Agreement with candidate that you don't support (dems)

[CultureKing]

Example: I agree more with Hillary's stance on Heath Care than I do with Obama.


And I will put a none option but seriously you cant be 100% with one candidate, there should be some overlapping or places where you disagree at least a little with them.

[Verily]

None that I can think of. That is not to say that I disagree with Obama on nothing, but where I do disagree with him, I tend to disagree with the Democratic consensus generally and thus with Clinton as well.

[Ebowed]

Nothing comes to mind, and I will add that I actually prefer Obama's health care plan to Clinton's, as it is less of a give-away to the health insurance industries.  (Mandatory health insurance?  Are you kidding me?)

Also, given that Clinton has criticized Obama as being too liberal on social issues I suspect that Clinton and I disagree on social issues to a pretty severe extent.

[TomC]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

[True Democrat]

I agree Obama more on immigration (drivers' licenses is the only real difference) and Cuba (at least Obama used to favor normalization).

[Verily]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

[Torie]

I don't agree with Clinton or Obama about much of anything, except health care - maybe. I await McCain revealing his plan.

[TomC]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most against.

[Verily]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

[Keystone Phil]

I accidentally voted in this. My apologies. I think you can guess how I voted. 

[Beet]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most

 against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

She does not try to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration, she simply points out that it was an excellent administration. She doesn't distance herself from 90% of the legislation, including the 1993 budget, the 1994 crime bill, FMLA, or welfare reform, although she doesn't emphasize them because times have changed and America is ready to move on-- her campaign is about the future. She is critical of NAFTA because it hasn't delivered all it was cracked up to be-- especially in the last 8 years as median incomes have stagnated.

Hillary (voted yes on Singapore, Chile, Vietnam & Oman; no on CAFTA and Andean) and Obama (yes on Oman; no on CAFTA) have mixed or basically similar records on trade, when you look at all the trade deals that they have voted on. I would say Obama is being more of a faux populist on this trying to attack Clinton over NAFTA when he himself would not repeal NAFTA.

[TomC]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most

 against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

She does not try to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration, she simply points out that it was an excellent administration. She doesn't distance herself from 90% of the legislation, including the 1993 budget, the 1994 crime bill, FMLA, or welfare reform, although she doesn't emphasize them because times have changed and America is ready to move on-- her campaign is about the future. She is critical of NAFTA because it hasn't delivered all it was cracked up to be-- especially in the last 8 years as median incomes have stagnated.

Hillary (voted yes on Singapore, Chile, Vietnam & Oman; no on CAFTA and Andean) and Obama (yes on Oman; no on CAFTA) have mixed or basically similar records on trade, when you look at all the trade deals that they have voted on. I would say Obama is being more of a faux populist on this trying to attack Clinton over NAFTA when he himself would not repeal NAFTA.

Oh come on. If she had so little to do with the administration as to not share in the credit, what exactly makes her "qualified on day 1"? If she wasn't a major player in the 1990s, then her claim of being sooo much more qualified to be Chief Executive is quite a stretch.

[Beet]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most

 against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

She does not try to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration, she simply points out that it was an excellent administration. She doesn't distance herself from 90% of the legislation, including the 1993 budget, the 1994 crime bill, FMLA, or welfare reform, although she doesn't emphasize them because times have changed and America is ready to move on-- her campaign is about the future. She is critical of NAFTA because it hasn't delivered all it was cracked up to be-- especially in the last 8 years as median incomes have stagnated.

Hillary (voted yes on Singapore, Chile, Vietnam & Oman; no on CAFTA and Andean) and Obama (yes on Oman; no on CAFTA) have mixed or basically similar records on trade, when you look at all the trade deals that they have voted on. I would say Obama is being more of a faux populist on this trying to attack Clinton over NAFTA when he himself would not repeal NAFTA.

Oh come on. If she had so little to do with the administration as to not share in the credit, what exactly makes her "qualified on day 1"? If she wasn't a major player in the 1990s, then her claim of being sooo much more qualified to be Chief Executive is quite a stretch.

Her claim is not that everything that happened in Bill's administration was because of her genius and brilliance, but rather that being close to the center of power and being involved in at least one huge policy effort-even if it was a blunder- but one for which she learned from a partially recovered from- gives her a special insight into the way Washington works and the challenges facing a White House administration dealing with a difficult Congress. That is a kind of experience not even a Senator or Governor can claim.

[TomC]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most

 against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

She does not try to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration, she simply points out that it was an excellent administration. She doesn't distance herself from 90% of the legislation, including the 1993 budget, the 1994 crime bill, FMLA, or welfare reform, although she doesn't emphasize them because times have changed and America is ready to move on-- her campaign is about the future. She is critical of NAFTA because it hasn't delivered all it was cracked up to be-- especially in the last 8 years as median incomes have stagnated.

Hillary (voted yes on Singapore, Chile, Vietnam & Oman; no on CAFTA and Andean) and Obama (yes on Oman; no on CAFTA) have mixed or basically similar records on trade, when you look at all the trade deals that they have voted on. I would say Obama is being more of a faux populist on this trying to attack Clinton over NAFTA when he himself would not repeal NAFTA.

Oh come on. If she had so little to do with the administration as to not share in the credit, what exactly makes her "qualified on day 1"? If she wasn't a major player in the 1990s, then her claim of being sooo much more qualified to be Chief Executive is quite a stretch.

Her claim is not that everything that happened in Bill's administration was because of her genius and brilliance, but rather that being close to the center of power and being involved in at least one huge policy effort-even if it was a blunder- but one for which she learned from a partially recovered from- gives her a special insight into the way Washington works and the challenges facing a White House administration dealing with a difficult Congress. That is a kind of experience not even a Senator or Governor can claim.

I tend to agree, but if she's "claiming" it, she's partly taking credit for it. You can't have it both ways; she was either a significant part of it or she was not.

[Beet]

I tend to agree with Clinton on free trade although I prefer her husband's stance. On health care and Iraq: Obama. Other economics, probably mixed. On foreign policy, such as Pakistan, probably Clinton.

I'm curious, what do you agree with Bill Clinton about free trade on that you disagree with Obama about and less so with Hillary Clinton?

I'm for free trade, as was B Clinton. Hillary has been some, Obama seems the most

 against.

The reverse is true. Hillary Clinton opposed the Peru trade deal which Obama supported, and she tried to attack him on it in a debate when Obama said that Clinton was being hypocritical for wanting to revise NAFTA now when her husband's administration passed it. (He made the obvious counterargument that the Peru deal had more stipulations in it than NAFTA, the same stipulations they both want to add to NAFTA.) They have both talked about revising NAFTA, but Clinton has generally taken greater anti-trade stances when discussing it.

I have actually been very amused by this because she tries to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration but distances herself from all of its major legislation.

She does not try to take credit for Bill Clinton's administration, she simply points out that it was an excellent administration. She doesn't distance herself from 90% of the legislation, including the 1993 budget, the 1994 crime bill, FMLA, or welfare reform, although she doesn't emphasize them because times have changed and America is ready to move on-- her campaign is about the future. She is critical of NAFTA because it hasn't delivered all it was cracked up to be-- especially in the last 8 years as median incomes have stagnated.

Hillary (voted yes on Singapore, Chile, Vietnam & Oman; no on CAFTA and Andean) and Obama (yes on Oman; no on CAFTA) have mixed or basically similar records on trade, when you look at all the trade deals that they have voted on. I would say Obama is being more of a faux populist on this trying to attack Clinton over NAFTA when he himself would not repeal NAFTA.

Oh come on. If she had so little to do with the administration as to not share in the credit, what exactly makes her "qualified on day 1"? If she wasn't a major player in the 1990s, then her claim of being sooo much more qualified to be Chief Executive is quite a stretch.

Her claim is not that everything that happened in Bill's administration was because of her genius and brilliance, but rather that being close to the center of power and being involved in at least one huge policy effort-even if it was a blunder- but one for which she learned from a partially recovered from- gives her a special insight into the way Washington works and the challenges facing a White House administration dealing with a difficult Congress. That is a kind of experience not even a Senator or Governor can claim.

I tend to agree, but if she's "claiming" it, she's partly taking credit for it. You can't have it both ways; she was either a significant part of it or she was not.

What the heck... just because I used the phrase "can claim", the entire point of my post can be cast aside? I said she was not claiming credit for the whole Presidency, she was claiming credit for a significant part that is a small part of the whole. It's really not that complicated if you're not averse to seeing it.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Nothing comes to mind, and I will add that I actually prefer Obama's health care plan to Clinton's, as it is less of a give-away to the health insurance industries.  (Mandatory health insurance?  Are you kidding me?)

Also, given that Clinton has criticized Obama as being too liberal on social issues I suspect that Clinton and I disagree on social issues to a pretty severe extent.

It would seem to me that in a Democratic primary, criticizing your opponent for being too liberal on social issues would be a bad thing.

[Nutmeg]

None that I can think of. That is not to say that I disagree with Obama on nothing, but where I do disagree with him, I tend to disagree with the Democratic consensus generally and thus with Clinton as well.

Same here.  In every instance I disagree with Obama, I also disagree with Clinton at least as much, if not more.  Off the top of my head, I'm generally opposed to abortion and am more of an environmentalist than either one of them.

[Cubby]

I prefer Hillary's health care plan to Obama's. Thats the only big issue where I differ from him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As far as the Democrats go, what actual policy differences there are can only really be found in the detail. Which is a pity, but there you go.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm supporting Obama, but I like Hillary's healthcare stance more. 

[perdedor]

Well, between Clinton and Obama...I know of no issues in which I find Clinton's plan to be superior. However, when he was still in the race, I would have said that Dennis Kucinich represented my political views better than either candidate, though I never actively supported him.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Immigration is the only issue where I disagree with Obama, and then I support the GOP view.