Reply #64: I also might have "liked" Nancy Pelosi for the 2006 election, but look where that would have got me!

[cascadiance]

Likeability is one SMALL element of why you vote for someone! At least in my book.

I really don't have any deep "personal" dislike for either Clinton or Obama. I just dislike corporate power over us IMMENSELY! And those that are trying to ask me to take charge over one of the few positions that could tear it down are going to have to speak to me about it. If they dismiss it as not as important as other things, THEN I dislike them! I could change my opinion of Obama and MAYBE Clinton, but they give me so much more indications that they are in bed with these corporations rather than are there to stop them.

Edwards is not taking lobbyist money now is he? Clinton and Obama have the most lobbyist money of EITHER party in this election. Why would corporations contribute to someone that will work to bring down their power. It is about *following the money*! You simply CANNOT make the case that Clinton or Obama would be better than Edwards at taking down corporate power. If you can, you are a magician.

In your last paragraph, what you are saying is that your interpretation is that the country values the personality of who they vote for more than what they will actually do. Pardon me for not agreeing with that philosophy. And I don't see ANY substantive reason where I feel that Edwards is significantly "less competent", or "less trustworthy", or "less likeable", or "less believable" than either Clinton or Obama. What you are saying is a false rationalization.

The bottom line is that there are many forces at work that are working for the interests of continuing corporate power here. Whether they are in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, it doesn't matter to me. Those are the forces that need to be fought and beaten down in this election if we want to continue to have a middle class and not have a Republican/Corporatist Depression Part 2.