Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opposition to Obama on abortion

I added some information on a few influential people that oppose Obama's views on abortion. I think such material deserves to be included even though it is maybe controversial, since not all of Obama's policies have received a unanimous, universal approval. ADM (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's positions on abortion have been highly controversial among US Catholic bishops, with one American Archbishop in Rome, Raymond Burke, saying that the President "could be an agent of death" if his support for abortion rights becomes a model for leaders in other countries. He also accused Obama of "weakening the faith of everyone". In November 2008, Cardinal James Stafford made similar comments, speaking of "an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic" , thus echoing similar beliefs among Christians that Obama is an Antichrist President, an accusation that was first made in the Middle Ages on Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Gregory IX.

I don't see how that's at all germane to this article; it's not about criticism of his political positions. The only other times criticism is discussed is when he has directly addressed it or changed course because of it. We could add a criticism paragraph to every single section of this article, but that's not what its aim is. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rolled back these edits, as they were commentary. This article is only about stated political opinions, and in rare cases, opinions derived from legislative actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this information doesn't belong here, but perhaps in Public image of Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejnogarb (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should dissent to his policies get tossed in with the nutcases who think he's Islamic when he's clearly a Pharaoh? Hcobb (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A page depicting criticism of the President is being compiled here and will be posted when it is up to our standards. I suggest all future contibuters wishing to add content of this nature be pointed in its direction. - Schrandit (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inserting "Democrat" into Lede

There used to be a reference of Obama's liberalism in the lede, but it was removed. I propose inserting a sentence about Obama's (obvious) membership in the Democratic Party, since it nicely summarizes the majority of his political positions. For example: "As the party's highest-ranking elected official, Barack Obama's political positions typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology." Opinions?  EJNOGARB  05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source for such a statement, and I doubt you will find one. Obama is a Democrat, but that does not mean that he follows a Democratic Party "ideology". There is no specific Democratic ideology anyway. Obama's political positions may be drawn from a host of ideologies that may differ significantly from other Democrats. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic Party's ideology is its platform. According to NPR, "Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time." Or, you can read the last four paragraphs of this article from the Washington Post. I think the first source is best, and a sentence in the lede could say: "Barack Obama's political positions typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology," or "According to NPR, Obama 'voted with his party 97 percent of the time.'" Opinions?  EJNOGARB  17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Nope. Your first sentence is pure synthesis, and your second sentence is not a political position. Of course, Obama's voting record is going to be heavily skewed because he was running for President for a large chunk of it (which meant he couldn't make every vote). Obama is noted, in fact, for transcending the usual political ideologies - it even says so in one of your sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Obvious. I don't see how anyone could object unless they are pushing a strong bias on the article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - So you think we should completely ignore WP:SYN and just call everyone who disagrees with you "biased", eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The NPR source, however, doesn't rely on synthesis, and a political party affiliation is a political position. Second, Obama wasn't campaigning for three years, and his voting record is an average (and thus any absences wouldn't be reflected). Third, the article you mentioned lists many ways in which he is the "great non sequitur" (race, youth, etc.) but reports on how his bipartisan claims are largely unsupported. This insertion isn't meant to reflect any bias whatsoever, but simply state the obvious fact that Obama is a Democrat, and usually votes that way.  EJNOGARB  17:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources support your phrasing "typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology". None of them. That is the synthesis part - the bit where you synthesize meaning from sources that don't state things explicitly. Geddit? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. A reliable source (NPR) states: "Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time."  EJNOGARB  17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But it does not say that Obama follows his party ideology. That is synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is insisting that it read that way. Above, I wrote that another good insertion could be: "According to NPR, Obama 'voted with his party 97 percent of the time.'" I'd like to achieve a true consensus, and not just a majority, on how this is worded. If you feel strongly about Obama, there is nothing in such a statement which is negative.  EJNOGARB  18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how I "feel". It is about Wikipedia policy. The ideology thing is pure synthesis, and Obama's voting record is not a "political position". It has no place in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your constant citation of "synthesis" is nothing but wp:wikilawyering to obfuscate the obvious. Everything that needs to be said has been, so we should now wait and see what other editors think.  EJNOGARB  18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is common for people who don't like Wikipedia's rules and guidelines to call people who do "wikilawyers". The only thing that is "obvious" here is that you are frustrated that your agenda has been thwarted, since you have resorted to name-calling. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite to the New York Times that states the obvious. [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read, but all it really does is note in passing an ideological grade given by the National Journal. Ideology is not the party, and even if it were, how exactly is this a "political position" anyways? This is an article to go into detail about his positions on political issues. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - And what do (CoM) you consider "the obvious" to be? The article you cite says things like the following:

"He brings to politics a desire to find common ground, which makes it impossible to predict exactly how he would line up on various people’s litmus test issues."

"I think he comes at things in a way that is perpendicular to the usual left-right axis."

"He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy [] which at the time infuriated liberals."

Quotes like these seem to support the thinking that Obama may not fit the "typical Democratic party ideology". Thank you for making it more "obvious" that your thinking is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because those quotes don't cite any specific examples, they are meaningless. The article does cite some specific examples, such as "He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, which at the time infuriated liberals (13 Democrats opposed her). He formed alliances with Republicans on a handful of noncontroversial issues, including wasteful government spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." Of course it also says, "According to a ranking by National Journal, Mr. Obama’s voting record is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate, compared with 79.8 percent for Mrs. Clinton. The American Conservative Union gave him a ranking of 8." And the NPR citation of him voting with his party 97% of the time is also relevant. All of this could be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, you said, "Obama's voting record is not a 'political position.' It has no place in this article." Then please answer a question that I asked, but no one answered, in the talk archive. If the article can't have a rating from Citizens Against Government Waste about Obama's voting record, then why is it OK for the article to have a rating from the League of Conservation Voters based on Obama's voting record? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate. I'd like to see it removed. I'd like to see all positions derived from voting record removed, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If a politician says that he takes one side on an issue, but he votes the other way, then in the interest of balance, shouldn't both of those things be mentioned in the article? What's the politician's actual position - the way he talks, or the way he votes? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A vote for a particular policy will not always be an indication of support for that policy. Votes are often traded - "I'll vote for this if you vote for that" happens. And also you get situations like when the Party of No votes "no" when some of them would prefer to vote "yes". They do so because they have been told to by their party whip. Another example would be the current "most liberal senator", Ted Kennedy. He gets this rating because he only comes into the Senate for the most important votes due to his poor health. The same thing happened to Obama during the campaign - he could only make it back to the Senate for the most important votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this particular article should focus on exactly what it's called, his political positions. Any additional cruft, properly sourced of course, is probably already in his main article, where it belongs. Do we really have to point out "He's a Democrat" here when it's probably already on the {{main|Barack Obama}} page? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to point out "He's a Democrat" here -- In an article about political positions, yes. This is a bizarre thread. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Democrat" is not a political position, just as "Republican" isn't. Those terms refer to party affiliation or membership. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is a partisan issue. Someone explain it to me? --Raijinili (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be when I introduced the idea. User:Scjessey wields tight control over any article related to Obama.  EJNOGARB  03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. All your article are belong to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on to you!  EJNOGARB  03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "a woman's right to choose"

This seems like a highly charged political term. Why not just say abortion's legal status? - Schrandit (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a highly-charged political term. Who says it is? Anyway, it is besides the point. It is the term used by Obama, and it is the term used by the reliable source. Obama was specifically talking about the right of a woman to choose, not the legality of abortion - the two are not necessarily the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey on this. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM has since put this in quotes, which makes sense, and then clarified the statement with terms from opponents. CoM's changes strike the proper balance, and I endorse them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, now that the term is in quotations I'm good. - Schrandit (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Seems like this is being well covered. I hate current eventish type material, but can that section be updated per this citation? TIA Tom (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The source you have provided speaks about a possible change in plans, rather than a concrete change in position. I cannot see how that is relevant here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, it talks about what the administration is considering, so no problem waiting unless something more comes of it. The section now reads aas a sort of timeline so I thought this might be relevant. I came here first rather than editing the article. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Outside opinion" versus "political position"

Just because it's not part of his official political position doesn't mean that it's not relevant in an article about his political position. --Raijinili (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has long been that the purpose of this article is to describe his actual stated political positions, not opinions about those positions. We could easily double the size of this article with dozens of rankings, "scorecards" and editorials for or against various positions, but then it would simply become a WP:COATRACK and cease to be in any way useful as an encyclopedic reference. Better to stick with the facts and let the readers form their own opinions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Show me.

As I see it, calling the article his political opinions and restricting it to his official positions would make it a coatrack. In fact, doing so would also make it a WP:SOAPBOX for him, acting as his megaphone without allowing any contrary viewpoints. --Raijinili (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how the criticisms and commentaries of interest groups, left or right, have any place in the article. The subject here is quite clear; political positions that Obama has taken in his career. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, political positions he has taken, not those that he professes. That's where outside commentary comes in. If this article is just a bunch of political positions that he claims, then it might as well be a link to his website. --Raijinili (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to understand that there a many articles on Wikipedia that encompass this issue. Consider this list, with respect to political positions:

1. Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama - for political statements (speeches, pledges, etc.) and actions (legislative record) made while he was an Illinois State Senator.
2. United States Senate career of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made while he was a US Senator.
3. Presidency of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions (executive decisions, requests for legislation, etc.) made while POTUS.
4. Political positions of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made during his entire political career, including stuff while he was not holding public office.

Now it seems to me that it is appropriate for reasonable external opinions, where appropriate, to be included in the general prose of the first 3 articles because they provide context; however, this article should primarily reflect his stated positions and any positions one can ascertain from his legislative record (and that does not mean his voting record, which is something else entirely). Expanding this article to include third-party opinions would make it decidedly unwieldy, because you would have to include third-party opinion (neutrally-balanced mix of positive and negative) for every position in order for it to be fair. That would make this article a battleground of the worst kind, because every positive and negative opinion piece for every position would instantly come under scrutiny. Partisan bickering and edit-warring would ensue, and this article would also become a vandal magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, as it is, why does this article belong on Wikipedia? Not allowing commentary to the contrary is a violation of NPOV, and what you describe might as well be a list of facts or a Wikiquote page. --Raijinili (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a "list of..." article, because there are simply so many items on it you cannot get too elaborate. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to list a stated position. It would only be a violation if that stated position was accompanied by positive or negative opinion of that position. Having positive and negative would be okay, but the article would increase in size by an order of magnitude, making it unworkable. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It is a violation to only list stated positions. In particular, it violates WP:Undue weight.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

"In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

While Obama's views (on his own positions) might not be "minority", they are not universal, and I feel that the policy (that all views be presented with due weight) applies.

Your statement is that the alternative would make things harder for the editors. This is incomparable to the importance of making the article encyclopedic, and a list of official stances is not encyclopedic. I called it a mouthpiece. What do you have to say about that? --Raijinili (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be belligerent. If your arguments have merit, let them speak for themselves without the bluster. You mischaracterize my responses. As I indicated before, the 3 articles relating to Obama's public office give the opportunity to weave opinion about political positions neatly into contextual prose. Because they focus on the more significant positions, there is space for a proper exploration of those opinions in an appropriate weight. And while we are on the subject, your quotation of that policy reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of it. "All significant viewpoints" only applies when there are viewpoints being expressed. This article is not meant to judge the political positions of Barack Obama, but merely to present them for review with references pointing to how and when these positions were expressed. As to your assertion that a list of official stances is not encyclopedic, I would point out that (a) this is not just official stances, but also stances derived from legislation, and (b) this is perfectly normal and common on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it for emphasis, so that it couldn't be ignored, nothing more. You had not addressed the contention that the article was nothing more than a mouthpiece.

Having the official viewpoint is still a viewpoint (Obama's) on a fact (his political position). I have not misunderstood policy, at least not in that regard.

"Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured." Sentences like that are probably all over the article, and there's another in that same paragraph which is less neutral (the last one, if you want to know). There should be made a clear distinction between what he says and what Wikipedia verified (or at least, can verify).

While the existence of such articles doesn't endorse their existence, such an argument doesn't prove that they shouldn't exist either, so I'll also argue against this, using the same type of argument:

Political positions of John McCain

"McCain's 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Economic Policy is 64% conservative, 35% liberal (52% conservative, 47% liberal in 2005)"

Political positions of Sarah Palin

"According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla (a town of 6,700 residents) benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office." (admittedly took me a while to find, compared to above, so I'll give another)

"The Program has come under criticism and legal actions from wildlife activists stating the purpose of the program is to increase the numbers of prey species to unsustainable levels for sport hunters, residents and non residents of Alaska."

Political positions of Joe Biden

"Biden's record on abortion is pro-choice, receiving a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in four of the last five years, although he received a 36% as recently as 2003. "

Political positions of Mitt Romney

"However, in July 2007, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the president of the American Family Foundation, and Daniel Weiss, media analyst for James Dobson's Focus on the Family said Romney had not prevented Marriott Hotels from making pornography available in its hotel rooms when he served on the hotel chain's board from 1992 to 2001. " (admittedly also hard to find, and can be argued to support the sentence following it)

"In January 2008, a comprehensive analysis by the National Taxpayers Union found that Romney's presidential campaign proposals would increase the federal budget by $19.5 billion."

Political positions of Ron Paul

"The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005)."

That was an interesting survey. Either it appeared almost right away, or it didn't appear for almost the majority of the article. Different people are editing these things.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If you say that other such articles exist, I say that those articles also give outside views. I claim that my statement's validity follows from yours, so if what I said isn't a valid argument, neither is what you said (about "other articles"). --Raijinili (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting the existence of these articles was one of the ways I was clarifying the reason for this article's existence, but I am not suggesting that we should embrace the flaws of those articles, which you have so carefully cherry-picked. Also, by "mouthpiece" I take it means you think that this is nothing more than an extension of Obama's own media organization or something? That is, of course, a ludicrous assertion that is utterly without merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire argument is about whether they are flaws at all, so let's not start applying labels which are the subject of debate, unless you can show clear consensus across all such articles. As for cherry-picking, the ones that only have one example provided had them occurring early in the article, which is why I didn't bother looking for a second.

Yes, the existence of the others is only one part of your argument, but you brought them up as counterexamples to my objections, so I simply demonstrated how they were not counterexamples.

By "mouthpiece", I mean to say that allowing only his views on his opinions makes the article about as useful as a link to his website, since it's probably updated often. What does this article offer if it's just a restatement of what he says about things? If it's his legislative record, that can be shown more accurately with a link to a second website (listing senator voting records) which I'm sure exists.

Calm down. You didn't respond to my point about Undue Weight. ---Raijinili (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

These are not only "his views", but also his policies and the positions derived from his legislative record. As I have already stated above, that is not the same as his voting record. His legislative record encompasses bills he has sponsored and cosponsored during his political career. Votes are another matter completely, because they are not an accurate record of his political positions. Voting is often controlled by the party whip, so a politician may vote for something he dislikes or disagrees with in order to acquire a vote for something else he agrees with more (a trade, if you will). Sometimes a politician is forced to vote for something he is against because it forms part of an Omnibus or Appropriations bill that includes lots of other stuff that he is for. So a politician's voting record is an exceedingly poor indicator of political position. And I did respond to your claim of undue weight in an earlier comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I would expect a senator voting records website to have the sponsors and cosponsors, so I didn't see the need to include that. I can't imagine a site detailed enough to have , but I admit I've been disappointed by websites before, so fair enough. I clarify my statement with "websites giving full details about bills in the Senate, including sponsorships, specific senator votes, amendments, and committees which make those amendments."

You say "derived". Please give me a specific example of what you consider to fall under this, so I can respond.

You responded to my earlier claim of undue weight. I responded to that response. From what I can see, you claimed that this did not have to follow Undue Weight because it presented no views, and I responded that official positions are a view on actual position. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, that this article should concentrate on Obama's positions, not their policy effect or what opinions people have of them. Outside views are okay in terms of analyzing and getting to the heart of things - neutral independent reliable secondary sourcing is better than simply picking and choosing among Obama's diect statements. But outside opinions, either reported directly by primary sourcing or coverage of those opinions, are not relevant and would turn this article into something else that is far less encyclopedic. One thing to note, as I've pointed out before, is that "positions" is a nebulous thing because it encompasses campaign promises and platforms, official statements, legislative proposals, actual official acts, and coverage of Obama's actual beliefs and motivations on things. That's a lot of different things to wrap up in a bundle, and we should be clear to distinguish among them.Wikidemon (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about opinions about what his opinions are, rather than opinions about the stances themselves (i.e. whether or not he supports <topic>, rather than what other people think about his support of <topic>). --Raijinili (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then in the abstract I would think that cogent news analysis in the context of a news story by a reliable source is useful. Editorials, op ed pieces, blogs, partisan things, etc., would be subject to all the usual concerns over reliable sourcing. Further, as an editorial decision, I would avoid any "news about the news" style coverage, and stick with Obama's positions themselves, not try to document the views of all the commentators (though there may be appropriate places in Wikipedia for that, it's a fair call to say that this article sticks with Obama himself). Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...what? --Raijinili (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I said... Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just that you said "Obama's positions" and "commentators", and I'm not sure what that second half of your comment means. Your edit comment and first half seem to be supporting outside opinions on what his positions are, though. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a try by putting some of those outside sources into the article once. Someone else took them out. I won't edit war, so I'm done with that. Also - Ron Paul, whom I wrote in for President in 2008, is a liberal! Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia implies he's described as Conservative and not Liberal.

The above statement was meant to be humorous somehow. I'm not really sure how. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul is actually libertarian. He favors drug legalization, and voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and all these corporate bailouts. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Political position and voting record

I don't really care how you word it as long as it is accurate, but a voting record is an important part of a politician's political position. Here is the content that needs to be readded appropriately. Thanks. "While In the U.S. Senate, Obama voted with his own political party 97% of the time. ref Measuring McCain And Obama's Bipartisan Efforts, NPR, July 2, 2008 /ref The American Conservative Union gave Obama a rating of 8%. refTesting the Water, Obama Tests His Own Limits, The New York Times, December 24, 2006 /ref" The rating given by the American Conservative Union is also notable and wholly NPOV. It is what it is. And finally, of course, please add Democratic party affiliations to the introduction. This is an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Political positions are many things, but being a member of a political party, and a statistic about voting with one's party, are not political positions. There is no harm in an aside somewhere that Obama is Democrat, but that does not elucidate what his positions are. Describing the President as Democrat or Republican puts an undue emphasis on the parties. He is America's president now. If Obama's 97% voting record in the senate can be sourced as anything noteworthy it makes the most sense to mention it in the article about his senate career. Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Democrat" doesn't mean anything by itself. It's just a label. It doesn't tell you much about Obama's positions on specific issues. It wouldn't improve the article by applying general labels, and may in fact be bad for it, since people would look at the statistic and unconciously make conclusions, based on their own feelings, which aren't relevant in this context. The point of this article seems to be to expand on the positions, rather than summarize them. --Raijinili (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)