2008 12:34 PM:

" Good for you, everyone should vote.

I'm from NW Indiana too. If I had all day, I would research tax data showing that real incomes have dropped here. Alas, I do not have immediate time for this, but perhaps I will over the next few weeks.

In the mean time, I will give you some personal observations from my work place--- the number of women and children in this reason with private health insurance in this region has precipitously dropped over the last 3-4 years. And those who have insurance do not have the money to pay their deductables . . . so they don't. Yes, they still get care, but insurers won't pay for it . . . so the medical provider doesn't get paid either.

When I have time I'll provide you some stats on personal bankruptcies and foreclosures that should be obvious to anyone living in the region. Till then, I don't need more proof that the economic policy has failed us. "

to Brenda and Maria wrote on May 5, 2008 12:04 PM:

" I live in Northwest Indiana and will be voting on Tuesday. I noticed from both of your responses that you did not respond to any of the factual information regarding the economy, jobs, energy and the war. It must be because as liberals, you can't really respond with logic or facts. Your support for the candidates is all emotion based. "

Maria wrote on May 5, 2008 11:49 AM:

" I concur with Brenda--- someone is campaigning against Democrats on this site. Similar posts are on practically each and every political piece on this site. They all practically say the same thing-- i.e. ObamaClinton is wrong on XYZ, and also the poster tries to impress on us that the economy has been great since Bush started office.

There is not enough time to respond to each and they should be removed. "

Brenda wrote on May 5, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Take notice of the similarity of the posts from 9:58 to 10;00. They appear to be from the same person. I am actually starting to believe that campagning is going on at this site. I always use my name and I appreciate it when others do, then I know you are more likely from this area and not a prewritten piece that was sent from who knows where. "

Hillary Obama wrong on socialized medicine wrote on May 5, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Also, McCain has a market based health care plan that will work, as opposed to the Democrats plan of turning the worlds best health care into the DMV and the post office. "

Obama Hillary wrong on the war wrote on May 5, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Obama and Hillary are also wrong on the war against terror, which includes the battle we must win in Iraq. Obama and Hillary would continue the weakness and appeasement on terror, and pull out of Iraq before victory, resulting in mass killings and a base of operations for al qaida, and the enventual need to return to solve the problem. Bush, the troops and General Petreaus have done a great job handing over much of the job of protecting our gains in Iraq to the Iraqi people, and now is not the time to surrender as the Democrats want us to. Obama/Hillary never talk about the costs we avoided by removing Saddam from power. Just look at the cost of one attack, 9-11: the cost in lives, the cost of rebuilding, and the cost to the economy. Obama just didn’t have the experience or knowledge of foreign affairs to understand why we need to protect Ameica. And Hillary has no real beliefs here, she just flip flops on the war based on which way she thinks will get her political power. Thank God Bush and the troops avoided another attack on the US. "

Hillary-Obama wrong on energy wrote on May 5, 2008 9:59 AM:

" On energy independence, John McCain understands that we need to explore in environmentally friendly ways for oil and gas reserves in the United States of America, or else we'll remain dependent on foreign oil. High gas prices are the result of increased worldwide demand from high growth countries like China and India, combined with a lack of supply due to Democrat leftist environmentalist radicals not allowing us to drill for new supply or refine the supply we do have. Obama and Hillary have an energy policy that would prohibit America from finding oil in our own land, and that is an energy policy that has led to high gasoline prices.

Expanding drilling and production both offshore and in Alaska would produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil, enough to cover five years of U.S. energy use without a single import. Barack Obama and Hillary are beholden to the wacko leftist environmentalists and will not extract the oil we have under our own soil.
"

Hillary-Barack wrong on the economy and taxes wrote on May 5, 2008 9:59 AM:

" On the economy, this growth due to the Bush tax relief can continue, if McCain is allowed to let the tax relief continue for all of us working Americans. Obama and Hillary are against this, instead they want to raise our taxes which would kill the recovery. Recessions and slowdowns come and go in the free-market economy, but we can’t have Obama or Hillary making things worse with oppressive taxes on working Americans. Also Obama and Clinton continue to make the mistake that tax cuts need to be “paid for”, when the undeniable facts show that tax relief leads to economic growth and MORE tax revenue into the US Treasury coffers. "

Clinton-Obama wrong on jobs wrote on May 5, 2008 9:58 AM:

" On jobs, the Bush tax relief of 2003 for cut tax rates and taxes for all working Americans at all income levels, and that has lead to amazingly high growth rates in GDP and over 7.2 million good jobs for Americans (more Jobs Than The European Union And Japan Combined). Even now after the recent slowdown we experienced, unemployment is at a historically low 4.95%, lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s during the Clinton years. The economy GREW in the fourth quarter of 2007 and first-quarter of 2008 while the prior two quarters averaged over 4 percent growth. Real wages Rose 1.7 percent which means an extra $1,030 last year for the typical family of four with two wage earners. Real After-Tax Personal Income Per Person Has Increased Over $2,800 – Or 9.6 Percent – During the Bush Administration due to the tax relief Bush put in place…allowing families to spend their own money, instead of the Obama/Clinton idea that government bureaucrats know how to spend our money better than we do. "

Obama-Hillary wrong on the issues wrote on May 5, 2008 9:58 AM:

" OK, sure, Obama can’t explain his 20 year close relationship with is mentor the racist anti-American preacher, and Obama can’t explain why he kicked off his campaign at the house of a known, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, and Hillary can’t explain why she lies about sniper fire or why she lies about middle class tax cuts, but that’s not why I’m supporting McCain. I’m supporting McCain because he is right on jobs, the economy, energy independence and the war on terror. "

Intellegence wrote on May 5, 2008 9:38 AM:

" THANKS FOR CONFERMING E NELSON, THAT HILLARY(republican wanna be), IS IN FACT TRUE!! AS YOU CAN SEE THAT SOME OF HER DECISIONS ARE REPUBLICAN IN NATURE!! "

STEVES wrote on May 5, 2008 8:52 AM:

" .......And they will also cure dandruff and athletes's foot. If you have to rely on a politician for hope, I feel sorry for you. "

Be Real wrote on May 5, 2008 8:33 AM:

" As shown by the language in this article, The Times is once again using its stealth campaign for Hillary by offering misleading information about the candidates' views and plans.

At least the other Northwest Indiana newspaper came right out and officially endorsed Obama. I'd have a lot more respect for your newspaper if you did the same for Hillary, instead of manipulating your readers with articles such as, "Where is Obama - He Doesn't Love Us" when you know darn well where he is and where he's been campaigning multiple times per day.

What you're doing isn't journalism, it's a full-on campaigning. But you probably won't print this comment, because heaven forbid someone calls you out on what you're doing. "

HIllary actually has plans... wrote on May 5, 2008 8:01 AM:

" Hillary actually has plans of how to implement her ideas. Obama just seems to have ideas. I think both cadidates are aware of our concerns in NWI, although Obama hasn't been around much to check out our living conditions or to talk with our citizens...Hillary has. She has been here many times and has really made a true effort to learn us and our plights. Obama seemed to just stop in because he was "supposed to". Hillary did approve the Iraq war, but now agrees that the resolution has been achieved and we should pull out at this time...I commend her for that. Obama voted against the war's initial need (of disarming our enemies of nuclear weapons of mass destruction)...I guess that shows he would have just sat by and allow them to target us hated Americans if that decision were left to him as our president. He has no plan of how to fund his healthcare reform ideas...Hillary's plan is all-inclusive and fully functional. My family needs insurance badly, a president that is proactive and resolute, and a president that actually cares about us. My family needs Hillary for President! "

WWJVBD wrote on May 5, 2008 7:47 AM:

" Obama has come out against the $3.8 billion expansion of the BP Whiting refinery by asking for additional reviews of their permit application. All in excess of the regulatory requirments of the permitting process. By the way he needs to come up with a plan to recycle all those CFLightbulbs by 2014 to handle the mercury in them. "

E Nelson wrote on May 4, 2008 8:14 AM:

" Is Hillary really for the common man and woman?

1) Hillary voted AGAINST the Vitter amendment which PREVENTS the government from confiscating guns from law abiding citizens during emergencies or martial law. Interestingly Obama voted for it and for the rights of gun owners.

2) The Clintons recently revealed on their tax returns that they had amassed fortunes of 109 million dollars.

3) Hillary was instrumental in pushing FOR and getting NAFTA passed which has been a disaster for American workers. According to documents released by the National Archives, Hillary in 1993 attended at least 5 meetings that were used to win approval of NAFTA by Congress and these documents detailed her role in promoting NAFTA while she was first lady.

4) Hillary along with the Republicans voted for the Iraq War which have taken billions of our tax paying dollars out of our pockets and put them into the pockets of oil companies and defense contractors.
"

Back to story 28 comment(s)

Post a comment Once your comments are approved, they will appear here.

Marketplace

Sections

Services

Other Publications

Search