If a person is torn between Edwards and Obama...

[CoffeeCat]

What information or suggestions would you give to help them make
a final decision.

This person thinks that both candidates are remarkable.

On the Edwards side, this person likes his progressive ideals
and the fact that he seems to get how bad the corporate corruption
is. This person feels that Edwards is the candidate who could
bring about the most progressive changes, and is the most sincere
about breaking up the neocon stranglehold. However, this person
is concerned about Edwards being able to attract Independents and
pick off some Republican votes--due to his more-Progressive ideals.

On the Obama side, this person likes that he is a Constitutional
Scholar, teaching Constitutional Law for a decade. This person
likes his mass appeal, and his ability to attract Independents
and some Republicans. This person believes that Obama has a better
chance of winning in the GE. This person believes that Obama is an
incredible leader and someone who would not fall in line with
the neocon bullies, as Hillary most likely would. However, this
person is concerned with the amount of corporate money that Obama
has taken. His stats rival Hillary's as far as corporate money
coming from banks, pharma, and healthcare. This person is also
not happy with Obama siding with Lieberman over Lamont. If
Obama has been against the Iraq war from the get-go--why did he
side with Lieberman.

What would you say to this person? How would you help them decide?

[Didereaux]

1. I'd tell them to vote for BIDEN!

[whirlygigspin]

2. choose Biden now

and elect Obama/Edwards in 8 years

[polichick]

3. That's pretty much how I see the two candidates...

I've recently decided to support Edwards because I don't think meaningful change can happen without taking on corporate America in a big way, and he's the one most willing and able to do it imo.

[TwilightGardener]

4. My reasons for going with Obama over Edwards:

Obama is more authentic, IMO. And he served in unglamorous positions, getting his feet wet in politics and public service rather than making an ASSLOAD of money as a trial lawyer and working for a hedge fund like Edwards. In short, for all of the "little guy" stuff that Edwards preaches, Obama actually has lived a life less based on financial greed. I also think Obama is more qualified--many years as an elected official, Constitutional law expert, head of Harvard Law Review, degree in International Relations, community work. Not simply lawyer, and then a few years as Senator.

[Fight Power]

21. neither are authentic

voted for war, voted for war funding

[Frances]

5. I will vote for the Dem in the general

because each of the Dem candidates is better than any of the Repub candidates.

If a person is trying to decide between Edwards and Obama and really prefers Edwards' positions, I would say that the person should vote for Edwards.

Personally, I think Edwards is right to say that Obama is not being realistic about working with Republicans. Ted Kennedy thought he could work with Bush on No Child Left Behind, but he found out that you can't trust Republican politicians. Obama hasn't been around long enough to have learned this lesson.

As I said, I will vote for Obama in the general election if he is our nominee. But of all the Dem candidates, I think he is the one MOST likely to be Republican-lite.

[Inspired]

6. I do not agree that Obama is more electable.

My argument is substance over style and electability. John Edwards has both. I would also like to draw their attention to Edwards 80 page booklet containing his plans for change in America. I don't know how to get a copy of Obama's. Does it exist?

[youthere]

7. I'd encourage them to vote for Biden.

Edwards is a natural for AG and Obama a likely pick for VP.

[saracat]

8. I would say go with the fighter.John is a fighter and we need to have someone who will face down

the corporations. He will do that.John Has walked through a baptism of fire in both his personal and poltical life and is still standing. We need that kind of steel.I respect the fact that he has come back after 2004, though others have derided him for it. I respect that he and Elizabeth are fighting together under the most difficult situations of their lives.John will not "cut a deal" with the corrupt lobbyists and corporations.Obama may be a constitutional law professor but John has defended that constitution in our courtromms.He understands the constitution represents the rights of the people and not the rights of the corporations over the people.That knowledge was hard fought and didn't come from a classroom. I say vote for the candidate with the practical experience and that candidate is Edwards.

[Kansas Wyatt]

9. I'm with you

Edwards is the most electable for the Democratic Party, and he will represent 'We The People,' instead of more of the same with the other top contenders. Edwards hasn't been bought and paid for, because he wants to fight the very ones that have politicians in their pocket.

[killbotfactory]

10. Obama did not side with Lieberman over Lamont after the primary

Ned Lamont got a boost Thursday from one of the Democratic party's brightest rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message to his Connecticut supporters urging them to rally behind Lamont's challenge to three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

(snip)

"Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government," Obama wrote.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the Senate, basically he showed him the ropes and that is why he supported him in the primary, but NOT the general election.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

11. I'd share this with them:

The Politics Of Delusional Pundits
The New Republic: Media's Dangerous Infatuation With Obama Similar To Bush In 2000

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/opinion/main3639210.shtml



Every now and then in American politics, normally balanced people get swept up by delusions of greatness about a presidential candidate, based on an emotional attachment to the candidate's oratory or image. The youthful William Jennings Bryan brought down the house and swept up the nomination with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896 — only to be crushed by the dreary William McKinley in November.

Political journalists have never been immune to the delusional style. But editorialists and pundits are supposed to be skeptical experts, who at least try to appear as if they base their perceptions in facts and reality. Enthusiasm for a candidate because of his or her "intuitive sense of the world," "intuitive understanding," and discovery of "identity" — the favored terms in some recent press endorsements of Barack Obama — is presented as the product of such discerning, well-considered thinking. But it is in fact nothing more than enthusiasm, based on feelings and projections that are unattached to verifiable rational explanation or the public record.

Yet today, after seven disastrous years of the Bush experience, otherwise rational editorialists and commentators are insisting that instincts basically are good enough — and are actually more important than what they consider prosaic credentials such as knowledge, experience, and sound policy proposals. The pundits have vaunted good vibes and gut-thinking as the crucial qualifications for the nation's highest office. They have turned the delusional style into a rallying cry — in support, at least for the moment, of the candidacy of Barack Obama and his allegedly superior intuition.

The Boston Globe, in an ideal specimen of the delusional style, ran an editorial that endorsed Obama because he is biracial and grew up in "multi-ethnic cultures" — adequate substitutes, by the editorial's lights, for serious background and expertise in foreign affairs. Obama, according to the Globe, has engaged in "a search for identity" and taken "a roots pilgrimage to Kenya," all of which supposedly displays a "level of introspection, honesty, and maturity" that the newspaper longs for in a president. "Obama's story is America's story," the Globe intoned — a sentence that comes as close as any distinguished newspaper ever has to perfect emptiness.

and this:

Michelle Obama: "Black America Will Wake Up And Get It"



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/michelle-obama-black-am_n_72268.html

Chicago Sun-Times | Lynn Sweet | November 12, 2007 03:20 PM

With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said "black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC on Monday.

MSNBC is using excerpts of a Michelle Obama interview to run in full on Tuesday morning. In a clip that's featured in the afternoon cycle, Michelle Obama invoked the name of civil rights leaders Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. when talking about African-American turnout, a crucial voting bloc for the Illinois senator.

[emilyg]

12. Vote Clinton.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Wow, that is bad advice.

I mean, REALLY bad advice.

[tokenlib]

13. I feel your pain..

..just pray as I do that the two don't cancel each other out and let Hillary prance to the nomination. Looking at the second choice surveys--it is clear that if either Obama or Edwards drops out too soon..Hillary will be in trouble.

[karlrschneider]

14. Since Obama has no chance of being elected, it's pretty easy.

...

[CorpGovActivist]

15. Spend Time on the Issues Pages...

... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2551861&mesg_id=2551861">for each campaign.

- Dave

[Blue-Jay]

16. If I were such a person ,

I'd probably stay the fuck away from DU, as you'll never get any meaningful dialog without a bunch of screamers showing up in your thread.

[LWolf]

17. To that person, I would say that

the reasoning about the two candidates is sound, as far as it goes.

I would say that I believe both to be equally "electable," if that is something that drives a choice.

Given that, when choosing between the strengths and drawbacks of each, I would personally choose the more progressive of the candidates. At least according to the platforms they are currently campaigning on.

That would be Edwards, as you've already noted.

Personally, I'm not concerned with how many Republican votes the dem might get, as I believe that republicans would rather vote for a real republican than a democrat that acts like one.

Obama can get a healthy vote from black, theocratic, and homophobic groups.

Edwards can get a healthy vote from the south, and from white swing voters.

I don't believe either of them to be a strong draw on the independent and 3rd party vote, but Edwards has to edge out Obama there. Many of his current supporters have chosen him because they believe he is not as great as Kucinich, but more electable. Kucinich, of course, is the most progressive and can swing the most independent votes. I believe that all those on the left, Democrat, 3rd party, and independent, will cast more votes for Edwards than Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

18. My case for Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3902752&mesg_id=3902752

[Peace 2008]

19. I would tell them the reason they are undecided

is because they haven't found the right candidate. When you learn about Kucinich, you KNOW he's the one that walks the walk, not just talk.

[Pastiche423]

20. It depends

on what your friends feels is more important.

A candidate that has a long history of serving the public in many elected offices, as well as his decade long teaching as a Constitutinal Scholar.

Or

A candidate that has only been elected once, and only served the people a few years of that term, as he was running for president for the better part.

Obama has walked the walk. johnnyboy only talks.

[mitchtv]

22. You have thought it out

thoroughly, Now vote with your heart. That's what primaries are for.Obama made a few missteps that put him below in my book. He seems to willing to compromise.

[Blackhatjack]

24. I'd tell 'this person' to vote for Edwards...

Polling shows that that people earning less than $40k per year choose Edwards as their number 1 choice.

It is going to take a leader willing to fight for us to 'turn things around' and take back the power that the corporations have purchased in Washington.

Obama's time may yet come, but Edwards is the leader most likely to bring real change which returns the Peoples' Government to the PEOPLE!