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)

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)

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)

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)

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)