Obama daughters to attend Sidwell Friends, just like Chelsea Clinton did

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the article you cite doesn't show Obama as in favour of vouchers. It's like a 90% opposition of vouchers instead of 100%.

What he says is "if this is great, I'm for it, I doubt it is, but if it is I will agree that it is"

...which is like, nothing.

I don't blame him, of course. He would be a horrible person to sacrifice his own children for political principles. On the other hand, that shows exactly why the principles he has are so abominable.

To me, this is not bad in itself but it serves to highlight why his position is so horrible.

I will also note that the other examples cited aren't really equivalents. If Obama said that everyone should be forced to live in poor houses it would be hypocritical for him to live in the White House and if he said all 18-year olds should have to join the military excluding his own children would be bad.

Saying choice of other schools than public ones is bad and should not be allowed and then doing it yourself IS hypocritical in my book. In a pretty nasty way, too.

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the fact that he has always been a hypocrite doesn't really make a difference to me.

As for "abominable", I'm not gonna mince words here, but I find opposition to voucher schools to be one of the positions I have the least understanding of. You're essentially saying "screw you" to people who live in slum areas, saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a better education for their children. You say it is great that Obama would not sacrifice his daughters for politics. Yet, this is exactly what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. The disgust you would feel for Obama if he did put his daughters in a public school is the kind of disgust I feel for the anti-voucher position.

The only anti-voucher position I can feel some kind of sympathy or understanding for is the one where you opposte public education alltogether.

I will also note that the opinion that we should not walk out on public schools that Obama expresses is rather typical. Proponents of vouchers tend to say "this is a chance for people to get away from the bad schools that their children are stuck in". The opponents will then say "we should improve public schools, not desert them" But then of course someone else should suffer the consequences.

I have never had any respect for those who say it is great that people suffer as long as those people are someone else. It makes my blood boil.

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the fact that he has always been a hypocrite doesn't really make a difference to me.

Ok, well maybe he has never been a strong advocate against private schools and the hypocrisy just isn't there to a significant extent either.

As for "abominable", I'm not gonna mince words here, but I find opposition to voucher schools to be one of the positions I have the least understanding of. You're essentially saying "screw you" to people who live in slum areas, saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a better education for their children. You say it is great that Obama would not sacrifice his daughters for politics. Yet, this is exactly what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. The disgust you would feel for Obama if he did put his daughters in a public school is the kind of disgust I feel for the anti-voucher position.

I agree with your position on vouchers but you show a clear misunderstanding of the other sides points of view     I don't feel like defending something I don't believe in, I'll leave that to the other Democrats here.  You don't need to defend the subject with me, this is about Obama.  I agree with Vouchers.  I agree with Vouchers.  I support Vouchers.

That is not what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. 

The only anti-voucher position I can feel some kind of sympathy or understanding for is the one where you opposte public education alltogether.

Ok

I will also note that the opinion that we should not walk out on public schools that Obama expresses is rather typical. Proponents of vouchers tend to say "this is a chance for people to get away from the bad schools that their children are stuck in". The opponents will then say "we should improve public schools, not desert them" But then of course someone else should suffer the consequences.

I have never had any respect for those who say it is great that people suffer as long as those people are someone else. It makes my blood boil.

Ok, I agree in less harsh terms.  But your hypocrisy argument relies on a snippit of some platitude Obama gave, right?  Because he has had a long history of a nuanced position on the subject that would seem to diffuse any bogus, trumped-up exclamations of HYPOCRISY.  He specifically cites the subject of vouchers as something he disagrees with the Democratic Party on.

I'm well aware of various arguments against vouchers. I live in Sweden, for crying out loud!
As I know you support them and since it isn't the topic I didn't get into it. If you mean that I painted a negative image of that position, it's true. I stand by what I said. The arguments commonly used I just don't agree much with. Note that you asked "why is it abominable". What I said is my explanation of why I think it is so. It's not supposed to be an objective assessment of the issue.

Back on topic: from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere Obama does not support introduction of vouchers. That sort of, kind of equals opposing vouchers in my book. Saying "I oppose vouchers, but I don't hate them" is merely a political move designed to make people like you say to yourself "I can vote for this guy because he doesn't hate vouchers" while other people can say "I can vote for this guy because he opposes vouchers"

His nuanced position, like so many Obama positinos, seems to exist more in rethoric than in actual policy. You haven't showed that he actually supports it. I believe you know more about his positions than I do, so if you can find anything I would stand corrected. In that case there would be less hypocrisy.

[Gustaf]

I got logged off while posting. ARGH!

Anyway, here is what Obama's own website says on vouchers:

"Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers."

While, "John McCain will take much-needed money away from our schools to fund private schools instead."

Yeah, funding private schools to allow stinky poor people to attend the same schools as Obama's fine kids, the horror!

It doesn't sound nuanced to me, and it sure as hell sounds hypocritical.


EDIT: here's the link so you know I'm not making it up http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

[Gustaf]

I got logged off while posting. ARGH!

Anyway, here is what Obama's own website says on vouchers:

"Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers."

While, "John McCain will take much-needed money away from our schools to fund private schools instead."

Yeah, funding private schools to allow stinky poor people to attend the same schools as Obama's fine kids, the horror!

It doesn't sound nuanced to me, and it sure as hell sounds hypocritical.


EDIT: here's the link so you know I'm not making it up http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

Ok, I guess that's his "official" position.  Fair enough.

But are his own stated beliefs nuanced enough to avoid the hypocrisy charge for the mere act of having one of his children going to a private school (again, it helps the Secret Service protect them)? 

If someone opposes vouchers, as you claim Obama does without sufficient exceptions, are they morally obligated to send their kids to public schools?

As you pointed out yourself he sent his kids to private schools before any security issues were involved (how does that back-fire feel to you??? ) So I'm gonna use that excuse to ignore that point. Anyway, my point is that his position seems to be more of "I'm going to sound nuanced while not actually supporting vouchers" than "I'm going to sound nuanced while supporting vouchers" or "I'm going to sound nuanced while actually being nuanced" If you know what I mean.

To answer the second question I would pose it differently. Precisely because a person in that situation is morally obliged to not send their children to public schools they are morally obliged to support other people to be able to do it too. And that is why I dislike opposition of vouchers. I believe I stated at the out-set that I did not disagree with Obama sending his kids to that school. I disagree with his position and this, hypocritical, move highlights why.

[Gustaf]

Ok, fair enough.  That backfire sure hurts!

I'm skeptical of whether his official website actually describes his views and I'm skeptical of doing anything with vouchers when we have more pressing concerns like the economy,  thus I think it's a bit unfair to expect him to fully embrace education reform this second. If you've seen the presidential debates, when challenged to name an issue he disagrees with his party on he readily cites Vouchers and how the Teachers Union campaigned against him during the primaries for that reason.  If you read his quotes, he doesn't exactly sound like someone who expects poor people to be stuck in a flailing in a public school system -- he mostly sounds interested in first exploring fixing the public schools but has a broad commitment to do whatever works.

I think his rhetoric, when he cites examples of working systems of vouchers and his general statements along the lines of "if they are proven to work we owe it to the children to do whatever works" creates enough leeway for him to clearly and unquestionably avoid the hypocrisy-test, but you tend to have a more absolutist view of the matter.  In your "off with their heads" perspective of anyone who in any way opposes vouchers, he might very well be hypocritical I suppose.

I guess this is the closest we will come to agreement, so ok. I would expect the guy to take responsibility for his own website section of issue positions though. Especially since it distinguishes him from McCain on that specific issue. But I realize you're in a rationalization mode right now...