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

[Lunar]

Wait, Chelsea Clinton sent her kids to a private school?

Sorry Tender, I had to cut off everyone else before they went for it!

Obama actually, according to the rumors, inquired into various public schools outside of the district that includes 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.   People were calling some of the better public districts and talking about two girls and asking if they could attend overloaded public schools even though they weren't part of the district (and they cited 1600).

I actually respect Obama a lot more for this decision.   Moreso than I've actually ever respected any other decision he's made.  He's sacrificing his "commitment to public schools" in exchange for a better education for his daughters.  Can anyone else cite a anti-political move Obama has made?  Has he ever sacrificed politically for "the right thing" before?

Anyway, Respek

[Lunar]

I mean, c'mon.  Would any millionaire who loves his children more than politics send his girls to a D.C. public school?

[Lunar]

hmm... can't say I support this. Our PM sends his kids to a public school, as did our Premier. Actually was in the class of our Premier's son last year in University.

Dude, Ottawa public schools are probably a LOT different than D.C. ones

[Lunar]

Yea, it's nice that he can choose such a nice school. Too bad he opposes giving poor people the same oportunity.

I mean, c'mon.  Would any millionaire who loves his children more than politics send his girls to a D.C. public school?

Wouldn't any man who loves his country give the children of working class Americans the same opportunity that he has?

CONGRATULATIONS - you guys don't know the issues.  Obama is a supporter of school vouchers and the Teachers Union was one of the larger anti-Obama, pro-Clinton PACS during the primaries!

[Lunar]

You're pulling one snippet from a speech designed to pander to the teachers?

Weak.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-open-to-private-school-vouchers/71403/

Senator Obama said this week that he is open to supporting private school vouchers if research shows they work.

"I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers. Vouchers are taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead. They are despised by teachers unions, powerful players in Democratic politics.

When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both national teachers unions last year, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, he told the unions that he did not support vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.

He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids," Mr. Obama said.

Told a current longitudinal study is ongoing, Mr. Obama said he would respond to its findings with an open mind.

The executive director of the lobbying group Democrats for Education Reform, Joseph Williams, said the response was unusual for a Democratic politician, praising Mr. Obama for making his bottom line helping children learn rather than ideology.

"I don't think anyone can call him a voucher supporter out of this, but it is an intriguing response," Mr. Williams said. "It is a different kind of answer than most of us are used to hearing from politicians."

The president of the National Education Association, Reginald Weaver, told The New York Sun today that he believes Mr. Obama still opposes vouchers. Mr. Weaver's union has not endorsed a candidate yet. Mr. Weaver said he was hoping to make an endorsement after the February 5 primaries but when a clear front-runner failed to emerge he delayed an announcement. He said he is hoping to continue conversations with candidates about their education plans before making an endorsement.

He said that in conversations he expects to ask Mr. Obama to affirm his position on vouchers. Asked the same voucher question by the Milwaukee paper, Senator Clinton had a strong response, saying she opposes vouchers because they hurt public schools and could also open up the possibility of using taxpayer dollars to finance dangerous schools including training grounds for "jihad."

[Lunar]

[ Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".

Way to knock it up a notch.  Dehumanizing your opponents is a classic tool for fools to justify their arguments.

[Lunar]

[ Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".

Way to knock it up a notch.  Dehumanizing your opponents is a classic tool for fools to justify their arguments.

Can you at least respond to the substance of my post?

If you are calling me a sheep as a diversion and a rhetorical self-propagation tool, I'm going to call you an idiot because that's how you appear .  I don't feel automatically compelled to do more.  You're on a bipartisan forum and treating it as if it is FreeRepublic makes you look ridiculous.

 

Do you honestly forsee him implementing vouchers or something along those lines to improve school choice?

I think he would sign a vouchers bill that came before him, but he would rather use his politicla capital to pass things that are more important given the state of the country.
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outright dismiss vouchers in the last debate or something as being "not practical".

That's a reasonable criticism of vouchers (and I support vouchers).  He also cited vouchers during the debates as something he disagrees with his party on.

I have no problem with the decision on its own, but if you're going to say vouchers are wrong and we should focus on improving our public schools instead, then you're a complete hypocrite and that would make the people who agree with him on this mindless supporters (i.e.: sheep). I think all people should have the choice to send their kids to different schools that Obama has. Apparently he disagrees and feels only people of privilege and power should get that luxury. Seems like something that should upset some of his left-wing base, assuming of course they aren't irrational sheep.

I agree with you 100% on vouchers.

Well, Obama has two choices here for you inherent critics:
1) Sacrifice his daughters education and safety in exchange for making a political statement (how you would undoubtedly interpret it, given your above comments)
2) Be "hypocritical" even though he himself was raised in the most prestigious private school in the state of Hawaii and expressed interest in exploring vouchers for the good of children.  He has stated he is against vouchers in principle, but if they are proven to work, then the government is obligated to do them.  I don't see what's unreasonable about that position.

C'mon man.

[Lunar]

1) Sacrifice his daughters education and safety

In the context of education, those are usually racist codewords. Don't see how they could really apply in this case...

Well, in the context of a president's kids, private schools can really help out the secret service.

And the D.C. public education system is lackluster.

[Lunar]

While he's at it, he can probably move out of the White House and into this building:



in order to improve it for the rest of the residents

[Lunar]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

It's basically under the thought that the same amount of money that the government spends per pupil on public schools would yield much better results per-pupil in private schools.  It's the idea that private schools yield far better results per-dollar.

Thus the government offers students a sort-of "blank check" -- we have this money set aside for each student's education and you can use that at any school you want.

[Lunar]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

[Lunar]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

I know it's the internet, but please turn on your sarcasm radar

I think yours is the one that's broken

Meeker's comment was actually brilliant though

[Lunar]

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.

1.  Abominable?  Jesus, I'm in favor of school vouchers but I'd hardly call opposition to them "abominable"

2.  His principles, however, fully acknowledge that there are contextualized nuances to this (he cites an area in Minnesota that had great success with vouchers).  If every time he articulates his philosophy "against" vouchers he fills it full of nuances and exceptions, is it really that hypocritical for him to lean towards the latter?  Just because he says he's skeptical of vouchers doesn't instantly make him he world's number one hypocrite because he chooses a private school for his children (especially because it helps the Secret Service protect his daughters!).

[Lunar]

I was obviously exaggerating, I like to use sarcastic pictures as part of  my angry spew when I get all riled up   I think Meeker's example of the military is a great example -- should a president who believes strongly in self-sacrifice for Americans be logically required to pressure his own daughters to join the army?

Anyway, what is the "less-eligibility test?"  -- too lazy to Google.



And the reason why I exploded in this thread is that I don't appreciate being called a sheep by  some jerk who attacks anyone who openly supports Obama doing "the right thing" (helping the Secret Service protect his daughters and ensuring they have the best chances for their future) over what would gain him political points.  I actually mentioned in my original comments that I thought that this was the only time Obama had ever sacrificed himself to do what was not politically advantageous (with the possible exception of him supporting the bailout, depending on your point of view). 

I especially don't like it because it's such a knee-jerk, idiotic, hackish reaction to assume that Obama is being "hypocritical" by this action.  Not only does this ignore his daughter's safety, but Obama has already supported public schools with a great degree of nuance.  He's never been an ideological opponent to private schools, he himself went to one of the best private schools west of the Mississippi!!  The man has probably flip-flopped on the voucher issue but that makes him a flip-flopper and not a hypocrite!

[Lunar]

Special case. I'll give him a pass on this.

Pass on what?

It's a president's job to fix public schools, not to embrace them in their current state and symbolically pretend like there is nothing wrong!

[Lunar]

Ok, I understand opposing private schools (barely).  But even ignoring security concerns, why should one individual politician be compelled to send his kids to public schools if his daughters live in a crappy school district?  Isn't it his moral obligation to make sure his daughters receive the best education as possible?   It is vaguely arguable that D.C. public schools would be better if private schools weren't pillaging the good students -- but that doesn't change the fact that the public schools are wholly inadequate.

Meeker makes a great point about the military.  Should Obama be faulted if he doesn't ask his girls to serve in the Army?

[Lunar]

It shouldn't be a reason to do anything!

Obama has been the most pro-voucher national Democratic politician in history, has always expressed conflict about the issue, his children CURRENTLY GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS, has safety concerns, and the man himself went to Punohou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.  Has Obama ever went to a public school in his entire life besides a short period in Indonesia?  Obama might be THE most private-school-raised Democratic president in recent history.

These arguments of hypocrisy or any arguments about the subject make me sick and I'll totally wage a one-man war against all contenders.

[Lunar]

It shouldn't be a reason to do anything!

Obama has been the most pro-voucher national Democratic politician in history, has always expressed conflict about the issue, his children CURRENTLY GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS, has safety concerns, and the man himself went to Punohou, Columbia, and Harvard.  Has Obama ever went to a public school in his entire life besides a short period in Indonesia?  Obama might be THE most private-school-raised Democratic president in recent history.

These arguments of hypocrisy or any arguments about the subject make me sick and I'll totally wage a one-man war against all contenders.

That's the problem.

I understand the conflict, I wanted to go to a private school in the last years of high school, but my mother refused as she doesn't believe in pvt education.

I find the idea of essentially officiating a government sanctioned two-tier education system to be abhorrent. Just give up on public education.

Well there's no infrastructure in place to take over for that.

I've been publicly educated all my life and, in fact, currently have gone to the best public school in the world for the past three years (UCB).  But I still think all this crap is ridiculous.

[Lunar]

Oh do elaborate on Obama's permanent and never-flinching commitment to public schools that he and his daughters have always been committed to (since he went to exclusively American private schools and so have his daughters as far as I know, even in Chicago).

Obama's never made any pretense that his daughters should go to public schools so I don't see any wobbling here.

[Lunar]

At best the hypocrisy is moderate, self-created, and negligible.

[Lunar]

He's a communist when it gives him a knee-jerk ability to insult Obama.

Rest-assured, if Obama had decided to send his children to a public school (even though he had been sending them to a private school in Chicago previously), Htmldon would have accused him of putting his children's safety and education behind his own political aims.

Honestly, I have no respect for anyone that goes for this.  Keep doing it though.  It's what your hackish instinct says to do, don't disobey it!  Can't disobey the hack!  Can't stop won't stop!

[Lunar]

Wow. 

Great self-affirming post Bono.  You completely ignore all of my points and find the one post you agree with and then use it to pat your own back some more.  This information about Obama's new Slavery program sounds really intriguing, maybe you should post a thread about it!  Maybe cite the Washington Times or WorldNetDaily?  Sounds like a great thread, hurry!

[Lunar]

Wow.

Great self-affirming post Bono.  You completely ignore all of my points and find the one post you agree with and then use it to pat your own back some more.

Yea, kinda like you did with ignoring my quote of Obama and replied with a yea-but quote where he wobbled on the issues but saying the same thing in disguise.

My point throughout this thread is that his position IS nuanced.  The "yea-but" quote IS my argument.  His position on the subject of vouchers IS UNCLEAR.  He himself grew up in the most prestigious private school of his state and his daughters went to a private school in Illinois.  The fact that he has so many exceptions to his philosophical "in theory" skepticism of vouchers means that it's not hypocritical for him to send his daughters to a school to help the Secret Service protect them and when there is a world of difference between the pubic and private schools

I think you and I are in complete agreement about pubic and private schools, I'd be tempted to completely eliminate pubic schools were I to be in charge of government.

But your snide comments about how this decision is hypocritical make you into a cartoon for at least eight different reasons.  Give it up.

  This information about Obama's new Slavery program sounds really intriguing, maybe you should post a thread about it!  Maybe cite the Washington Times or WorldNetDaily?  Sounds like a great thread, hurry!

I'm obviously talking his "national service" proposals..

I know what you're talking about, I was telling you to continue being a cartoon.  Quick, post a thread from a illegitimate source with a misleading headline!

I'm not normally this harsh but your actions frankly deserve it.

[Lunar]

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.

[Lunar]

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.

Alright, fair enough.

Back on topic: from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere Obama does not support introduction of vouchers.

-theoretically he opposes them, which I think is reasonable.

-immediately without doing more groundwork in practicality.  He says the government should do them if it it's shown to help the kids and actually cites a case in Minnesota where they worked and said we should look into cases like that more.

That sort of, kind of equals opposing vouchers in my book.

Well, your book is kind of harsh on the subject.

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"

Well, he just ran a campaign.  You can probably pick out quotes to prove that Obama supports the continuation of the Iraq War when he was attempting to be moderate.  That doesn't mean he does though!

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.

I don't know for sure he 100% supports vouchers because clearly his position is kind of vague.  But the question I'm attempting to answer is whether or not he deserves a snide internet comment about the hypocrisy of sending his daughters to a private school (which can better provide their safety no less).  You're not one of the people screaming and beating the hypocrisy drum though.  edit