Reply #53: It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[GreenArrow]

Disliking Clinton, and to a lesser degree Obama, doesn't mean I have to like Edwards. It's really about approach and style. C and O may be very vague, and not tell me anything directly, while E is out saying anything he thinks will win him points, and that largely to a very specific audience. One thing all three of them have in common is that they want to be elected. They simply have different approaches. All his rhetoric aside, Edwards has done nothing to convince me he will do anything, other than by degree, much differently than either of his two rivals. I don't think he'd likely worse than the other two, and I don't think he'd be much better. His record while in office certainly was not inspiring, and his change of heart now is just a wee bit too opportunistic.

I mean, hell, the man can't even fight for single payer health care, even as he goes around talking about how "Americans are tired of incremental half-measures", and how "you can't negotiate with those people", and using Reagan era talking points about personal responsibility. He can't even do that!

"If the first person gets elected, then the media, etc. will say that the country doesn't feel that corporate power is a problem, since they voted against candidate 2."

The media says whatever its masters tells it to say, but if candidate 1 were elected it might simply mean, not that the country doesn't believe that corporate power is a problem, but that the country simply didn't believe, trust or feel that candidate 2 was as competent in dealing with the issues. Or maybe they just plain didn't like him.