Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama

Barack the neoliberal

Someone has suggested that Obama has expressed support for "neo-socialism" as opposed to neo-liberalism, but I don't see evidence for that. Wikipedia says "The USF describes neo-socialism as a form of democratic socialism that replaces capitalism with economic socialism while rejecting Maoist or Stalinist dictatorships in favor of democracy." Obama is definitely a so-called "free market" capitalist, as the quote in this article says ---- that's the definition of neo-liberalism, not neo-socialism. So I think it would be wise to change it back to neo-liberalism. Organ123 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think neosocialism is a far more accurate term, at least as far as the wikipedia definitions of these terms go.

From the neosocialism page:

"...support for a regulated free market economy, democracy, redistribution of wealth through taxation, and liberal social policies."

From the neo-liberalism page:

"...[neoliberalism is] associated with the theories of Friedrich Hayek, economics departments such as that at the University of Chicago (and such professors as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger), and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund."

Despite supposed support for free markets evidenced by his quote, are Obama's economic views truly in line with Milton Friedman's? Saying I'm a toaster doesn't make me one. I'll let it stand as neoliberal as I doubt this will turn into anything but a revert war. OBDM 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the term Neosocialist is that it's somewhat misleading in American Culture. Socialist brings up the idea of Totalitarian regimes, and complete regulation of the economy. Barack Obama seems to indeed have many socialist ideals, just as George Bush does, but doesn't possess the same absolute socialism that, say, Hugo Chavez does. He also has many somewhat right-wing personal-social viewpoints, but has a more libertarian approach toward dealing with them.

In the end, Neoliberalism doesn't really apply. A neoliberal purist is libertarian. Yet, New Democrats (Bill Clinton, so forth) are described as Neoliberals, despite being called 'socialists' in the American Lexicon. Neosocialism has the problem of containing so much baggage, and I don't just mean politically. Neosocialism can refer to so many different forms of governance and policy, ranging from libertarian economics to downright socialism economics. As a result, I think possibly this could be resolved by describing Barack Obama's leanings as a combination of different philosophies. He has obvious social-libertarian (Abortion, Gay Rights), neosocialist (schools, health insurance, SS), neoliberal (free market economy, limited government intervention in most industries), but also personally traditionalist (is against abortion personally, doesnt' support Homosexual Marriage, only unions). If someone wishes to parse that more thoroughly, feel free and I'll comment further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AltonBrownFTW (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Further thought. As it is, that section is also disorganized. Eh. Perhaps say, Barack obama has supported a variety of viewpoints, depending largely on the issue. In some instances (Blah). Then specify, "For neoliberalism (place quote here) for neosocialism (Quote here)" And so on.AltonBrownFTW 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I don't think that the sentence in question is incorrect as it stands, since it states only that Obama has expressed support for elements of neoliberalism, protectionism, and social welfare -- not that Obama is a neoliberal, protectionist, or socialist. But yeah, I'm not opposed to the idea of that being better clarified or organized. All of these terms mean different things to different people, so in fact, I might advocate eliminating them altogether and just letting his quotes speak for themselves. Would that be a good compromise?

As a side note, I would argue that neoliberalism and libertarianism are not the same thing. People and countries commonly associated with neoliberalism preach "free trade," but practice it only to the extent that it helps multinational corporations. The reality is that basically every competitive US industry has been cultivated with heavy government support and protectionism (for instance, the aviation industry, the computer industry). Poorer nations are the ones who must submit to "free trade." So I would argue that neoliberalism is a doctrine for government-assisted corporate oligarchy, whereas libertarianism, specifically libertarian capitalism, would be a complete submission to the market, if that were possible, which it isn't. I happen to dislike both of those philosophies, but I think Obama's stands correspond to neoliberalism most, given his stance on "free markets" and his hawkish positions on Israel and potentially Iran. Organ123 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren’t neo-liberalism and protectionism pretty much opposite views? How does he support both? KettererE 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is a defining neo-liberal. In one of his speeches, Obama claimed to support "free markets" (from my mind-reading, in the sense of Third Way (centrism) - still short of a Dictatorship of the proletariat), while extolling the virtues of policies (like everything under the New Deal) that are anything but free-market in any regard. Normally one could defer the choice of wording to an examination of his record, rather than his self-descriptions in speeches. Humbug! Come to think of it, the Democratic Leadership Council is said to represent Third Way (centrism) in America; to say Obama is a neo-liberal is to put him economically to the right of the DLC (whose adherents include Bill Clinton). I suppose it makes little difference if you reside on the extreme economic left, but that corresponds to the loss of a lot of resolution over the breadth of the spectrum. OBDM 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that I understand what you're saying, it makes sense to me, but I disagree over the definition of neoliberalism. There are at least two officials from the DLC-type Clinton administration who considered themselves neoliberals, and they identified themselves as such in a Washington Post article [1]. According to them: "Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort." But in any case, after trying to edit the neoliberal page a bit, I've come to accept that there is nothing near consensus over the term's meaning. So that's part of the reason why I'd support removing the identifying terms. Organ123 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're all conducting original research into this, which is against Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter how we each define these terms; what matters is what news reports or third party sources say about Barack Obama. I would leave out any term until someone can come up with a source.--Gloriamarie 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing his individual political views within established taxonomies is adding encyclopedic context, not original research. As for the "neo-liberal" thing he is turning out to be "neo" in the sense of Neocon. I would find it hard to place his war mongering with Iran and tacit approval of Israel's occupation of Palestine in a classically liberal context. GrEp 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid putting labels on people that are not universally accepted or self-identified. Even having one source on this wouldn't be sufficient in my mind unless it was something he himself wrote or said. CoW mAnX (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How should sections be organized?

I think the current set up (three super-headers with multiple sub-headers) may not be the best. My concern is that some issues are not easily categorized. For instance, net neutrality is an economic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue, as is universal health care. Obama's position on the Iraq war, while a foreign policy decision, certainly pertains to domestic policy as well -- a good chunk of US taxes go to fund it, leading to a lack of funding for, say, universal health care. So ... at the moment I most support the idea of not having any super-headers at all, just having the issues laid out in alphabetical order. I don't think people would be particularly confused by such an arrangement since there aren't all that many topics. I'm concerned that any given super-header might not comply with WP:NPOV. I might be convinced otherwise though. Do other people have thoughts? Organ123 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Economic policy
• Foreign policy
• Social policy

These are pretty self-evident. I disagree that there aren't all that many topics, and anticipate many more topics as we draw closer to the election. Hillary Rodham Clinton's article is even longer, for reference. Italiavivi 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As per my above comments, while those three super-headers may be definable, I don't think that many sub-headers in this article can be neatly placed under exactly one of those three concepts. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Organ123 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise, then, that political positions are not easily classified/defined under these three realms. Just so I'm clear -- your primary two concerns are that 1) there are not enough individual positions to warrant classification and 2) an unexplained NPOV concern? Also, could you assist myself and others in keeping some consistency between all these "political positions" articles; for example, you changed Sen. Obama's health care section to read "health care" instead of "universal health care," so why not take the time to make the same uniform change at Hillary Clinton's positions article?Italiavivi 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Italiavivi's efforts to improve this article and other "Political positions of" articles. Unfortunately my energy is limited and until now I have not gotten particularly involved in Hillary Clinton's page. I am very familiar with this particular page and am more comfortable changing header names on it. I'll try to branch out though. I also don't have a well-formed opinion at the moment about whether all the "Political positions of" articles should have identical header names. My NPOV concern is that by placing issues under single, particular categories, the article takes a stance on what the issue is. For example, maybe I think net neutrality is primarily a social issue, but you think it's primarily an economic issue. With the current setup, we have to pick one to the exclusion of the other. So it's taking a stance on something, which I think might be POV. Organ123 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the consensus about the term Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the consensus is in the fact that that's what the article on that very controversial subject is called. The other term that I could be OK with is Arab-Israeli conflict, which refers to the wider problems in the region. However, at the moment, I think the section is entirely about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organ123 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was moreso asking where you found the Wikipedia-wide consensus on the phrase "Israel-Palestinian conflict" you mentioned in your edit summary. You wrote: Changed to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" in accordance with WP consensus on that specific term, and I'm not sure where the broad WP consensus can be found, is all. Italiavivi 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How is net neutrality a civil rights issue?? Is it now a civil right to have access to the Internet from a certain Internet service provider?--Gloriamarie 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposed reorganization

The three categories currently in use are:

1. Economic and social policy
2. Foreign policy
3. Social policy

I propose a change to:

1. Economic and fiscal policy
2. Foreign policy
3. Social policy
4. Governance

There are three reasons for this change. First, it puts social policy unambiguously into one section, instead of splitting it over two; second, it makes a subtle, but important, distinction between economic and fiscal policy; and third, it adds a section on governance, without which this article is incomplete.

Under Governance, I would put the existing section Lobbying and add sections Campaign finance reform and Election reform (both of which have been requested here in the discussion). In addition, I would add a section for Obama's positions on Government secrecy (some of which is included in the article currently under Foreign policy) and another section for his position on the Powers of the presidency (such as his opinion on signing statements and other instruments of the unitary executive). I believe there is plenty of documented source material to flesh out all these sections. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, this article simply is not complete without a full survey of Obama's views on governance. Those views substantiate his call for "change".

Santa Barbara TC (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug Policy

I noticed that under Joe Biden's political views, they have a section on drug policy. It might be informative to have the same for Sen. Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgreen (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to request a section for this. A few of the other candidates for the Democratic Party have such sections; I think it would be fully fitting to have that information here as legalization of marijuana and the war on drugs are prevalent issues for voters to consider when researching and reviewing candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I came to this page to look up his views on this as well. I know he has done drugs in the past, even though he says it was a mistake. He also currently smokes, but is trying to quit. I would be very interested in knowing, in addition to his stances on the war on drugs/legalization of drugs/penalties for drug offenders, what his stance is on whether to raise the national cigarette tax or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.226.219 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This site can answer your questions (not only on this candidate, but on others too): http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/medical-marijuana-and-drug-policy/1/

0xFFFF (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article could provide more info on this topic. The current section on "Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana" ought to be expanded to cover drug policy generally. Why focus narrowly on only only one drug?

Here's an Associated Press article from January 16, 2008 in which Obama answers a question about drug policy by saying that people who are arrested for a first cocaine offense should not spend any time in jail. This seems like a very notable position. The questioner mentioned that Obama could have been arrested for his own cocaine use as a teenager.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was my section removed?

I started a subsection regarding Barack Obama's views towards NASA and the section was quickly deleted soon after it was submitted, why did this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.70.175 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read up on Wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be good, however, to have material about Obama's views on space exploration, if we can find reliable sources. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the education it has some on his views on NASA saying he plans cuts. But I have also read on the internet that on Jan. 11th he quietly made an about face with NASA saying he would fully fund the space program. There is a PDF on it here: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf I can't find this file on his site so I am not sure if it is real or not, but it sure seems real. I really hope it is, any other input on this or confirmation would be appreciated.Rukaribe (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gay Individuals?

Is there any way we can edit this? While I'm sure Donnie McClurkin may be opposed to LGBT issues and homosexuality, I'm not so sure about Mary, Mary and Hezekiah Walker. They may have stated that they don't support it, but is anti-gay too harsh? Keithbrooks (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those opposed to LGBT rights wouldn't think the word antigay is too harsh, but if you think it is, do you have a better word? --Armaetin (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

> do you have a better word?

Better phrase,yes: allegedly anti-gay. Actually it's quite clear from the Wikipedia articles on those mentioned that McClurkin and Mary Mary, at least, would maintain something like a Biblical Christian view that one hates the sin but loves the sinner. They would not agree that this should be characterized as anti-gay. Of course if one considers one's sexual orientation to be an innate or essential part of one's identity, then anyone calling one's identity a sin looks quite hateful. The cited story "Obama's Anti-Gay Gamble" from the Gay City News clearly takes a hostile position to these persons and points of view, for good reasons from their perspective, but Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. I added "allegedly" as that is what the cited article is doing: alleging. Wikipedia is not in a position to determine the truth of such disputed claims, but only to report them. —Blanchette (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Donnie has called homosexuality a "curse". And there are many publications that quote his various anti-gay comments. And the Gay News are a real news source, there are over 40 gay newspapers, you can't discredit them as not being real sources just because they're for a gay audience. There is also a news article about Obama ignoring the gay media by the Philidelphia gay news. I think both these things should be included, it'd not be fair to only talk about the things that make him look good. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag Burning Position

The previous statement in the article was "He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006 on the grounds that it was a violation of freedom of expression.[91]" But upon following link 91 we find an article in which Obama appears to say that he voted against the amendment because he would prefer to outlaw flag burning with a law rather than a constitutional amendment. I have changed the stated position in the article to reflect this. Chigorin (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 7

Reference 7 is a dead link. Anyone want to find a new site? --Armaetin (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with a uchicago.edu link (Press Citations 2004 archive). —Blanchette (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PAYGO description makes little sense

In the Budget deficit section PAYGO is described as a "policy that prohibits increases in federal spending without a way to compensate for the lost revenue." But of course an increase in spending does not per se result in lost revenue, though it may reduce a surplus or increase a deficit. Taking a look at the PAYGO article it appears that it would be more accurate to describe PAYGO as a policy that prohibits reductions in taxes that reduce revenues or increases in spending that increase deficits. But I came here looking for information on Obama's policies, not with any insight into them, so I would like to see any comments on this before I change it. —Blanchette (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press

Der Spiegel, a leading German news magazine, has again a very critical report about Barack Obama. German article It compares the momentum of his campaign with the hype of the New Economy in the 90s. Especially his positions in foreign policy are attacked as "landmines in foreign policy". His warfare in Pakistan, a state with nuclear weapons, is called insane. His immediate withdrawal from the Iraq is pointed out as most likely resulting in civil war with al Qaeda and Iran profiting from the situation. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how editorial criticism of Obama can or should be incorporated into an article on Obama's own political opinions. Anyone have a thought on this? · jersyko talk 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't read German, so not sure how this specific criticism should be included in the article, but to exclude reactions to Obama's political opinions would seem to be against WP:NPOV. The lack of opposing responses to Ron Paul's political positions was one reason why he article had a quick fail.[2] Obviously don't want to overdo it, but some critical response is probably a good thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I could translate the parts for you and you implement what is useful. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar article on Der Spiegel in English as of Feb 19. Sleepyone (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article certainly doesn't belong on a page about Obama's political positions. If it should be included anywhere, it is on Obama's biography page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They sent me here since the article is about his political positions and not his biography. btw what's this sockpuppet case you are involved? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Political Positions of" articles should have criticisms IF they are criticisms of the specific policy of the person and not just of the general ideology the person subscribes to. For example, if a conservative commentator said that raising taxes is a bad idea then it shouldn't be included. However, if the criticism was that "Obama's specific plan to raise taxes would bankrupt the nation" or so, it should be included but of course written in NPOV and attributed to the person who said it. Arnabdas (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. In any event, can you clarify this for me Arnabdas? Have I misread the source? I'll concede that it should be included if I've merely read it incorrectly. · jersyko talk 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea Jersyko, I undid your revision because if we actually read the report line by line, the NTU does say that it's an additional cost. Certain items they say "unknown" but other items they cite their estimated costs. If we have Obama or his campaign officially saying that it won't raise it by that much, then of course we should include it Arnabdas (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The source does not say anything about Obama's proposals increasing spending though. All it says that they estimate the costs to be X. While that is an extra cost, the source does not and obviously can not know if those cost increases will be couple with cuts in other areas. So while it is true that the source can be used to say Obama's campaign promises will cost at $300 billion, it can not be used to say it will increase spending at that amount. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's logic seems pretty sound to me. I don't think we can legitimately say it will increase spending by 300 billion without a little original research. Do you have another source, Arnabdas? · jersyko talk 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in this link: http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF we see that the title states that all the leading presidential candidates (at the time this was assessed) would raise the budget by different amounts. The link I posted in the article was an update to this, which can be accessed from the link at the bottom of the page I just referenced. Arnabdas (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that, though I suppose one could make an argument about NTU being an unreliable source for this. In any event, I'm happy to leave it at that, though I agree with Arnabdas that more sources (whether from the campaign or third-party) would be useful. · jersyko talk 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun control

I added Obama's F rating by Gun Owners of America in addition to his rating from the NRA. --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On 11:45, 25 February 2008, IronAngelAlice deleted Obama's ratings from the NRA and GOA claiming: nrapvf.org and gunowners.org are not reliable urces. I have restored these ratings, since NRA and GOA are reliable sources about their own ratings. Feel free to add his ratings from the Brady Campaign or other sources. kevinp2 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend removing or to change source link for this statement: "He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." The source provided is not a signed document and has been addressed in the article that Mr. Obama did not in fact fill out the questionnaire. As quoted from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html: "A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out." shoetick 21:00 04 March 2008 (EST)

There is a new story today that says that the questionnaire was in Obama's handwriting. I have added the link to the claim. kevinp2 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the information about how much money the Joyce Foundation awarded to certain gun control groups is sufficiently related to Obama's positions. It makes no assertion as to whether Obama voted for or against any of these awards. I think that saying the Joyce Foundation supports gun control makes the point intended, but the money awards have not been sufficiently linked to Obama's political positions. Harvardgirl33 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This material is taken from a recent article where the reporter paints a larger picture that Obama's tenure on the board of the Joyce Foundation and the grants it made during that time were to groups whose activities contradict his stated position on the Second Amendment and individual gun rights. I think the point is valid and should stay, although we could probably reword the paragraph better. Perhaps we can add a counterpoint from the Joyce Foundation where, in the article, they dispute and/or downplay the significance of the connection. kevinp2 (talk)

Also, why was the endorsement of an Obama removed with the reasoning that it has nothing to do with Obama's position when the NRA's criticism of Obama is still included? Harvardgirl33 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was fine with the AHSA endorsement of Obama being in this section and helped format the entry. However, someone else moved the endorsement here. I suppose that I can see their point - that there will be so many endorsements that this article would drown in them. This structure has already been set up and I suspect it would be hard to change course now. I added a Brady Campaign voting record to this section for balance and have been looking around for other voting records or ratings. kevinp2 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms"- Is this for real? Is it meant to say "automatic" instead of "semi-automatic"? That just seems a little over the top to me. Mostly every modern gun these days is semi-automatic ie. shotguns, handguns anything. If he wants to completely ban semi autos, why not just ban all guns in general. 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtbendele (talk • contribs)

The questionnaire used the phrase "semi-automatic firearms" which is what we have to report. Many people are unfamiliar with firearm terminology and I would not be surprised if Obama was one of them, but we can't make assumptions about what he intended. If he disavows or clarifies this position in a reliable source, we can certainly update the section. kevinp2 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many gun grabbers do not know anything about firearms. I remember one said he had fired a fully automatic rifle. he did not know the proper terms, but the rifle was a standard self loading rifle. There was also a senator that claimed a self loading rifle could "put a bullet into every chait of the senate" Again, not knowing the proper terms. Bottom line is, Obama has no idea what he is doing. banning guns in Chicago has only lead to more violent crime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Election Reform

On Hillary Clinton's website she claims she wants to make Election Day a national holiday to make it easier to vote, has Barack taken a position regarding this? I can't seem to find it on his website.

At any rate an Election Reform section may be warranted as he does say on his website "Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote." (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/#voting) As well he mentions his opposition to photo ID laws and wants to improve election machinery. CoW mAnX (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarized positions in leads

The lead for this article was too short so I added some of Obama's notable positions. If someone wants to switch up which positions go in the lead, I wouldn't be opposed to that (I'm not as familiar with which issues he speaks most about) but a one-sentence lead was too short and this seemed like a reasonable way to expand it. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

I added a couple of sentences regarding Obama's health care plan. Obama's plan includes guaranteed eligibility, but does not require universal insurance coverage according to the sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone discuss the alleged unconstitutionality of health insurance mandates? Obama's plan has less than Clinton's, but still has some. He was a Con Law professor, so he must be aware of this.75.144.97.185 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this article. The article enumerates his political positions but is not a forum for analysis or criticism of those positions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the constitutionality of his positions is very relevant, but you're right that it may not belong on this specific page. Any ideas on where to put it? I would very much love to get a response from Obama (the former Con Law professor) as to the constitutionality of his programs.Jewpiterjones (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're seeking is a political discussion, in which case there isn't really any place on Wikipedia that would be appropriate (but there are thousands of other places out there on the internet that are). It's an interesting notion and it may very well be true, but since the source is simply a single editorial it's not very notable.--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and contraception section

It seems to me that this section is awfully long on the "Born Alive Infant Defined" bills. I propose we edit that down to include more comprehensive information? Eg:

In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[79]

While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council[80] for his support of abortion rights, family planning services, and requiring health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.[81] Since his election to the United States Senate Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005).[82] Obama opposed, as did the Illinois State Medical Society, a legislative package of three bills restricting abortion.

Obama voted against banning partial birth abortion, saying "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy." Obama also voted for a $100 million dollar education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs)

I'm not opposed to cutting down the subsection a bit, it was getting a bit too weighty. I still think that a bit too much text is expended on abortion policy and not enough on contraception policy, but I'm not in a bad way about it. · jersyko talk 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of trimming the section. Abortion is one of those issues that, because so many people have an ax to grind, ends up becoming the longest section of many politician's articles (even if it's not one of their major issues).--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Illinois Bill Position vs Federal Position

Hey jersyko, I saw you reverted an edit regarding someone's adding Obama's stance on the Illinois bill based on them having nothing to do with each other. I must say I have to disagree on that particular assertion. This article is his political positions article, not a federal policy position article. Federal positions should get more weight due to the office he is seeking, but if it's the opposite of a position he had at one time in the past it should definitely be noted.

With that said, I do support you removing the paragraph as it was written. It was severely POV worded. However, should it be included in a more NPOV form I must say I would support its inclusion. The editorial source is ok too as long as it is attributed as such IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The text as written didn't connect Obama's stance on the IL bill to the federal bill, if I remember correctly; it just went straight into a discussion of the federal bill (sans Obama) after noting Obama's stance on the IL bill. Furthermore, the description of the IL bill in the text added was incorrect, or at least incorrect in its explanation of Obama's position on the bill. If Obama's position on the IL bill has been discussed in reliable sources, and if an accurate description of the IL bill according to those sources is provided, feel free to include such text. I have no objection to that. · jersyko talk 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording on the Illinois law and added its proper name. The conservative newspaper, currently source #101, doesn't say that they're the same law, only that they're similar. A Virginia state version of a similar federal abortion law was just overturned. (<url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/21abort.html>) That seems to show that this distinction can be important. Does anyone know where I could get a source on differences between the Illinois law and the federal one?Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parental responsibility section

The last line of the quote in this section seems to be a fragment...

I also know that if folks letting our children drink eight sodas a day, which some parents do, or, you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch, or Popeyes for breakfast.

It is taken directly from the article it is referencing, but it just doesn't sound like a complete sentence. Since it is a quote and cannot be rewritten, I'm thinking it should just be removed. The rest of the quote is fine. Cafeganesha (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images?

I was wondering what was the point of having the images on this article? Several articles I know already have taken out images that have been used solely for decorative purposes. Personally, I am for including different images even if for just decorative purposes, but wiki policy states otherwise. I think we may have to get rid of them. Arnabdas (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which images in this article are fair use? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not fully verse in the whole fair use of images policy, which is why I am just bringing it up as a discussion. I think according to the policy that none of the images give fair use in this article. It may belong in the main article or the campaign article, but as for Obama's political positions, it may not. Arnabdas (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Fair use is a term used to described images that are not free (i.e. copyrighted) but being used under an allowable provision. For instance, a sport's team owns the rights to its logo but the logo can be used on Wikipedia in the article for the team as long as Wikipedia rules are followed. However, that same logo cannot be placed on a userpage of someone who is a fan of the team. All of the pictures in this article are free so fair use restrictions do not apply. (See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more info.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I never quite understood the policy until now, despite trying to understand it. You should ask wikipedia to use your explanation haha! Arnabdas (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. One thing I've learned about Wikipedia is, even when the policies boggle the mind a bit, there's always an editor that will take the time to help you out. Plenty have helped me. So, I'm happy to help others. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric System

What is Barack's position regarding the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.138.138 (talk • contribs) 17:50, April 19, 2008

He feels strongly that it's a system of measurement that uses decimal units. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun Control emphasis

Anyone else see issues with this article devoting as much text to Obama's position on gun control/rights as it does to Iraq? I say as much because, well, one set of issues (guns) has hardly registered on the national radar in the last several years, while the other is one of the main cleavages between the parties right now. Consider that Democrats haven't even done anything on guns in Congress since they took power--they don't want to mess with the issue. The only time I've seen guns in the national news lately was when the SCOTUS took up the DC handgun ban case. My point is that the gun issue just isn't something Obama or the nation is really focused on right now, so I'm curious as to why this article focuses on it so heavily. · jersyko talk 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important issue to some people; in fact it's the only issue to some people. But this article isn't about them, it's about Obama and it's not a huge issue to him. The section should probably be trimmed to match other sections and briefly summarize his position. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been one of the contributors to the section. Gun control (and many issues), for better or worse, will always figure in elections even if the candidates would prefer to de-emphasize them (witness the whole mess about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, for instance). In this case, Obama has a sizable track record of voting and expressing preferences on the subject as a state and national legislator, and that is what the section records. Comparing it to the Iraq section, which is about the same size, I see only 3 recorded votes / legislative actions on Iraq, compared to 8 such actions on gun control. So I think the size is appropriate for this topic. In fact, it could grow even longer if it included non-legislative events, such as his recent statement about people "clinging to guns" - which is NOT in the section today. I did take a look at trimming the section, but it would consist of removing recorded positions on various gun control measures, and it is hard for me to see why one should be removed over the other.

I partially agree with Loonymonkey that the article is about Obama, but I want to point out that the title is the Political positions of Barack Obama, not just the ones that he chooses to emphasize in his campaign. Ultimately, all his positions will be discussed by the electorate whether he wants them to or not. This is the fate of all candidates. kevinp2 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the article should cover the issues (rather, Obama's positions on issues) with appropriate weight. I'm certain we could find more information about Obama's stances on the sewer system in the state of Illinois or (insert another issue he undoubtedly dealt with in the IL legislature), but that doesn't mean it would be appropriate to discuss it in much if any detail in this article. Unlike some IL legislature issues, however, gun control is an encyclopedic topic. However, it is not by any measure a topic of national interest on the level of Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc. right now, and it really hasn't been for several years. At the very least, it is not being afforded as much coverage in reliable sources as many other issues are. Nor have Obama or his opponents chosen to emphasize gun control to any appreciable degree in the campaign. I agree, Kevinp2, that gun control should be discussed here. Nonetheless, I would still posit that it is being afforded too much weight at present. · jersyko talk 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But what is "too much weight" in the context of this article? You are not providing any clear definition of that. I am open to discussion on this subject, but you have to show why this section has "too much weight" compared to other sections. "it is not by any measure a topic of national interest" is an assertion without evidence. I did a crude Google search for the alternative issues that you mention and here are the results in descending order:

* Obama "iraq": 3,850,000 results

* Obama "gun control": 2,360,000 results

* Obama "economy": 1,340,000 results

* Obama "health care": 568,000 results

So "gun control" is clearly up at the top of the issues you mention. By all means, please increase the coverage of the other issues that you mention. However, I do have a problem with reducing the size of the gun control section when, as it is, it only consists of clearly recorded positions taken over the years. There is a lot more fluff that has happened in the campaign, like the "clinging to guns" comment that is not represented in this section (and probably shouldn't either).

WP:UNDUE generally deals with the prominence given to one viewpoint to the disparagement of other competing viewpoints. The gun control section essentially consists of publicly recorded positions taken by Obama and they are uniformly recorded. There is a vague reference in WP:UNDUE to An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but is a stretch to apply it to this article which by definition consists of a laundry list of all political positions taken by Obama. Note that the article title is Political positions of Barack Obama, and it begins with this preface:

“ U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, has taken positions on many political issues through his public comments and his senatorial voting record. ”

So anything that he has done in his past should be represented here, regardless of what he is running for right now. In fact, I will point out that using only the issues that Obama is emphasizing in his campaign amounts to POV on behalf of his campaign, something we certainly do not want to do here. All candidates do this; they want to talk about the stuff that they think will help them, and avoid talking about the stuff that they think will hurt them. We should fairly represent all their history, without regard to their campaign goals. kevinp2 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The premise that "anything that he has done in his past should be represented here" runs directly contrary to WP:UNDUE and the Wikipedia's goal to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of random facts. Given the prevalence of gun advocacy (for and against) on the web, the straight-up Google test probably isn't the best way to find reliable sources covering Obama's position on gun control. Rather, a Google News search brings up 901 hits for Obama "gun control"[3] and over 27,300 hits for Obama Iraq[4], 24,400 for Obama economy[5], and 11,000 for Obama "health care"[6]. Google tests should be taken worth a grain of salt, of course. Nonetheless, this one certainly confirms my suggestion that reliable sources aren't so hot on the gun debate right now but are discussing many other issues more thoroughly. · jersyko talk 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is an interesting data point, the election is still 6 months away (although it seems like it has been going on forever ;-) ). There will naturally be an ebb and flow of issues and discussions through the campaign. In addition, the issues discussed before and after the Democratic primary is concluded may well be very different, due to the different audiences involved. I argue that the section on gun control has been maintained over several months and consequently has become comprehensive. If you feel that it is unduly large compared to other sections, then I suggest that the proper solution is to make the other issues and sections comprehensive as well. This is a better solution than to cut down the gun control section, which will inevitably lose information that is actually fairly objective and NPOV considering the passions this debate usually engender. Let's be inclusionists, not deletionists :-) I am happy to help increase the coverage of the other issues subject to my competence and understanding of them. kevinp2 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Down to specifics: kevinp2, do you have any objection to either of these changes? Feel free to discuss. · jersyko talk 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersyko, sorry, real life caught up with me. I took a look at the change you made, and it is fine with me. kevinp2 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Autism

Re this, I would still reference WP:SYN regarding the second half of the paragraph. Additionally, I would point out that Lou Dobbs isn't a reliable source for whether autism is caused by vaccines. For the record, I have little to no interest in the autism/vaccine controversy. · jersyko talk 03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama ignoring gay media

I said this in the main Barack Obama article but am posting it here since I think this is a better place to talk about it: Throughout his campaign he has been ignoring the gay media, even in important states like Ohio. None of the twelve member newspapers of the National Gay Newspaper Guild had been granted an interview with Obama, even though all of them had asked. He has only recently talked to a few gay media sources, and even then has been reluctant. And you’ll notice that he only started talking to gay news sources after he has been called out for not doing so by the Philadelphia Gay News in Pennsylvania. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a quote from the Philadelphia Gay News:

"At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we're able to view the candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them...

The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews...was in 2004, before he became a U.S. senator. The other limited interview occurred after controversy erupted when his campaign added an anti-gay minister to his tour of the South. It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community."

QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Trade

I was surprised to find no mention of his views on trade in this article. Surely NAFTA and other free-trade agreements are contentious issues in American politics that need to be covered. --Bjarki (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - I was just about to write the same thing. Brisvegas 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee?

As likely as I think an Obama victory is, it's ridiculous for this article to call him the "presumptive nominee" at this point. The sources quoted are three blogs, simply quoting two partisans and one Fox News commentator offering their opinions on the matter. These are not reliable sources. Reliable sources would be newspaper articles (other than opinion colmns), and the articles would have to give that description themselves, not just quote others. 136.152.224.31 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed it. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to remove it yesterday, but got distracted. He's the likely nominee, but "presumptive nominee" usually refers to a candidate that has already crossed the delegate threshold but not yet been nominated (like McCain). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would not be surprised if Clinton fights on all the way to the convention. If she concedes the race before that, then it may be OK to call Obama the presumptive nominee. kevinp2 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still the presumptive nominee. He stays that until he's officially named. Accurate newscasters still refer to both Obama and McCain in that way; won't change until the conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.80.35 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: He is now the presumptive nominee. The above discussion took place before he had reached the delegate threshold (and before Clinton ended her campaign). --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and contraception

Why are they grouped together? They're two seperate issues, no other two social issues are grouped together. Anyone mind if I break them up? - Schrandit (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)~

Partial Birth Abortion Position

He supports the return of partial birth abortion for sure, but the way it´s stated it seems that he supports it without any restrictions, unlike Hilary Clinton. Is that true ? 85.244.52.116 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender issues

Please add something about gender roles, equal pay & opportunities, domestic abuse etc. I didn't see anything refering to that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.207.208 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

His positions about abortion and partial birth abortion seem quite anti-Catholic. I think it should be mencioned in he article the fact that he never opposed anti-Catholicism and his pastor was an well knwon anti-Catholic.85.244.52.116 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

support for public financing

A person cannot support and reject the same thing at the same time. But some apparently believe that supporting the public financing system and "using" the public financing system are meaningfully distinguishable such that there is no contradiction. One reverter responded to my observation that Obama "does not support public financing of his own campaign" by claiming that "he can support it without accepting money". So he supports public financing of his own campaign except for the public financing part? I'm sorry, but if you remove the "accepting money" part, you have nothing left! Another reverter says, "He can support it without using it." That's entirely true BUT ONLY BY SUPPORTING ITS USE BY OTHERS AND NOT HIMSELF. It is impossible to support public financing FOR HIMSELF while not USING IT HIMSELF! If someone calls on the world to NOT USE the public financing system, WHAT IS BEING SUPPORTED? One cannot say there is support for a system if no one wants to "use" it!.

Indeed, many reliable sources say that Obama's decision to "not use" the system "threatens" the system. Even if it wasn't logically self-evident that Obama does not support public financing of his own campaign, these sources would dispute the contention that Obama "supports" the system. If Obama supports the system for campaigns "other than his own" is objectionable phrasing (and I readily grant that it looks like an unseemly shot at the candidate to have that "other than his own" carve out), then I would say the claim that he supports ANYONE'S use of public financing is disputed (indulging the constraint that there are no alternatives other than support for all users or support for no users). Whatever sources indicate that he supports it, there are thus many reliable sources that say he "threatens" it. If he simply SAYS he supports it, that is not determinative. If a candidate says he supports abortion, but he voted against it 50 times straight including this morning, Wikipedia should not say, without qualification, that he supports it. It should either reference his ACTIONS or make no claim at all about his stance on the issue given that there is a great deal of evidence to question his avowed support.Bdell555 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as complicated as that. The article doesn't say that he "supports receiving public financing" it says that he supports the public finance system. The fact that he opted of receiving public funds doesn't contradict this support (one can, for instance, support the federal highway system without ever driving on it or support food stamps without ever receiving them). This article isn't the place for editorial criticism, it is for his political positions and his position on public financing is that he supports it (and if he becomes president it is highly unlikely he will try to dismantle the system). That said, the fact that he opted out is probably worth a mention. If there is an inherent contradiction, then the reader will infer as much but we don't need to spoon-feed them editorial positions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Obama supports public financing for everyone, for everyone but himself, or for no one, is an issue of fact and reliable sources. An accurate account of his position is not "editorial criticism". The only thing that is "complicated" is the convoluted reasoning that tries to say the public finance system can be supported by the same party that independent observers (and logic) say is "threatening" it.

Your food stamp analogy is false. Neither Obama nor anyone else has to make a trade-off with respect to driving on the highway or receiving a food stamp such that they have to give something up in order to get it (if you want to argue that taxes must be given up, I would respond that one cannot refuse to pay those taxes and simultaneously claim to support the public system that provides the benefits). No competitive advantage obtains to a non-user of the food stamp system relative to a user of the system, unlike the case with a non-user of the public financing system. A non-user of the public financing system is not subject to spending limits, which constitutes an advantage.

re "highly unlikely", where are your sources? Many sources directly contradict you, indicating that Obama "threatens' the system, and has perhaps even delivered a "death knell" to it. It is unnecessary to take further action to "dismantle" the system beyond politicians opting out whenever advantageous to do so.Bdell555 (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also note that I'm willing to compromise or accomodate another's preferences such that "his support" can stand without the "other than his own" clause. But in that case there ought to be some indication that whether Obama in fact supports public financing is disputed. Your preferred presentation of his "opt out" does not challenge the idea that he fully supports public financing for everyone including himself and thus leaves the reader with the impression that the "opt out" does not raise any questions about his avowed support. That's misleading: it has raised questions for MANY observors. There HAS been a challenge, in other words, and there are many reliable sources for that fact. Keep in mind here that my original edit was solely about the "political position" of Obama's support for public financing for HIS campaign. I've never disputed that he supports it for others (and has accordingly encouraged others to "use" public financing).Bdell555 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your edit comment: I did say something here: [7] and today Loonymonkey explained my point comprehensively enough. If you don't understand it, I see no reason for me to repeat it again especially when you contradict yourself in your own comments. That's it, no offense, --Floridianed (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "something" there as well. So why direct me to the Talk page if what's good enough from you is also good enough from me? Loonymonkey has not responded to my response to him. Do I take it, then, that you concede everything I note above, which explains why although one can support some things without using them, a politician cannot claim to support public financing for his campaign while not "using" it? "Use" is a word choice of yours that does not apply here and is misleading, because "use" suggests just a taking of a benefit. Obama's "non-use" decision here did not involve the forgoing of a benefit (like a food stamp) as you wish to (mis-)characterize it but the obtaining of an advantage. This is not just my view but that of reliable sources. See articles like "Obama’s Decision Threatens Public Financing System" NY Times There are many other articles out there in a similar vein. Omitting "nonetheless" denies that there is any link despite all of the reliable sources out there that allege there is. Produce some countering sources that argue that the "non-use" decision does not have negative implications for the prospects of the public financing system going forward if you want to continue to claim that Obama's non-use decision raises no questions about his support for the system. Where is/are the contradiction(s) you allege?Bdell555 (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear to me that if we mention Obama's support of public financing we have to mention that he chose not to use it. Beyond that, I'll let you guys work out whether "nonetheless" or "however", etc. is appropriate. Everyone should be aware of WP:3RR and try to keep revert wars out of the article. Oren0 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor to compromise (w/o compromising WP) and propose the following change that especially puts "the opt out" sentence in the appropriate place:

"Obama supports public financing of political campaigns but opted out of receiving public financing for his general election campaign. Furthermore he has maintained that he will not take contributions from federal lobbyists and special interests during his 2008 presidential campaign."

Please let me know if you can accept/like this version. --Floridianed (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'd like it to say "...opted out of receiving public financing for his own general election campaign" but I think that's mostly a style concern. Oren0 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in all respects with Oren0.Bdell555 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I consider this as having consensus and a go ahead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridianed (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I support Floridianed's language. It reads very neutrally. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll change it then. --Floridianed (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Contraception

That section is only one line and as far as I know it really isn't a presidential issue. Anyone mind if I remove it? - Schrandit (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we merge it into the previous section (which could be renamed "Abortion and contraception"). I'll make the change. If there are any objections or reversions, we can discuss it here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do. Abortion and Contraception are two very different issues that people have tried to tie together. Why not just take out the sentence about contraception. Is that really a federal issue anyway? - Schrandit (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Very different issues? I'm not really sure if that's true. As policy, they are generally closely linked and discussed together (and often discussed under umbrella terms such as "family planning"). I wouldn't support removing the sentence as it does show his position on the issue (and, whether you personally agree or not, contraception is an ongoing political issue). Let's see what others think. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Family planning is used as an umbrella term for politicians who want to dodge the abortion issue. Legislation on abortion is hotly discussed and contraception usually isn't in the picture, it defiantly isn't in the court rulings. The federal government doesn't do much with contraception beyond the FDA. I will be shocked if this comes up in the debates. While removing this would take away information I think its information that isn't pertinent to the Presidency so its for the best. More importantly, contraception isn't mention in the political positions of HRC, McCain, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson or John Edwards. In any case, I too would like to see what others think and won't move before there is consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Though McCain's political position page does not have a section on contraception, the word "contraceptives" appears in the "Abortion" section in a sentence saying that he opposed the exact bill that this article says Obama supported. Also, right above the "Abortion" section, there is a mention of McCain's support of funding for abstinence programs.

Furthermore, I do think that contraception is a political issue that is relevant as it pertains to the contested issue of abstinence-only programs, which I've certainly heard talked about a lot on the news. Thus, I think that this sentence should remain in this article (if it is decided that it should be removed, then the corresponding sentences in the McCain article should also be removed).

As to what specific sections to include these statements in, I don't think I really have a strong opinion either way. RobHar (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing debate over Obama's FISA position and time sensitivity of issue

It is next to impossible to "type" on one of these little Chicklet-size keyboards of a handheld device. Of course, I meant to type "weasel" and Words of Estimative Probability, but you can't correct an edit summary that's almost impossible to preview on a two-inch screen. The mention of Obama's changed stance on a possible filibuster (not mentioned elsewhere) is critically important, if you can count to 40, know what a "cloture vote" is and presume Obama is now the putative leader of the Senate's majority party. Plausible to deny (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact remains that you are trying to add language which is not WP:NPOV. Please read abbout weasel words and words to avoid for a further explanation of this, but you can't phrase sentences like "Despite an earlier promise..." That is pure POV. Just stick to the facts and let the reader decide. Rather than edit war, why don't you wait for others to weigh in before unilaterally adding this again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I actually just re-removed the passage before noticing that a discussion was going on. The passage was not appropriate as sourced since the claim that he "promised to filibuster" is only mentioned in the cited article in a quote from some random person. I remember that the obama campaign's statement at the time was that he would "support a filibuster", not necessarily initiate a filibuster. I think the proper way to do this is to quote that statement beforehand, giving its date, then explain the current situation. It would then be unnecessary to have say "despite bla bla", and the contentious passage is moot. RobHar (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. "Support" or "initiate," you choose. If you were a political party's nominee to be the next President, would you be a leader or a follower? I've never run up against 3RR, and don't want to now over this. It sould nice if someone else could work in the truly important word filibuster without the loaded campaign word "promise" - which admittedly can be difficult to accurately source and is subject to being retroactively parsed - I would consider this all to be amicably resolved. Of course, if "filibuster" gets added to the article after a floor vote on the full measure, it is more like a post-mortem, rather than actually keeping the article up-to-date. I'll slink back to editing the articles where I don't get hassled. Plausible to deny (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think the president (or nominees) should be the leader of every single movement on the activist side of their party, so yeah I'd want to be a leader, but not just for the sake of it. But this is neither here nor there. My understanding of the situation is that initially, back in october of last year, Dodd was going to filibuster the original bill, then Obama said he would support the filibuster[8][9] (and Hillary was still without clear opinion). Then, this wasn't enough for moveon.org and "a dozen liberal bloggers"[10], so the obama campaign said "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" (see previous ref). Now a new bill is in town. Apparently Dodd and Feingold are setting up a filibuster, and Obama has not since responded with a new opinion. It also seems as though the new bill only offers retroactive immunity on civil (not criminal) cases to telecom companies, and no immunity to the administration. RobHar (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds utterly reasonable, and if I came across as being a little (which I think I was), I apologize to everybody who read my words that way, too. I have spent some time and effort keeping the FISA article itself updated, and am probably "too close to the patient" to be truly objective, neutral and detached. Obviously, the time frame in which Obama expressed some sort of support for a filibuster is an important consideration, as this legislation and the political calculus associated with it has been shape-shifting for years. My observation about 'initiating' or 'participating' in a filibuster was not meant to be case-specific to this situation; it was intended be an observation on the unique leadership role any presumptive Presidential nominee would have in this circumstance. This is why Senators caucus by party, and I am not invited to those meetings, but am curious about their group dynamics. And that is much as I want to 'type' with my right index finger. I will try to keep all ten of them off of this article for awhile. Plausible to deny (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Also, to update, obama a few hours ago released a statement on his community blog site [11]. He doesn't mention the filibuster, but mentions working on removing the immunity and explains his position of support for the bill (amongst others: without it, provisions to legally survey people will run out this summer). RobHar (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article flow and organization

This article is (like most of the "political positions of..." articles) a hard read. I'm wondering if there's a better way we can organize and phrase it. Perhaps:

• Actually say what the positions are rather than giving a sometimes scattershot list of statements, speeches, and incidents - if there are two or more things that support a claim that Obama's position is X, rather than describe both why not say his position is X and then footnote the sources?
• Minimize direct quotes as much as we can in favor of summary
• Try to eliminate most attempts to show flip-flopping, change, contradiction, lack of clarity, etc., and get to the heart of what the position is (if there is one)
• Being clear what the basis is of calling something a position: (1) legislative or other record; (2) campaign promise; (3) speech, writing, or stumping; (4) official platform; (5) other source?

A couple I found that seem to be better: Political positions of Mike Huckabee and Political positions of Fred Thompson. Maybe just because they're shorter and less heavily edited, but they're more coherent.

For what it's worth the McCain article is only marginally better. I think it reads a little better despite being longer, mainly because the sections and paragraphs tend to have an introductory paragraph that summarizes the position - more of that is a first step that would help here.

- Wikidemo (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

People are censoring this article. They are erasing legitimate things.

In the gun control section, the article said:

"He voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, for which arguments pro and con were heard by the Supreme Court in March 2008 in the case D.C. v. Heller."

I added the following right after that part:

"However, according to a June 26, 2008 article in Time magazine, after the court overturned the ban, Obama stated, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms... The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view." "

Since Time magazine is a legitimate source, and it quotes Obama as having switched his position, it's very relevant to this section of the article. So I added it.

But then someone erased it.

So I added it back in again.

But then someone erased it again.

I also added the following to the abortion section:

"However, a July 3, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights." "

Since Associated Press is a legitimate source, and since it says Obama has adopted a new position on this issue, it's very relevant to this section of the article. So I added it.

But then someone erased.

So I added it again.

Then someone erased it again.

The same thing happened when I added similar types of things to other parts of the article.

People are censoring this article.

For the record, Obama has shifted to the right on unwarranted wiretapping, Israel, free trade, gun control, the death penalty, faith based programs, welfare reform, the Iraq war, abortion, the Patriot Act, campaign finance, and the Cuban embargo. Here is a list of sources for all of those things.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I believe some the problem with what was removed was not necessarily that the subjects you were inserting were deemed not admissible to article, but rather that the way they were inserted was incorrect/inaccurate. For example, the "wiretapping without warrants section": that content is already included in the "intelligence section", where the events are more explicitly explained, and in a more unbiased point of view (with edit summaries like [12] "Obama supports ... unwarranted wiretapping" people are more likely to be convinced your edit is POV pushing.) As another example, the iraq war: you added a paragraph right in front of a paragraph that already had the content you were adding (again yours was more biased, and less complete). RobHar (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You ignored the two examples that I just quoted - the ones about gun control and abortion. Erasing those two things from the article is censorship. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I ignored those two examples, it was that they were two examples that I did not know anything about, so I spoke about examples I had already informed myself on. I'm looking into the above two now. RobHar (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gun control

So here's a summary of what I've found out on the gun control part (note that emphasis provided by italics is my addition)

• 1) On Feb 15, Obama said "There's been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." ([13]).
  
• 2) On Feb 15, he also said "The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC (...) The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." ([14])
  

From statement 2), the author of the AP article quoted in this wiki article ([15]) infers that obama "voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns" though Obama never explicitly said anything about the DC handgun ban. In an article ([16]) from april 7th, Robert Novak attempts to figure out Obama's position on the DC handgun ban, and discusses statements 1) and 2). He mentions that in a march 13 column, he said that obama "weighed against" the DC handgun ban because of statement 1) since, according to Novak, the Mayor of DC's "brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment 'protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.'" So, the notion that Obama supported the dc gan ban appears to be at least contentious. Novak says he attempted to get Obama's position on the DC gun ban, but never got a clear cut answer. It appears as though Obama may not have had a (public) position on the subject (though he has a public position on gun control).

• 3) On June 26th, Obama released a statement (available in its totality here ([17])) the first half of which is: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
  

The article, by Time, that you referenced in your edit stops after "has now endorsed that view" leaving this statement as cryptic at best. With the full first paragraph unedited, the statement makes much more sense: Obama and the supreme court agree that the constitution supports the individual's right to bear arms, but this right is not absolute.

So from what I've seen it seems as though Obama's position on gun control has not changed. Obama's position on the DC handgun ban seems to have never existed and still doesn't (and one could criticize him for not coming out for or against, but that's probably not the place of this article).

Parenthetically to this discussion, I would just add that Statement 1) certainly begs the question "what are common sense measures?". The second half of Obama's june 26th statement gives two examples: "closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system".

I hope this helps, and I am welcome to further discussion. I will look into the "abortion" thing at a later time. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps a lot. So Obama hasn't changed his views on the gun issue. You explained that very well. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, RobHar. Thank you for the clear, well-referenced explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the compliments. btw I removed the statement that he supported the DC gun ban, in line with what I've said above. RobHar (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"properly sourced"

Blogs are RSs now? — goethean ॐ 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not and they never have been. That particular paragraph will have to be removed unless the ref is replaced with a WP:RS. In general we don't use opinion pieces as the only source for factual claims, but we especially don't use blogs. There is often confusion about the blogs that are hosted on major news sites. People often mistakenly feel that, say a blog hosted by ABC News is as reliable as ABC News itself. However, they are not part of the news organization and not subject to the same editorial oversight or fact-checking that journalistic pieces are. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Looneymonkey, blogs do qualify for being RS when they are authored by recognized, published authors on the subject. Please read over the SPS policy more fully. The ABC blog is by a nationally known writer, and qualifies under the SPS guidelines. Trilemma (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, I will paste the policy here for future reference: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." From [18] Trilemma (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)