Who is more progressive, Edwards or Obama?

[Postman]

I'm thinking Edwards...

[Snotcicles]

1. me too. nt

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. Yep. nt

[liberalnurse]

3. Obama..........

O8)

[Postman]

5. This article by Paul Krugman decided it for me....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Quoting Krugman...

"I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security 'crisis.' Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care."

[liberalnurse]

14. Excellent article.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Blue-Jay]

6. You're funny.

Like a cyst.

[mth44sc]

4. Clearly

Its Edwards

[Jane Austin]

7. Based on their Senate voting records, it's not even close.

Obama.

[Stop Cornyn]

46. Here is the difficulty of comparing Senate votes. Edwards served in a Republican controlled Senate

so compromises were necessary. Obama has served in a Democratically controlled Senate so he has had less cause to temper his votes in order achieve some good in exchange for compromise in a hostile legislative environment.

If you compare Dodd's and Biden's records in the Senate while it was controlled by the Repubs you will see that it is more moderate than their records since we took back control. This is not a result of Dodd or Biden "flip flopping" recently but the result of being freed from the necessity of compromise.

Directly comparing Obama's voting record to Edwards' voting record is like comparing Dodd's and Biden's votes from 2004-2005 to their votes from when the Senate was controlled by Republicans -- it's a false comparison.

[peacebaby3]

62. The Democrats took control this past January. Obama served under a rep. controlled Senate also.

Was Edwards forced to co-sponsor the IWR?

[Stop Cornyn]

65. When do you think Obama was elected to the Senate? He'd served less than 2 years when Democrats were

elected to take control of the Senate.

If Obama's health care plan is so great, why hasn't he offered that legislation?

In fact, which parts of Obama's "liberal agenda" has he actually proposed as legislation either during the less-than-two year period he served in the Repub-controlled Senate or during the months he's served in the Democratic-controlled Senate?

[karynnj]

71. Some of his ethics reform became law

None of the plans - of any of the candidates have been fully introduced as legislation. In 2004, though Edwards claimed that Kerry's near universal plan was too expensive and he had a plan just for kids.

[karynnj]

68. Obama was in the Senate in 2005 and 2006 when it was Republican controlled

The Senate was controlled by Democrats for part of the time Edwards was there too. I agree there is no overlap - but you can compare Edwards to a group of generally considered to be progressive Senators in his years - then do the same with Obama in his years.

Doing that you find, that Obama votes with people like Harkin, Kennedy and Leahy more than Edwards did - on major votes where the Democrats split. Or use HRC for that matter - Edwards was to her right in 1998 - 2002 (2003 and 2004 are hard to analyze because there were many missed votes), Obama is to her left. Edwards ran in 2004 to the left of his record and is now far left of where he ran in 2004 - when he was overall the most conservative Democrat running.

[PoiBoy]

9. Edwards... n/t

[Kucinich4America]

10. Kucinich

no question.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Edwards... and he is also MORE AGRESSIVE to push for change

[sandnsea]

12. Based on their life's work

and political accomplishments, Obama, without any question.

[Justyce]

13. I would agree with that. Easily it's Edwards. nt

[Bluebear]

15. Edwards by a mile.

[frogmarch]

16. Edwards, of course. nt

[mmonk]

17. Edwards has moved left.

Edwards has the best non single payer healthcare plan in that it allows single payer to go head to head with the insurance corporations and let the people decide (therefore it is second to Kucinich only). Edwards nailed the situation squarely on the head when he said you aren't going to get change replacing corporate republicans with corporate democrats. Therefore, if he is within striking distance of getting the nomination by the time my vote comes around, I may give it to him, otherwise, it goes to Kucinich who is the only candidate to defend my constitution by issuing articles of impeachment.

[Postman]

19. I like Kucinich by a mile but I'm thinking I might have to be pragmatic...

If I can't have Kucinich, give me Edwards....

[harmonicon]

56. If you couldn't have pie, would you take a kick in the crotch instead?

[patrice]

32. That's pretty much my thinking.

I wish it were the other way around, but it isn't!

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Which Edwards?

The one with the predatory-lending hedge fund who co-sponsored the war and voted for job-obliterating permanent "free" trade for China and the bankruptcy bill?

Or the one that has apologized for all of it and has turned populist?

[Postman]

23. Interesting points.

Damn. Is there anyone who is not tainted?

[patrice]

31. No.

I'm dealing with those things about Edwards too. Health Care reveals important differences between the two. And Paul Krugman's opinion of Obama ought to be at least as weighty as Oprah's.

One of the most Progressive and extremely well educated minds, not to mention being a long-time peace and justice activist, Thom Hartmann, on Air America Radio http://www.airamerica.com/ is not saying that he endorses Edwards (probably because of AAR) but he does support him openly.

I think of Edwards as having useful experience and expertise. We're at least half of the equation that will make him more Progressive as President.

[Postman]

38. I value Krugman's political opinion more than Oprah's

and Thom Hartmann, well, what can you say? He's one of the most informed people I've ever heard.

[robbedvoter]

34. The second one wanted to bomb Iran AFTER apologizing for Iraq. So, none.

[Prefer]

58. Reminds me of the Which Al Gore campaign

didn't the gop machine run that as a talking point for awhile?

[robbedvoter]

82. They may have. But unlike Edwards, Gore didn't run from his record - it was quite

good as I remember it.

[Bluebear]

20. 'Although I like Obama's "NO" vote on the War in Iraq'

Which vote was that? :shrug:

[Postman]

21. My bad...

He wasn't even a Senator yet....

[Bluebear]

22. :)

[robbedvoter]

37. But he went on record with his opposition, when Edwards was selling the war

[robbedvoter]

36. Public declaration AT THAT TIME (when edwards co-sponsored it) = a vote

It did for Gore, for Clark and other people of courage who were not senators at the time.

[Postman]

39. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on Iraq.

Edwards voted for the war in Iraq. That is a major negative.

[patrice]

41. He didn't take a strong position at all. I was watching.

I remember clearly, because I wanted to hope. He was quite tentative, kind of slap and run about it, said a few moderate things and then disappeared on the issue for weeks at a time, when his charisma and full-voiced eloquence could have called all of you Obama supporters to the cause way earlier, instead of so many waiting until it became more socially acceptable to be against the war. If he had rallied his supporters in support of what was right, we'd be farther ahead on the solution to this War-begotten hell we're in.

[frazzled]

59. What? You were watching his speech in Federal Plaza in 2002?

Even as Edwards was CO-SPONSORING the Iraq War Resolution and making ever more gung-ho invasion speeches on the floor?

Here's what Obama said in October 2002 while you claim to have been watching:

don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

<...>

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Now, what was John Edwards saying at the same time, in October 2002, on the Senate floor?

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Don't tell me you were watching and listening. I was watching and listening, and I know.

[robbedvoter]

79. Any opposition then was an act of courage. DNC ran a pro-war ticket, had a pro-war

convention in 2004 and pretty much any opposition then was considered "fringe" and "lunacy" - because "everything changed after 9.11". Many polls later, apologies started from some supporters. Many, many, many polls after that, one of the sponsors of IWR decided his campaign would take a more popular position on tyhe war - which would be...against it. By now, republicans were speaking against the war as well, so it was a safer bet.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Yes, He Did

See Frazzled's post. You're wrong on this one, Patrice. His opposition was clear, unambiguous, and routinely trumpeted in the media of the third largest market.

It's all in the record.
The Professor

[karynnj]

72. If he were Clinton, maybe

It was not lack of clarity or of conviction, but lack of a megaphone. He did not have a national following or any platform to speak from. As to clarity, he was more direct than either Dean (I'll vote for Biden/Lugar) or Clark were at that time.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. And Another Thing. . .

. . .i have been foursquare against the war the WHOLE TIME! Check the archives here. So, kind of watch who you're calling late to the party.
The Professor

[undeterred]

24. Oprah.

I'm sorry, what was the question? :freak:

[Maven]

25. Edwards.

Without a doubt.

[patrice]

26. The ability to address the imbalance in power between corporations and people

makes Edwards more Progressive, because this is one of our worst problems affecting the most people.

[Postman]

27. His success as a lawyer in fighting for the little guy vs. corporations...

appeals to me along with his health care plan for all...

Is there an untainted, perfect candidate who is electible? I don't think so.

Edwards looks like the best chance to me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. If aggressively attacking the status quo defines someone's progressivity,

then Edwards wins, hands down. If you had any idea how the status quo is developing devious networks right under the noses of the public, you would understand why a trial lawyer is the only one who has the experience to clean shop.

[waiting for hope]

29. Edwards - all the way.

[OHdem10]

30. Which one owes more to Wall Street if elected?

[robbedvoter]

33. Look at what they do, not what they say - Obama went on record against war

when Edwards was sponsoring IWR - and it was an act of courage to publicly oppose it (i.e - Dems still believed *'s polls).
Edwards still didn't come clean about our votes in 2004 and threatened iran as recently as this year. Obama, hands down. Still, I'm voting DK/Gravel

[Bluebear]

45. Obama went on record for gay rights then subsequently hired "ex-gays" to sermonize at his events.

Talk is cheap.

[uppityperson]

35. Clinton!

sorry :evilgrin:

[Postman]

42. the rightwing would love Clinton to win the nomination...

It would be a disaster. She's no progressive.

The Primary is the election with the most selection. Why vote for republican lite when you can just vote for the real thing?

If Clinton got the nomination I'd be hard pressed to not vote for her given who the other side represents, but jeez, let's nominate someone that will change things.

[patrice]

43. I run across folks every few days or so who know nothing, ABSOLUTELY

nothing, dip, squat, zilch, zero about anything, except ... "I completely refuse to vote for Hillary. Won't do it. Not! No. No way!" Even when I tell them that ALL of the Republicans talked about almost nothing but bombing Iran in their first two debates, and all of them are on a campaign to make that happen sooner or later, they still say things about how much they hate her.

There ARE folks who will cut off their own nose to spite your face - I'm sorry to say.

[Postman]

48. I know what you mean. I don't get it either....

I think the Clinton name was soo destroyed by the rightwing during the 90's that it has made it very hard for Hillary Clinton to win in a general election.

[patrice]

49. She;s not my favorite, but I'll work for her if she is nominated, because

she's a darn sight better than any of those blaspheming idolatrous warmongers the Republicans are offering us. But I feel pretty certain she'll lose and perhaps give us a Red Congress in the process.

Edwards is a Southern Populist, who made good; that's a very impressive thing right now.

[Clark2008]

73. *I* am a Southern populist

Edwards? Ehhhhh... not so much.

[bvar22]

64. And knowing what you know,

don't you think it would be dumb to nominate her?
These people are REAL. They are out there, AND they won't vote for Hillary.
None of the other candidates is anywhere near as divisive.

Lets nominate someone who won't alienate so many people.

Hillary Nomination = Most Electoral Risk for the least democratic gain.

[balantz]

40. No question for me

it's Edwards

:yourock:

[sendero]

44. You might as well ask..

.. who is paler.

Obama is NOT a progressive in any sense of the word. He's a reach-out-to-the-wingnuts loser.

[rndmprsn]

47. Edwards...

[pamela]

50. Edwards n/t

[polichick]

51. imo Edwards is more progressive on the issues...

...but Obama has a more progressive style. Smoke and mirrors?? Hard to say.

[frazzled]

52. Judging by what they say or what they do?

Starting in 2005, Edwards began to "talk" progressive, on the campaign trail, but I can't point to a single progressive thing he's really ever done, either before his brief political career, during, or since. (Ten-minute photo ops in New Orleans don't count).

Obama has led a progressive life for several decades: as a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, and as a state senator. And his record as a Senator in Washington has been far more progressive than Edward's tenure was. A lifetime of progressive actions, not a year or two of campaign-trail strategy.

In my mind, you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Hands down, Obama wins.

[mnhtnbb]

53. Edwards. hands down.

[ellisonz]

54. Obama by a mile.

[harmonicon]

55. sorry..

... just threw up in my mouth a little there... no biggie

[ecstatic]

57. How QUICKLY people forget... (sigh) nt

[peacebaby3]

60. If based on action and not just words, Obama is by far the most progressive. n/t

[helderheid]

61. Edwards.

[Blue_In_AK]

63. Edwards. n/t

[DainBramaged]

66. Does it matter??? That's like you asking who is whiter or blacker.

Progressive is a misnomer. Just because one candidate matches your belief quotient doesnt mean the other candidate is less capable for not meeting your expectations.


Jesus, we eat our own every second here now. What happened to the good old days of bashing the shit out of the Reich Wing?

[robbedvoter]

81. People try to pick a candidate. I dunno why, because unless you're in Iowa or NH

your primary vote is irrelevant, but as a matter of conscience. At least that's the way I see it. In a primary you don't eat your own when you weigh the pros and cons of your choices. It's what the primaries are. or rather - supposed to be - since only 2 tiny states get to decide.

[October]

67. Definitely Edwards /nt

[Clark2008]

70. It's realtive because neither of them are.

Edwards' votes, however, lead me to believe he's NOT as liberal.

[robbedvoter]

80. Well said. I vote Kucinich, but between those two, Obama is closer to my principles

(meaning, he has some)

[Dems Will Win]

74. Edwards actually sponsored the Iraq War Authorization! Here is the video

Watch how he says "We know" Saddam has today WMD and chemical weapons. Here's the video of Edwards leading us to war when he admitted he never even read the NIE that said Saddam had no WMD since the mid-90s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI

What was Obama's speech on Iraq a month later? He called it a dumb war. Here's a video interview. Who had better judgement? Who was mnore for peace and diplomacy? Who is the true progressive when the merde hits the fan? Barack Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

Think it's pretty clear who is trhe true progressive from these tapes, who is a true leader instead of a fair-weather follower.

[Dems Will Win]

83. kick

[Romulox]

75. Edwards....if you ignore his record. nt

[readmoreoften]

77. Edwards. Without a doubt. Obama's very much in the center. /nt

[Owl]

78. Edwards n/t

[Azathoth]

84. Edwards, in his latest incarnation

Edwards when he was actually in elected office, not so much...

[readmoreoften]

85. Edwards just said he'd cover trans people's hormone treatments under his health care plan.

That and pro-labor? He and DK are almost tied at the top of my list.