Between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, is it true Clinton leans more toward the Socialist side?

Question

I am not looking for bias either way...I just want to know, based on observations people have made of their speeches or their actions, whether Clinton or Obama would be preferred by the Socialist party, if they had to choose one or the other? Someone told me Clinton was "practically a Socialist." Is there any truth to that?

Answer 1

There is no significant Socialist party in the USA today. Any vestiges of the previous socialist parties are now insignificant.
What it does exist is a significant volume of evidence that the middle class in the USA want the government to address the inequalities and social injustices of capitalism.
There is no great clamoring for drastic change but limited measures to address the inequality of income and the disparity in wealth distribution as well as the financial insecurity of the middle class.
There is no known differences between the democratic candidates on these issues.

Answer 2

Socialism is a heavily abused and misunderstood word. They're both very much into Keynesian-style Interventionist economic policies. Keynesian economics could be called a light form of socialism in a way, yes, because it's an economic policy that believes in regulating businesses with labor laws, quality laws, etc, creating a progressive income tax, and using the money from those taxes to provide social services (to benefit society, hence "social"-ism) like free or reduced-cost healthcare, free public education, college grants, pensions for disabled and elderly people, etc. Neither of them though harbor ridiculous boogeyman-ideas Republicans always talk about like waging "class-warfare" and "state control of the economy." That's just scare tactics. Interventionist economics are dominant in Canada, the UK, Europe, etc...and I'm yet to see any Iron Curtains falling around those places.
But anyway, I digress. Neither of them really lean Socialist very much, but I trust Obama and his strategies more than Hillary's.

Answer 3

well... it depends on what you call "socialist"... but many think of "Communism"... and it's NO WHERE near that...

some support the idea of socialized medicine... but that seems to be the only socialistic idea that they support (that's not already in place in the U.S.)...

if you call the U.K., Japan and Israel socialist nations... then yes, Hillary and Obama may be socialists I guess? Since their ideas are close to the ideas of those nations....but few would go that far...

Hillary is about as close to a socialist as Bush is to a fascist... in the end... it's a lot of name calling for the most part... with very small bits of truth...

Answer 4

Observations 'people have made'? You must be listening to Rush or Hannity or maybe FOX way to much or perhaps they are exclusive source for any news. The hard core neo-cons love to label anyone liberal or progressive as socialist. It is their same old scheme of using fear as a control tool since most people hear socialist and think Soviet. The same game can be used against the neo-cons. Look at their agenda and there are frightening similarities between them and the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany of the 1940s. See it works both ways.
Both Hilliary and Obama are considered moderate Democrats by almost all serious political analysts.

Answer 5

I would highly suggest doing your own research in this. Don't listen to other people. When you post a question like that on here you are going to get a lot of extremist type people, who are going to say what they want, because they believe they are right no matter what. I think it's always best to look at a lot of different articles, and their own website, check out their voting records- see if they jive with how YOU feel, and form your own opinions.

Answer 6

No. People who use the socialist label regarding Hillary Clinton have nothing to back it up. Hillary’s major contributors are corporate. The health care industry has contributed more to Hillary than to any other candidate. I wonder why that is?

Answer 7

Neither. Both H.Clinton and Barak Obama are liberals--not socialists. I know the right wing labels anything to theleft of Atilla the Hun as "liberal, socialist, communist.." But that description simply shows they don't even know what theterms mean.

Socialism is a politial-economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the state. Neither advocates that.

Answer 8

Socialist needs to be defined. I feel that a socialist wants to "take" and "give" to someone else what is not theirs. Where Obama stands on some issues is not clear yet. Ms. Clinton wants to increase taxes to "give" to someone else, something they did not earn. I have never worked for anybody who was a welfare recipient. All my employers were wealthy companies or individuals. If I earn an asset, I tend to take better care of that asset. If I feel I might not be able to keep that asset, that it might be taken away, I would be afraid to obtain it. If it was free, there would be no desire for me to earn it. Look at Cuba. Crime is low, but there is nothing there worth stealing. Have you seen the antique cars?

Answer 9

Oh Oh! That socialist word again. I think people fear that word more than what it realy is. We just can't continue down this reckless path we're on. Spend, spend in the name of conservatism? Borrowing billions to finance tax-cuts for the wealthy? Billions for the war machine? Socialism in this fashion is blind. Go Hillary.

Answer 10

Obama maybe, but Clinton none whatsoever, Clinton haters will say anything to bash and destry that name, Clinton is actually more moderate when you look at her voting record.

Her gender along with hating Republicans is giving this false rumor, here's proof.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm