Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Death penalty

Does he support or oppose the death penalty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.247.27.117 (talk • contribs).

All leading, main stream, serious, candidates support the death penalty.--President Elect 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article would be improved with a referenced representation of Obama's position on the death penalty. Wolfgang Cash 11:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Obama's most significant contribution has been his legislative battles against the death penalty, and against in the criminal justice system." [1]. So you can ignore President Elect up there.--Loodog 02:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, wait -- there's a difference between "supporting the death penalty" in thinking that we must have one in order to punish truly heinous crimes such as the Oklahoma City terrorism, and "supporting the death penalty" in thinking that we should execute rapists. The useful question is "In what situations does Obama support the death penalty?" If the answer is "none," then he can be described as "opposed to the death penalty." Otherwise, he supports the death penalty in some set of circumstances. Here is a quote from The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on June 10, 2002 (found via Lexis):

'ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The commission made 85 specific recommendations. The most controversial was reducing the number of crimes that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty. The legislature has been continually adding eligibility factors since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977. That bothers State Senator Barack Obama.

'BARACK OBAMA, (D) Illinois State Senator: We certainly don't think that we should be... have this laundry list that does not make any distinctions between the run-of-the-mill armed robbery that results in death, and systematic killings by a terrorist organization. And I think essentially what the reduction of aggravating factors does is it says, "Here's a narrower set of crimes that we think potentially at least could deserve the death penalty."'

The above indicates to me that he believes the death penalty is constitutional and should be used for a "narrow" set of crimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.169.227 (talk) 03:26, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Formatting?

Okay so.. I think someone needs to create a to-do list. With that said, I find the current formatting of the article to be very.. ... Difficult. Some sections are mixed up. Why are Iran, Iraq, and "Middle east conflict" separate, for example? I think an outline to start would be good, eg:

Domestic

Taxes (income, paris hilton, gasoline..)

Education

HS (Teachers, vouchers, blah)

College (loans, grants, tech jobs, etc)

Health

Employment

Social Nets

National Debt

Foreign

Middle east

Iraq

Lead up

Senate

Iran

Israel

Europe

Outsourcing

UN

Foreign Debt

And so on. I think if it were organized first, people could better attack it.

Second issue.

Okay. The Markup of the text is so dense, that I personally find it hard-to-impossible to sift through it and make edits. Is there any way to abstract all those links, or atleast maybe remove ones that aren't needed, or maybe instead of making them inline citations.. I don't know, put them at the bottom, atleast for now. I'm not sure how to approach this. Possibly putting [1] [2] and so forth until a more fleshed out article has been developed would be for the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AltonBrownFTW (talk • contribs).

That sounds like a good idea to me with the outline, as long as it doesn't get too "deep" (e.g. "Section 2.5.2.4.a"). I already went ahead and changed "Middle East" to "Israel-Palestinian". I'm not sure what you mean in your last paragraph about the "links" -- you mean the citations? I don't think any of those should be removed. But I also agree that wading through the markup language can be confusing. I don't know if there is a better solution though. I just try to look for the opening and closing "ref" tags and the section header tags to help me wade through. Organ123 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

HTML ignores Line Breaks. Any way we can utilize that fact to separate the tags to make it easier to read? eg: [tag starts], put in carriage, [tag ends] [cite] [tag starts] carriage [tag ends]

Which in theory on the page would look normal, but in the WikiMarkup, would be..

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah A [tag starts]

[tag ends] Citation [tag starts]

[tag ends] A blah blah blah blah

Which atleast might make it slightly easier to abstract. Optionally, Taking all the citations and making them external references until such time we've created a substantial article so it's easier to edit or, finally, putting a mirror article somewhere else (Talk page?) without citations but instead identifiers that can be find/replaced easily. Just some thoughts.AltonBrownFTW 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial birth abortion

Has Obama taken any stance on this? if anyone knows. Chris M. 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. He wasn't in the senate when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act occurred. A google search brought up an anti-abortion blog featuring a letter, supposedly written by Obama's wife, indicating her support for IDX rights. In my view this is not sufficient information to say that Obama has a stance on the issue. I also don't see any good primary source information of him having a viewpoint on the subject. I would guess that he supports IDX rights, but that would just be my guess. Then again, I also guess that he would support whatever is politically opportune, so I suspect he would avoid making any definitive statements regarding IDX. Organ123 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to the talk page so I hope writing a response here is not breaking too many rules. If you follow the second link, it says that Obama twice voted present on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban. I understand your concern with saynig he has taken a stance and I have stopped adding that. But as in the Illinois senate a present vote has the same practical implications as a no vote, I feel that is worth mentioning in his political views on abortion as he has twice officially registered a vote of present. Also, the top of the article says that here are some of Obama's votes on issues. Please inform me of the proper method for continuing this discussion so that I can do it correctly in the future. - User:MTJ1313

The problem with the addition is threefold, in my view. First, the source cited appears to be an editorial on an extremely conservative website, making its claims possibly of dubious reliability. Second, even accepting the claims as valid, the source says nothing more than Obama voted "present" on a few abortion-related votes in the Illinois legislature. The addition goes on, beyond the scope of the source cited, to say that "present" votes are basically "oppose" votes, which qualifies as original research. Finally, it seems to me that even discussing votes in which Obama voted "present", but doesn't appear to have taken a stance at all on the issue otherwise (and because it's original research to say he's taking a stance by merely voting "present"), violates the neutral point of view policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I said that present votes have the same effect as no votes, which is true. A present vote is a registered vote that is not a yes vote, and to pass, the bill must have a majority of registered votes. The page is about Obama's voting record and this is very important as he has voted present on those bills, he was the only state senator to vote present on a bill to keep sex offenders in jail, and on many other issues. If this page's stated goal is to discuss his voting record, than his many votes of present need to be included. In addition, I re-edited and took out any mention of a stance on partial birth abortion, just that he had voted present on it twice, which belongs in a site about his voting patterns. A president could clearly never vote present, and this site needs to objectively look at Obama's weakness too. People can decide for themselves what this voting pattern means to them, but it shouldn't be ignored with how often it has come up. This seems like a page campaigning for Obama how it is now. User:MTJ1313

Can someone find evidence (beyond an essay by an anti-abortion columnist) that Obama actually made these votes? And if he did, voting "present" does not reveal Obama's views, and it's debatable whether voting "present" is akin to voting "no". So, if someone can find better evidence, then I'd support mentioning the vote -- and nothing more. People can make their own judgments about whether voting "present" is tantamount to voting "no". Organ123 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we had an edit conflict. I just wanted to add that bills aren't usually as simple as being "partial birth abortion" bills or "keep sex offenders in jail" bills so a link to the proposed bills themselves would be helpful. Mykll42 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Double Article

I noticed that the article had an exact copy of it added to the bottom. I deleted the second part, as it was clearly an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs) February 11, 2007

There also was a section named "Bestiality." I figured that it was graffitti and deleted it. If I was wrong, please cite a source. --Lesssthan (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Outline of his views?

It may be true that his statements provide an outline of his views, as it says in the first sentence. They probably do in fact. However I don't think we can say that on WP. We can not read his mind to know for sure what his views really are. Steve Dufour 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the sentence. I wish there was more we could say. Steve Dufour 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles. -- Yellowdesk 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia should document their stated positions and actions, not infer their metal state. GrEp 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama's abortion views?

I'm removing the part of this section that says:

Obama stated on March 15, 2007, that "I do not agree [...] that homosexuality is immoral."[37]

The link on that citation does not bring up an article at all. I'm PARTICULARLY DISTURBED about the fact that the article was evidently published on MARCH 3 2007, yet it's quoting Obama from March 15 2007. I'd advise future editors not to dwell on whether or not an ellipsis has to be in brackets (which it doesn't) and instead focus on the accuracy of the source.

Rob Shepard 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The date on the cite was wrong. The article was published on 3/19. Also, it is not uncommon for links to go dead, so you should try to find a replacement when you find a dead link. On the other hand, I found the same article on MSNBC and it doesn't mention Obama's view on homosexuality.[2] So, the removal may not have been for the reason you cited, but good catch none the less. --Bobblehead 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why Retrieved on dates are important, too. ~ Rollo44 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional perspective?

Considering Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, does anyone know whether he holds unique views on the Constitution and structure of government? Or was his interest/focus restricted to civil rights issues? ~ Rollo44 08:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vouchers at Public schools

Obama is against vouchers for private schools. However, what about vouchers giving poor children from bad neighborhoods/schools vouchers to allow them to attend better public schools? What is his stance on this type of voucher?---Gloriamarie 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are vouchers necessary for this? I thoguht this was simply "school choice" sans vouchers; students can apply to schools outside their neighborhoods, or some school districts (such as Seattle's in the recent Supreme Court case) will assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods in order to achieve racial/economic integration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.169.227 (talk) 03:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Anti-tax pledge

Americans for Tax Reform is not a strictly conservative group and has many Democrats running for state-wide office who sign its pledge. It's offered to every national and statewide candidate regardless of party. Many Republicans haven't signed it, either, and I've noted it on their pages. I think it's informative and a good addition to the page. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad to raise or lower taxes, I'm just stating the facts-- he could sign it if he chose, and he has not chosen to. The reader can make up their own mind; I thought that's what the political positions page was for.--Gloriamarie 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Americans for Tax Reform, headed by uber-Republican Grover Norquist, is one of the most conservative large interest groups in the United States. Even the NYPost source you cite (which, by the way, is a conservative paper) calls it a conservative group. Second, there are two versions of their tax pledge: national and state. The issue here isn't the state pledge, as you indicate on my talk page that you believe some Democratic Party members have signed (on the state level), but rather the national pledge. Again, I'll repeat my earlier sentiment, if any Democratic presidential candidate signs the national pledge, they might as well give up their bid for the White House, as Democratic voters on the national level would simply not vote for someone who was allying themselves with AfTR. Thus, it's simply not worth noting in this article, and, frankly, isn't really worth discussing further on this talk page. · jersyko talk 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

MORE INFO

This is a call to add more overall info to each section. Why is everyone holding back. I know more info about baracks plans from watching one democratic debate than from reading this article. There are only 3 lines on health care. How does his health care plan work? Surely the info is out there. He mandates child health care while enforcing controls on private insurance comps for adults. On taxation, an increase for people with 250,000 or more income. Understandably this is a feature article and people dont want to lose that status but dont delete or withhold information just because it lacks citations. Thats how articles grow, add the info from memory then the community finds the citations. For such a feature candidate this article is at risk of turning back into a B class because it has such stubby blurbs. I, my politically ignorant self, will add what little i can muster. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.101.53 (talk • contribs).

This actually is not a featured article - that's the main article. Tvoz |talk 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that we need more information in this article (I had to go searching for info on his health care plan off-wiki the other day when I wanted to compare it to other candidates' plans for my own benefit). This is not a featured article, however. Barack Obama is, but not this article, which is only about his political positions. In any event, don't let that stop you from adding to it :) · jersyko talk 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is a good idea, but..

It seems to me that it shouldn't be permanent. Like, after the election, this article should be trimmed down and merged into the main Barack Obama article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Andy Christ (talk)

Its way too early to consider that. besides, if he won the election the article would actually expand into several articles. look at george w bushe's collection of policy articles. Dont worry, we'll deal when we get there. Some thing 19:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto and the Environment

Obama's position on the myriad of conservation issues (Kyoto in particular) would improve this article. Wolfgang Cash 11:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and there was a comment on Talk:Barack Obama as well about wanting to see more on his environmental stands. I think the "Energy policy" section here is the appropriate place, and it should be expanded and probably renamed with more information about his views regarding the environment. Tvoz |talk 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gay Rights

This article would be vastly improved by showing Barack Obama's views on Gay Rights, and Gay Marriage. NinjaVee 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Energy Policy - Bill Introduction

The current citation stating that Obama helped create the "S. 2817 [109th]: Biofuels Security Act of 2006" is unavailable and I've found a source stating the bill was introduced by "Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. BIDEN)" I just wanted to make it clear why I was changing the information. Please comment if you find contrary evidence to what I'm changing the information to Aznph8playa2 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I'm not quite sure what to do with a broken link citation so I'll just say a citation is needed for now (For the quote made by Obama). -Aznph8playa2 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought... Use google and find a replacement. It's not that hard. It took me less than a minute to find a replacement for the article with the dead link. Anything put out by Reuters or the AP will be carried by many, many other newspapers. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Reform

Does anyone have information to add to the article regarding a stance on campaign finance reform? If so, please do.

Creationlaw 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ref 11

When I clicked on reference #11, I got a message which read, "Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

The story or page you were trying to access may have expired." I am not totally sure how to remove a reference from a paper, can someone please do this for me? Thanks, --Megaodon99 (Talk) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't remove references just because articles that were once available no longer are. The article is still being cited, and is probably available in wire service archives. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Absence on key votes a political position?

Does Obama's absence on key votes belong in this section? For example, he has voiced criticism for Clinton's vote to classify the Quds Forces as a terrorist organization and has supported PAYGO in his book but was absent when both issues were voted on.--Daveswagon (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Video game censorship/regulation position?

Does Obama have a position on video game censorship/regulation? It would perhaps be intresting to add. The page of Hilary Clinton has this as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Video_game_censorship