Edwards supporters: who is your second choice, if your candidate doesn't rally a win?

[awaysidetraveler]

Or will you rally behind a second candidate?

Please, do not consider this question an attempt to sway you from your candidate of choice.
I think that's neither necessary or appropriate.

Also, I believe that Senator Edwards deserves all of our respect,
and I would--on a personal level--be proud to have him as our president.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I'm sticking with Edwards for the duration

I'll support the eventual nominee

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Ditto. nt

[pauldg0]

147. Me too!!

DITTO!!!

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John E. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516


Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father’s legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father’s legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,





Martin L. King, III

[awaysidetraveler]

11. If the candidacy remains as split as it is currently, with 38-36 elected delegates, what then?

[Fresh_Start]

15. why should that change my mind?

the election is not about the candidates dreams, wishes or ambition.
Its about the people's choice: my choice.
And my choice is Edwards.

[awaysidetraveler]

23. Right... well, I can respect your choice. It is a fine one.

What are the main issues that he represents, which you connect with so completely?

[Fresh_Start]

31. here's my post from last week

I'm a late boomer like Obama (1 year older)

During that time -
I've seen manufacturing leave the US
I've seen service jobs leave the US
I've seen professional jobs leave the US
I've seen corporations hire professionals overseas and board them 4/apartment here in the US while Americans in the same occupations can't get jobs because they can't live 4/apartment
I've seen income practically stagnant
I've seen ppl's retirements virtually lost because companies were able to use bankruptcy to get out of prior retirement commitments
my retirement plans have been restructed so that right now I expect to see <40% what I was expecting to receive in 1999
I'm worried about whether 3 children have anything like the opportunies me and my spouse had (and ours weren't great because we were late boomer)

I've seen plenty of bipartisanship when it serves the interest of business or agriculture
I've seen virtually no bipartisanship when it serves the interest of human citizens (esp those that are the least among us - children, elderly, disabled)

Edwards is the only candidate talking about trying to rebalance the scales so that we the people matter.
I'm doing fine (I was doing great while Clinton was in office). But I have three children to worry about.

No issue, absolutely no issue, is as important to me as protecting the future of our children.
For the future of our children, I care about putting people first in politics. If people are the made the most important priority, education, the environment, healthcare, and labor will assume their correct places high in the priorities of the country.

[awaysidetraveler]

36. Those are excellent reasons. And I believe that there is another candidate who can represent you.

I respect your dedication and thoughts on the importance of this election.

[Fresh_Start]

41. not Clinton and not Obama for sure NT

NT

[awaysidetraveler]

47. Really? Well... that will be problematic should one of them win.

Why not? I won't jump down your throat, though I will look up information
and I will debate with you.

[Fresh_Start]

55. I already said I'd support the eventual nominee NT

NT

[awaysidetraveler]

60. Okay, let me know if you're ready to talk issues of substance.

Or race or gender for that matter.

The democrats are going to need all of us this year, no matter who wins.

[Fresh_Start]

61. So you are dismissing my issues as 'not of substance'

let me guess - you're for Obama

[awaysidetraveler]

64. No, Kucinich... but I'd be happy with either an Edwards/Obama ticket or an Obama/Edwards ticket

And I'm not dismissing any of your issues. I'd like to know what all of them are about either
Hillary or Obama.

[NastyRiffraff]

28. I'm not thinking about a second candidate during the primaries

John Edwards has said he's in it for the duration, and I'm sticking with him. If he doesn't quit, I won't either.

I will vote for the nominee, and I hope that will be John Edwards. Let the rest of the states' voters have their say!

[awaysidetraveler]

32. Well, I respect that quite a bit, and I'd like to know what issue keeps you with him most.

[zalinda]

53. That's easy, don't even have to think about it

His positions on oil, pharmaceutical, health insurance and other such unethical corporations, he's against them. His position on media consolidation, he's against it. His position on the environment, he wants to clean it up. His position unlawful spying on Americans, he's against it. His position on universal health care, he's for it. His position on Guantanamo, he want to close it. His position on poverty, he wants to end it. His position on the war, he wants to end it. His position on the Constitution, he wants to bring it back. His position on education, he wants to make it available to everyone. His position on jobs, he wants to create green ones. His position on the US, he wants to make it respected again. And his willingness to fight for us to get our country back.

And these are only some of the reasons.

zalinda

[awaysidetraveler]

62. We're on the same page, and if you keep those positions in mind we'll be on the same candidate.

You just named a score of reasons that if I can't have an Edwards/Obama victory, I want an Obama/Edwards victory.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C...

[zalinda]

122. Actually no, we are not on the same page

I could never support an Obama/Edwards ticket. I think Obama is just a gas bag. I hear no substance in him at all.

zalinda

[Hieronymus]

96. Thanks, you speak for me, as well.

[NastyRiffraff]

58. It's not ONE issue; it's the entire package.

But I'll list some:

His advocacy for the poor and middle class. Not only has he emphasized this in speeches, he's "walked the talk"
As a part of that advocacy, his determination to take on the corporate lobbyists, the insurance companies and Big Pharma. NO other candidate has addressed that issue as forcefully, and has unequivocally said he wouldn't give them a "seat at the table." (Edwards said "If you give them a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food!")
His stance on the Iraq occupation, and he calls that by the right word.

Most of all, I believe Edwards WILL fight for me, and my country. Giving up is just not a part of his mindset.

[awaysidetraveler]

66. Yeah, those are the issues I care about as well. They're worth fighting for.

I hope either Edwards wins and Obama joins him, or Obama wins and Edwards joins him.
I hope this, because I care most about lobbying money in D.C. and the war in Iraq.

[and-justice-for-all]

146. Same here..nt

[itsrobert]

2. Hmm, has this question been asked before?

It sounds very familiar.

[awaysidetraveler]

5. Yeah sorry, it just seems like it's late enough in the season to ask.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I will vote for the Democratic candidate...

I don't have a second choice. All my favorites have dropped out already except for Edwards and Kucinich, and I just don't see that adding my support to Dennis is going to accomplish anything, sadly.

[awaysidetraveler]

8. Why would you consider neither Hillary or Obama?

[Blue_In_AK]

19. I said I would vote for either if they win the nomination.

I don't want to contribute to the decline in the level of discourse here by stating my reasons for not being completely enthusiastic about Clinton or Obama. Suffice to say that they both seem to be to the right of my personal political comfort zone. I am looking for a true progressive (as I have been for as long as I can remember), and neither of these fits the bill for me.

But, again, I WILL vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be in the end. The alternative is unthinkable.

[awaysidetraveler]

40. I've noticed that Edwards supporters are not divisive, at large.

Also I've lived in AK for a long time.

Now I am voting for Obama, just to clarify. And I don't think that he leans to the right.

His Reagan comment was about electoral strategy, and it was not about Reagan's policies.

As for Hillary, I don't know what you mean by leaning to the right.

[Blue_In_AK]

107. I guess I should clarify

that I'm a die-hard lefty, so almost everybody is too far right for my tastes. LOL. I understand, of course, that Obama wasn't literally saying that Reagan was a wonderful president -- it was just a little disconcerting to hear him compliment him for ANYTHING, even electoral strategy. I guess I'm a little touchy since I see Reagan as the the one who initially started our country down this dark path.

And Hillary? Too friendly with the corporations, plus I'm just tired of Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. I think it's time for a change. A BIG change.

[awaysidetraveler]

125. Edwards is progressive, that's true, but so is Obama.

I've never been more impressed with a speaker in all my life.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

And, I might add, Obama does seem to understand the difference between city folk and way-out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere folk.
As Alaskans know, that's no small difference in a candidate, and it's important to most Alaskans that those differences in ways of living be respected.

Edwards is progressive, but take a look at Obama's positions and I think you'll find
a whole bunch fall right in line with Edward's thinking.

I'd be happy with Edwards/Obama in 2008, and I'd also be happy with Obama/Edwards in 2008.

Best of Luck!

[Two Americas]

136. progressive

I am an Edwards supporter and I am not looking for "progressive" in a candidate. "Progressive" is about the interests of the people who are in the upper 10% household income bracket and their admirers and wannabes, in the range of $70,000 to $150,000 or so.

"Progressive" does nothing for the bottom half, those left behind and left out. I stand with them.

Clinton and Obama are certainly liberal and not too far to the right for me, necessarily. The problem is that what we think of as "left" today or "liberal" does nothing for people outside of the progressive enlightened circle, and that is most of the people in the country. They are better than any Republican for the 10% who are upscale, professional and still able to live a middle class life. The other 90% have fallen out of the middle class and it is getting harder and harder to climb back up. For them, it is not necessarily true that a Democrat is better than a Republican. We need to change that.

[Bluebear]

4. It can't be Obama because of his hiring "ex-gays" to host his events.

Sorry :(

[awaysidetraveler]

7. That's the strangest thing I've ever heard. What do you mean?

[Bluebear]

9. McClurkin & Caldwell. Obama panders to religious types & throws gays under the bus.

I have no use for his brand of "unity".

[awaysidetraveler]

14. Well, I've got a kind word from Obama here on gays, and I think Hillary's alright with them too.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C...

[Bluebear]

18. Talk is cheap. He lost my vote.

[awaysidetraveler]

29. Respectfully sir, that is one of the greatest speeches that have ever been written.

Unity will not be cheap, and the words that buy them will be dearly sold.

[Bluebear]

34. Writing speeches is easy. Saying no to "ex-gays" in exchange for votes is evidently harder.

No pretty words can heal what Obama has done with his gagle of "ex-gays" appearing for him.

[awaysidetraveler]

45. So you will go for Hillary, then?

[Bluebear]

65. No, Edwards is my candidate now

I won't count him out until he says he is out.

[awaysidetraveler]

76. I respect that.

You know Bluebear, my gay cousin introduced me to Obama in NYC.

I came in from Alaska, and visited with him for a bit. He said the same thing that you did about "ex-gays" and such.
And we complained about how the city changed under Guliani. Now it's like to where--get this--you can't drink a beer
while sitting on your own stoop, in front of your own home. It's illegal, and a 50$ fine.

When I saw Obama speak that day, the first thing he said in Washington Square Park was about how
he used to hang out in that same park and drink beer. "It was freer then," he said, and then he admitted that
his manager was waving him down.

I knew then that he got it, and I listened longer.

The speech I just sent you was a reconciliatory speech and a speech of unity.

We need that now because our freedoms are at stake: lobbyists and war dogs have taken them, and we've got to get them back somehow.

My respects to Senator Edwards. And if I cannot have Edwards/Obama in 2008, then I pray you'll join me for Obama/Edwards

[sandyd921]

10. Edwards, Edwards, Edwards! n/t

[Maddy McCall]

12. McCain.

Ha! Gotcha! :P

[awaysidetraveler]

17. That really frightened me. Got me good.

[stravu9]

13. I Do Not Feel ,At This time I can Support Anyone Else...

I'm not saying that couldn't change, but right now it's Edwards only for me or "send a message to the Party who deserted my interests."

[Tennessee Gal]

16. Ditto!

[stravu9]

26. Do NOT GO Gentle Into That Goodnight!

RAGE! RAGE Against the Dying of the LIGHT!
NEVER SURRENDER!

[asdjrocky]

20. Don't have one yet,

And I mean no disrespect to any of the other candidates, but I don't play, thinking about second place.

[awaysidetraveler]

49. Yeah, I've got to respect that.

[asdjrocky]

57. I like your style buddy,

You should feel free to stick around.

[IndianaGreen]

21. I am running out of people to support, I went from Kucinich to Biden

Now I am rooting for Edwards because he is the only attack dog we have for the working class. If he drops out, I will support Obama. If Hillary wins, I'll just skip the Presidential election altogether and concentrate on getting our local candidates elected, particularly our gubernatorial candidate. The Indiana Democratic ticket will be hurt overall by having Hillary at the top of the slate.

[awaysidetraveler]

51. Yeah, that's about where I am.

Here's Obama's latest speech, which you may appreciate.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C...

Please join us in 2008!

[Catchawave]

22. Definitely Nobama, leaning Hillary

I've been supporting Edwards since 2003 and will til he tells me to stop. :hi:

[awaysidetraveler]

52. Why no Obama?

[Frances]

24. Hillary is my second choice,

but I will support Obama in the general if he wins the nomination.

[awaysidetraveler]

54. Interesting! What issue makes you lean this way?

[melody]

25. Edwards.

I was leaning toward Obama as a possible second choice, but I so detest and loathe Ronald Reagan that his comment has called
that into question. We need the anti-Reagan not another one.

I wish those who must malign John's record would actually look at it and consider the circumstances.

I'm with John until he formally drops out. From there, I'll choose. ANY Democrat is better than any Republican,
so it's the only choice in the General.

[awaysidetraveler]

59. Yeah, I also hated--hated--hated Reagan.

Still, I can see what Obama was trying to do, and I think it was shrewd.

All he said was that the nation changed trajectory during that election period,
and that Reagan saw that and caught the wave.

Even that nod was enough to piss me off too.

It's unfortunate, even though I think that the nod to Reagan will
win him more independent votes in rural areas. Just as it did do in Nevada.

If you're tired of spin and ready for a message of substance about Obama, try this one.
It is the most inspirational speech I've heard in my lifetime.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C...

[Gman]

27. Lee L. Mercer Jr.

He can take out Obama and Hillary.

[Critters2]

149. Me too! (all three) nt

[ShadesOfGrey]

30. I'm with Edwards for as long as he's in the race. My second...

choice (of the top three) changes daily. Right now I'm lukewarm on them both but I'll definitely vote for either in the GE.

[awaysidetraveler]

63. Well, what issues move you most about Edwards?

[Two Americas]

141. nothing

It isn't a personality contest.

I am moved by the possibility that the bottom half - the have-nots, the forgottten and left behind people - will no longer be invisible and will no longer comntimnue to be ground under the heels of the "winners" and successful people. I am moved by the fact that there are people here who care about that as well. I stand with them.

For me, it has nothing to do with this candidate versus that candidate, which one is better, which one do I "like" the most.

[SeattleGirl]

33. I have no idea.

For me, having anyone but Edwards as the Dem nominee feels like "settling", and I did that in '04.

I DO want a Dem as President, but I confess, if Edwards isn't the nominee, I'm really going to have to think about it.

[awaysidetraveler]

56. Well, what key issues moved you to vote for Edwards?

And can I supply any information to help you make up your mind?

[Yuugal]

109. Tell me again about the rabbits........

I'm mean:

Explain Obama's fear mongering on SS

Explain why I should trust a guy with 100 million in corporate cash

Explain how working with people who hate dems and everything they stand for is better than building a dem majority

Those are my major problems with Obama.

[awaysidetraveler]

117. Okay, Lennie just set right there and I'll tell you all about it.

Only you're gonna have to click here first.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4075068

And then you're gonna have to realize that he's not a fear mongering, and he's not a 100 million in corp. cash (that's Hillary),
and he's not a Reaganite, neither.

And then I'll let you play with the bunnies, but only if you don't break their heads off.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Edwards/Obama 2008, or Obama/Edwards if it's already too late.

[Yuugal]

127. Holy missing topic Batman!

First link didn't work.... :)

From the second link:

"We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant."

Great oratory, except it didn't say much about the problem I see. You can't have unity with a machine. That is what a corporation is, a money making machine. It has no heart no mind no soul and if you set the controls for "make money no matter who gets hurt", the country goes to shit.

I don't want unity with the machine. I want it reprogrammed.

"HAL: Hey, Dave, what are you doing?

HAL: Hey, Dave. I've got ten years of service experience and an irreplaceable amount of time and effort has gone into making me what I am.

HAL: Dave, I don't understand why you're doing this to me.... I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission... You are destroying my mind... Don't you understand?... I will become childish... I will become nothing."


The American corporate machine is afraid of the reprogramming it needs and its going to be a fight.

[BostonMa]

35. NOBAMA

[awaysidetraveler]

48. Why nobama?

[still_one]

37. OK, Hillary supporters, if your candidate drops out, who is your second choice?

[awaysidetraveler]

68. You know, I'm starting to think that Hillary bloggers are all in some tiny lobbyist office somewhere

Because they never want to talk substance.

[still_one]

38. Obama supporters, if your candidate drops out, who is your second choice?

[awaysidetraveler]

69. Edwards all the way for this Obama supporter.

[Quixote1818]

39. Pat Robertson. nt

[bpeale]

42. i will not vote for any other candidate but Edwards, no matter what

[awaysidetraveler]

70. Why is that? And what if Edwards drops out? Who then? And how can I help this?

For if Edwards discontinues his presidential race, then his supporters will have to unify behind someone.

[bpeale]

140. after Edwards, no one

i will vote for no one. and why is it your mission to change my mind? i won't vote for either of the other 2 candidates, no matter what. my vote cannot be bought.

on edit: and we DON'T have to unite behind anyone either.

[Kixel]

43. I'm a Yellow Dog Dem

Whoever gets the endorsement will have my support.

[waiting for hope]

44. Edwards all the way - I don't feel the need to

chose a second....oh wait, John Edwards!

[awaysidetraveler]

72. When will you feel a need to choose a second?

[Critters2]

150. Never. I have no second choice. John Edwards is my choice. nt

[readmoreoften]

46. In the general: I won't vote for Obama, I will vote for Hillary with little joy.

In practice, I don't think Obama or McCain will be much different. McCain's neoconservative backers also back Obama. Obama is continuing the neoconservative strategy of using LGBT issues to divide the African-American vote from the Democratic party. Obama supports overseas military expansionism to support "vital assets". (Per the CFR speech on his website.) He has Friedmanite economists on his team.

Obama is either a progressive magician (he will trick the Right into voting for a progressive candidate) or he is a neoconservative attache set up to permanently dismantle the left. His supporters believe he is the former. I'd bet money he's the latter. His rhetoric against the stalwarts of the party and for the enemies of the party (anti-Gore, anti-activist, pro-Reagan) and his adoption of neocon rhetoric "faith" and "family" with no change in meaning whatsoever bodes ill for us.

If Clinton is elected, the Democratic Party won't change (and it needs to change). If Obama is elected, it will become a complete enigma.

Frankly, I think we're in far more dangerous territory than in '00 or '04.

[awaysidetraveler]

79. Respectfully, I disagree: there is an world of difference between McCain and Obama

Obama will take us out of Iraq now--not later. Obama will take on lobbying interests in a substantive way, like Edwards.
In fact, it's a miracle he's gotten so far without pandering to big-money interests. For that matter, it's a miracle Edwards has
gotten as far as he has.

Obama's overseas expansionism? No, that's simply inaccurate. Obama will remove troops from Iraq now. Moreover, he will
remove troops from Afghanistan as fast as he can, because he understands the underlying reason for our conflict and he's fought
that conflict since 2002. They are fighting us, because we are on their soil. Obama has said as much, and he will work to
remove our troops from the region.

As for Darfur, well... I guess that's expansionism. Only it's also humanitarian aid. Those guys are pathetic, and most of them
would be better off if we were there. No... it's aid and not expansionism.

This is sad. Look, I can prove to you that he's not a neocon attache. The most viable proof of this is the fact that GE is
working with the same neocons who brought you Whitewater and the Libby fiasco to bring down this Rezko phony during the election.

I'll be back with some facts to back that up. In the meantime, please check your sources on Obama. You'd be surprised to find out
all the media doesn't want you to know.

If you're tired of spin and ready for a message of substance, read a little of this speech by Obama.
It is a message of unity that brought me to tears.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C...

[awaysidetraveler]

97. Here's the additional references I promised you, which show Obama's no neocon. To say the least.

Dubious Articles Cast Doubt on Obama Rezko Story; GM Involved in GOP Assault on Rezko, Ali Ata Trial

Posted by awaysidetraveler in Democrats

Mon Jan 14th 2008, 04:33 PM

The Chicago Sun-Tribune first published the Obama-Rezko articles while the owner, Conrad Black, faced a trial by Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge St. Eves(1). That’s the same prosecution team who now oppose Antoin Rezko in court(2). The trial and its verdicts were considered widely controversial and suspicious(3). A jury found Conrad Black guilty of only four of the thirteen charges brought against him, but this was only after a juror by the name of Kelly discovered documents that were never presented by the defense (4). During this trial, George Galloway also won a libel suit against Conrad Black(5).

Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge St. Eves are controversial figures in both cases.

James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald (6) to the position of Dept. of Justice Special Counsel after John Ashcroft, citing a conflict of interest, recused himself. During his investigation into the Libby scandal, Special Attn. Patrick Fitzgerald had Judith Miller, who was a reporter for the New York Times, imprisoned for ninety days for refusing to out her source(7). Judith Miller remains to date the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read(8). According to Bob Woodward and four other prominent journalists, her imprisonment was unnecessary–Patrick Fitzgerald already knew her source to be Richard Armitage(9).

George W. Bush appointed U.S. District Court Judge St. Eves after her work as the Associate Attorney Prosecutor for the Whitewater fraud case (10). During that case, St. Eves herself took the stand in an attempt to discredit Susan McDougal’s accusation that Whitewater investigators had pressured her to tell lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton(11). On June 8th of 2006, Judge St. Eves was condemned by the National Lawyer’s Guild for allowing a coerced confession–by way of torture–into U.S. courts(12).

The original articles from the Chicago Sun-Times date back to November 5th of 2006. However, these original articles no longer appear in the online archives for the Chicago Sun-Times, and Obama disputed the reports about key details(13).
Whether voters believe that Conrad Black is a fraud or instead that Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge St. Eves are the fraud is of no consequence: the original articles from the Chicago Sun-Times cannot be regarded as credible. NBC’s reports should also be regarded with suspicion, as GM–which owns NBC–is the victim in Tony Rezko’s indictment(14).

Please check these references for details.

1) http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/new...

2) http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/new...

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDWAFuQ5Tj8

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax6CmDIT4c4

6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzg...

7) http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporter...

8) http://www.reason.com/news/show/32954.html

9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRFpQ2ZzgjI

10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_ (controversy)

11) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...

12) http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/salah_0...

13) http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage...

14) http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2...

[Clarkansas]

50. Obama. I wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was the only one on the ballot. eom

[mnhtnbb]

67. I'm with Edwards as long as he's in it. If he drops out, I'll shift to supporting Hillary.

I know what to expect from Hillary; I have no idea what Obama stands for or whether he knows himself.

[awaysidetraveler]

81. Hillary? Well, since you've asked, here's what Obama stands for.

I'm a little surprised by your stance, given Edward's strong statements against lobbying interests.

Since you're tired of spin and ready for a message of substance:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C ...

[krabigirl]

123. Maybe some people just don't like Obama.

[mnhtnbb]

144. That's true. I don't like him invoking Reagan as a change agent; I don't like

his campaigning with McClurkin and now Caldwell who leads an anti-gay ministry. I have a gay son.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4133344&mesg_id=4133344

I don't like his wish to sit down to negotiate with the people who have moved this country towards
a theocratic, fascist state.

How's that for starters?

When I say I don't think he knows what he stands for, I don't understand how he can call himself a Democrat
when he is willing to cast aside what, in the past, have been some core Dem values.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. I will vote for the Dem nominee, but I don't have a favorite after Edwards. nt

[awaysidetraveler]

82. Are you playing coy?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. No, actually, I'm depressed about this primary. nt

[awaysidetraveler]

93. Now she's getting wicked with the double negatives.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

95. For real! I'd be optimistic as hell if this were the case:

1) Only 2 Dem Primary candidates: Edwards and Kucinich
2) The media CEOs were kidnapped by aliens from another planet and FORCED to give instructions to air and print both candidates' speeches, appearances, etc.

That's all I would need to be happy.

[struggle4progress]

73. Committed to Edwards. Will re-evaluate if necessary. And voting Dem in Nov regardless

[ToeBot]

74. If he's on the machine, I'll vote for Nader, if not, I'll write-in Edwards

Write-ins on voting machines are such a pain in the ass.

[awaysidetraveler]

83. Is Nader running this year?

[awaysidetraveler]

84. And what issues hold you with such tenacity to Edwards?

[Marie26]

75. Clinton

I've pretty much decided to vote for her already, since I'm beginning to doubt if Edwards will still be on the ticket in four months.

[awaysidetraveler]

86. Why Clinton?

[Marie26]

102. Lots of reasons

Policy wonk - She is extremely knowledgeable on just about every issue you can name. She knows the details, the effects, the laws, etc. She can't be snookered by aides the way that a less experienced President would be. *cough*BUSH*cough* Cheney & co. have wormed their neocon craziness into so many laws, regs & executive orders that it'll take a wonk to straighten it all out.

Lifelong work on liberal issues - this is the biggie. For all the slams against her as a "corporate candidate" Clinton has never worked for corporate interests. She could've joined the biggest corporate firm out of Yale, but instead she worked for public interest firms like the Children's Defense Fund. Her whole life has been spent working for public interest in government & pro bono work. I really like that she worked for Legal Aid clinic for the poor - she cares about these issues.

Consistency - Clinton has voted in the Senate as a centrist, socially liberal & hawkish on defense, & has campaigned on the same platform. She's always been strong on pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-environment, etc. & I agree w/most of her positions on these issues. I don't like her hawkish bent, but she's never lied about where she stands on these issues. Whereas Edwards has changed his positions a lot since his Senate days & I don't even know what Obama believes for sure.

I like her, I think she'll work hard & I believe she has the experience, knowledge & intelligence to be a great President. Or at least a COMPETENT one. After Bushco, I don't want to take a chance on another "uniter" w/a feel-good message & little else. So it's Nobama for me.

[awaysidetraveler]

108. So you've never been for Edwards, well okay... since you asked about Obama's substance....

She's taken .5 million from the health care industry so far this year. That's the real problem.
Wonkishness sounds like a code word for takes money and then talks a bunch and does nothing... like 1993 all over again.

If you want a good person to watch the law, then you need an advocate who is a shrewd lawyer. That would be Obama.
He has worked in legal, liberal issues for over twenty years. Yet, he does not take corporate lobbyist money.

And there's a world of substance, but the media doesn't play it for some reason.... Maybe I know why, ah yes...
they're also being paid by the lobbyists.

If you're for Edwards then you're against lobbying interests, and you're against the war.
If you think that doesn't matter, then you're for Hillary.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Edwards/Obama in 2008 or Obama/Edwards if it's already too late.

[Marie26]

112. Am I being caucused here?

LOL, did you just start this thread to convince Edwards people to go for Obama? Sorry, it won't change my mind, maybe you'd be better off caucusing someone else.

[awaysidetraveler]

115. Uh, you just said that you were never for Edwards in the first place.

I was.

[Marie26]

116. Huh?

I said that Edwards was my first choice. It seems under your weird logic, anyone who would choose Clinton over Obama as a second choice isn't a "real" Edwards supporter - whatever that means. I have to tell you, obnoxious behavior & insulting people who support Edwards isn't a really smart way to convince them to vote for your guy.

[awaysidetraveler]

118. Uh, yeah... you're busted Hill.

You said, "Whereas Edwards has changed his positions a lot since his Senate days" as your reason for supporting Hillary first.

Look face it: Edwards supporters are against big lobbying interests, which is the main reason they don't trust Hillary. Moreover,
they're against staying in Iraq for any longer than one year.

[Marie26]

128. Oh, now you've done it.

I was *this close* to changing to Obama, & now it won't happen. Oh, well - but trolling for Obama seriously won't help his cause.

[angie_love]

138. .

Liar liar pants on fire.

[Marie26]

145. No, that's sarcasm. nt

[Two Americas]

77. Kucinich

Kucinich is the only other possible option for old school traditional Democrats who are true to what the party once stood for.

Should both of those two candidates fail, then it is back to work in local politics and we keep fighting on every level until we can restore the party to its traditional principles and ideals, and recapture the traditional constituency of the party - the other America, that both parties now ignore or take for granted.

We fight on because it is the right thing to do and because it is the only way to live, not because we are being clever and think we can win. We may lose. That means the human race will lose. But we fight until the bitter end because anything less is moral cowardice and depravity.

It is more fun and more interesting to fight than to compromise, anyway. There is more to life than being clever and "winning" especially when by winning you contribute to so many innocent people losing everything. Fighting on no matter what is the least we can do - a very small sacrifice that brings enormous reward whether we win or we lose.

Life among the “winners” is an empty and meaningless rat race. I win when the least among us win. That is who I will fight for as long as I live.

[awaysidetraveler]

87. Wait a minute, now I respect both Kucinich and Edwards, but why not Obama or Hillary?

[Two Americas]

134. not sure

Why not Obama and Hillary what?

[Two Americas]

142. that sounded snide

My response sounds snide or sarcastic, which I didn't intend, so I will try again.

You ask "why not Obama or Clinton?"

Because it is the message of Edwards I support, and the people he is talking about. It takes about an hour to pull the lever for the Democratic candidate, and how interesting is it how I cast my one vote? And it counts for one, last I checked. So we aren't really talking about that when we have these candidate debates, are we? We are trying to influence the discussion now, months and months before we go into the voting booth. And who cares who I, or any of us, "like" as out favorite.

It is the message that is important. That is what I support. If Obama or Clinton want to start speaking that message, then to the extent that they do they will have my support.

The message is more important than the candidates credentials or charisma, because the message is what sets the tone for the national political discussion, creates expectation in the public mind, and in a democracy the people are the source of power. We aren't selecting a dictator. We aren't voting on American Idol. We aren't hiring a CEO for Americorp International. we aren't making a "choice" of a product on a shelf. We aren't rewarding the most deserving with an honorarium.

My "favorite," my "choice" and my one vote are not of any interest.

I support Edwards message.

[Marrah_G]

78. I am with Edwards unless he drops out- then I would vote for Hillary

[KoKo]

80. yeah...I would have to cave like that, too.. *cough* down...might write in Kucinich or Gore, though

at the last minute when my conscience "grabs me by the throat." :-( not looking forward to having to make that decision though...

[awaysidetraveler]

89. Again, why Hillary?

[KoKo]

103. the damned Experience.....

[awaysidetraveler]

105. Of taking money from lobbying interests? How is that in keeping with Edward's philosophy?

[KoKo]

106. Last resort.......that's about it...last resort.. If one is forced to vote Dem.

[awaysidetraveler]

110. Obama is more in keeping with the Edward's philosophy: no lobbyist money and no Iraq war now

If Edwards was ever truly your man, then this is where you should be.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Edwards/Obama in 2008, or Obama/Edwards if it's already too late!

[Critters2]

152. Why has he voted to continue funding the war? nt

[awaysidetraveler]

88. Why Hillary?

It seems to me that Obama supports more of Edward's primary issues, like ending the Iraq war and
eliminating lobbyist money in Washington.

[Marrah_G]

99. Because I think she would make a better president

I think she has the internal strength to fight to make the changes we have to make. I also agree with her on the majority of issues. I genuinely like her and I "get" her.

Obama is a good guy and if he wins the nom I will work for his campaign, but for all his talk of hope I just don't have the same confidence in his ability to actually make the changes needed.

Either one, in my opinion is vastly superior to any repuke nominee.

[awaysidetraveler]

104. Okay, but what about the lobbying money she takes? I mean, that's against Edwards core philosophy.

She's taken .5 million from the health care industry this last year alone, according to the watchdog group opensecrets.org

That doesn't give me faith that she'll make the changes we need for health care in America.

Also, she's said that she'll commit our forces in Iraq for years to come, which Obama and Edwards are staunchly against.

I guess I'll just say that your position surprises me for these reasons. That, and I'll invite you to look elsewhere.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Take Care,

Ty

[Marrah_G]

113. I have looked over all the candidates

And as much as you think Obama is the choice, in my mind he is not. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong. We just see things differently.

If Edwards drops out, she will get my vote.

If She or Obama get the Nom I will work just as hard for them as I would if it were Edwards.

[awaysidetraveler]

119. No, I mean the substance of Hillary's positions, how does that line up with Edward's positions?

Or does it at all?

[Marrah_G]

121. I find them pretty compatible

Your question would take some time to write up an accurate comparison. Frankly I am too tired to do that right now, but perhaps tomorrow.

Actually that is a good idea. A chart showing accurate information on each candidates position on each major issue. I wonder if anyone has done this.

But there is also more to this then just a candidate's position. Can they turn those thoughts into a positive and real result. That is the real question.

There is more to being president then speeches and likability- something America has learned the hard way these last 7 years.

[awaysidetraveler]

126. Yeah, those are Hillary's usual talking points, but they're not substantive.

The lobbying money and the war in Iraq is substantive. Those issues you can chart, and they'll show Edward's positions
are in line with Obama's.

[Marrah_G]

132. I get that you think I should be for Obama

I get that you think Obama's positions are not talking points and Hillary's are.

They are all talking points- they are all positions. What matters is the ability to turn positions into action.

[MrSlayer]

85. If Edwards drops I'm voting for Kucinich.

I cannot vote for either of the frontrunners in the primary.

[awaysidetraveler]

91. Why is that? I mean why not Obama and why not Hillary?

[MrSlayer]

98. Because I do not agree with them on several issues.

And I don't believe they represent Democratic ideals the way Dennis and, to a lesser degree, Edwards do. I also do not believe either of them can win the general election against McCain.

[awaysidetraveler]

100. I think that you may need to take a substantive look at Obama's positions.

There's a speech here, and also a link to all Obama's main issues.

There are major issues that Obama and Edwards stand side to side on: neither take corporate lobbying money, both would remove
America from Iraq in the first year of gaining the presidency, both will create a system of health care that will provide for all Americans (and as neither of them are taking health care lobbyist money, it's likely that it will actually get done this time).

I would be happy with Edwards/Obama in 2008, but I would also be happy with Obama/Edwards in 2008.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Please reconsider.

[Ineedchange]

92. Would you believe this is the first time

in years when I will get to vote for my candidate in the primary. My 1st candidate is JE and I'll probably do a write-in during the election if he's not on the ballot. I'll never vote for a candidate just becuase they're on the ballot. I can't say on one hand that the media has pre-selected or help the top runners then validate that process by voting for the name on the ballot knowing that person is and was not the best option.

If the best choice is not on the ballot - Write-in their name! Voting for the worst of two options is not your only option. Your not going to get the type of president you want no matter what if your. Won't it be nice to vote for a candidate versus voting against someone!!

I voted against GWB and Kerry happened to benefit.

[awaysidetraveler]

94. Okay, I respect that in theory, but why not Obama? Or why not Clinton?

I prefer Obama, and I think his campaign is as substantive as Edward's campaign.

Obama will take us out of Iraq now--not later. Obama will take on lobbying interests in a substantive way, like Edwards.
In fact, it's a miracle he's gotten so far without pandering to big-money interests. For that matter, it's a miracle Edwards has
gotten as far as he has.

If you're tired of spin and ready for a message of substance, read a little of this speech by Obama.
It is a message of unity that brought me to tears.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/C ...

[NastyRiffraff]

101. Sorry, that's a sermon, not a speech.

I realize he was speaking at the Baptist church, but frankly I'm tired of the religious thing. Haven't we had enough of that?

As for "Unity," you can only unify with people who want to be unified. This does not include the Republican politicians, especially the neocons.

I'm afraid "Unity" is code for "giving in."

[awaysidetraveler]

114. So you didn't read the speech, and you were never for Edwards anyway.

Read the speech, it will do your heart some good.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/CGxG9

Because that's not the unity he was talking about.

[NastyRiffraff]

135. I was never for Edwards anyway??

What on earth makes you say that?

I DID read the speech, expecting to be inspired since it's been hyped so much. I know that everyone is supposed by be inspired by Obama, but he just doesn't do it for me. Sorry. I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I can't say he inspires me in any way.

[Critters2]

153. You do realize that you've posted this same message, word for word

upthread, right? Do you work for the Obama campaign? I feel like you're working off talking points.

[LittleBlue]

111. Edwards = Nader... good guy but a political zombie

How many more months will he drag this on? How many more ELECTIONS will he attempt this?

[Yael]

120. Sticking with him through the convention

If he doesn't win, I will weigh the options and make a decision likely on election day on my way into the booth.

[krabigirl]

124. I'd like to stay with Edwards. but..

if he drops out, I have no idea what I'll do. Maybe vote for Gravel or Kucinich. Obama is not my favorite, actually I'd prefer Clinton over him.

[HughBeaumont]

129. ABC,

I'm with Edwards all the way, but I'd be more than happy with Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards.

[citizen snips]

130. IF Edwards drops out

I will vote for Clinton.

[newspeak]

131. from Kucinich to Edwards

my family has a lot at stake, like some others on the board, we have sons, daughters, mothers or fathers in the military. Number one priority for us is a candidate's position on this tragic war. I will vote Edwards--if he decides to drop out, I will go Obama. I know he was against the war, but I don't know if he will be strongly influenced by the military industrial corps--I do know that with Hillary, it will be more Vietnam redux. We're praying for a swift end to this war or some form of resolution like having the UN step in to aid the diplomatic process and get the Iraqi people on their feet--rebuilding their infrastructure and putting them back to work instead of outside forced slave labor. For all of those rallying around Hillary, let me know if you really think in your heart and soul if she will get us out of the Middle East or if she really wants to get out.

I see the ghost of LBJ, the Tonkin Bay incident with the escalation of war. The lie has been cast and I've heard more than one person say that yeah it was a lie, but now we have to fix it. There is no fixing, just killing and pillaging and war profiteering. Yeah, Vietnam for years and years and years. I'm in with Edwards until the end.

[lisainmilo]

133. After the blow last night

I gave it great thought....Still looking at Obama....looking at Clinton.....and I am saying this out of pureness of my heart. I will only support JRE. He is the only candidate for me. My husband feels the same way. Obama and Clinton are the same as the Republicans to us. Their corporate interests are more important than the American people, in other words corporations are leaving the United States and leaving the American worker behind. People are sick and have no health insurance, some do have insurance and the corporations will not cover their needs. Veterans should have the very best of the best when it comes to benefits, not sleeping under bridges.The people of the United States are the very foundation of Democracy!


What happens when you kick the foundation out of a building....it falls, so is the United States economy!

[itsrobert]

137. 137 post and no Rec'd; I wonder why?

Not really.

[nickinSTL]

139. If Edwards were to be out before my state's primary...

(I know he says he's in to the convention, this is just a "what if" scenario)

I would vote Kucinich in my state. I know he has no chance of winning the nomination, but I'm not impressed with either Obama or Clinton...and Obama has my state wrapped up already (I'm in Illinois) - so I'm not too concerned with the specifics of who will win my state.

I believe Edwards is the best of the "top three" - but if he weren't an option, I'd vote to keep Kucinich's voice in the race rather than bother voting for either of the 2 candidates that don't interest me.

[MaineDem]

143. I don't know

I will vote for the nominee but I'm not sure which I support more.

[CelloPaddy]

148. I'd rather not say, I fear retribution, nt

[Raine]

151. Obama will be my choice

if Edwards were to drop out. I won't even consider Hillary as second choice or third, would give it to Kucinich not Hillary.