I was leaning Edwards, but I'm voting Obama.

[smoogatz]

Two things: first, Edwards' rhetoric is more progressive than his record, which during his single Senate term was pretty typical center-right, red-state "Democrat" fare. Edwards does a great job of talking the progressive-populist talk, and I bought into it for awhile because I really, really wanted to feel that there was a passionate, well-spoken, electable progressive-populist among the front-runners. Obama's rhetoric, on the other hand, is less progressive than his record. As an indicator of future performance, though, I have to go with past record over present rhetoric (I think recent history bears that out: see the rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism" vs Bush's record as governor of Texas, for example). If you think Edwards is genuinely a Wellstone-style populist, you may revise that opinion once you check out his' abysmal record in connection with the 2000 and 2001 bankruptcy bills (http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/senate/banking-committee/bankruptcy-bill/). Frankly, I have a very hard time reconciling that behavior with his current "protector of the poor" persona. In fact, the more I read about Edwards' performance in the Senate, the more I'm convinced that his current progressive-populist pose is, in a word, bullshit.

Second, and most important in my view: Obama opposed the Iraq war from the get-go, which speaks to judgment. No matter how hard I try, I can't get past Edwards' co-sponsorship and vote in favor of the IWR. He's complicit in every death and injury and wasted tax dollar from day one until we ultimately withdraw, and all the heartfelt mea culpas in the world won't change that. Edwards, even more than Hillary, has blood on his hands. I've given it a lot of thought, and it seems to me that Edwards' political recovery is symptomatic of our society's bizarre inability to hold politicians accountable for catastrophic failures of public judgment and courage (while we hector them mercilessly over trivial personal failings, but that's another story). If we cared even a little bit in this country about holding public officials accountable for their actions, Edwards wouldn't be lauded as the progressive poster-boy: he'd be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail along with Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the fools and criminals who got us into this idiotic war.

So there it is, for what it's worth. Go. Bama.

[flyarm]

1. hahahahahahaha..yeah right. eom

[smoogatz]

16. I resent what you're insinuating.

I've given Edwards' campaign a lot of thought, and looked into his history in some depth. I started out hoping Gore would jump in, and Edwards, though imperfect, seemed superficially like the best alternative. Given a bit of due diligence, though, that now appears not to be the case. You can disagree, and that's fine, but don't accuse me of lying. See my journal post of 12/17 and apologize:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/smoogatz/101

[aein]

36. Do you have anything useful to say. Like, you know, defending your candidate?

[surfermaw]

72. Well tell us how progressive Obama record is

He said he wouldn't vote for the war, but voted for a supplement that keeps the war going, if Edwards does drop out, which he says he isn't then I am going with Hillary, I do know Bill brought in spending and left us with a surplus even after finding debt of 17 trillion and unemployment. Obama would make a VP...but Edwards would make the best Presidential Candidate, he is the only one that can defeat any candidate thrown at him, other wise we will get Romney, who will pull religious dem and rep. in droves because they want Roe V Wade defeated

[krkaufman]

92. "only one that can defeat any candidate thrown at him"

Speculation.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Do what you must

But remember, Gobama has voted to fund it. Twice.

[aein]

37. Almost every Senate Democrat has voted to fund it. Even people who voted against the original...

...check out the records of Feingold and the other 22 senators who voted against it.

[Horse with no Name]

39. It doesn't matter what everyone else did. MOST everyone else voted for the IWR

and it is still being held against JE. SO, Obama voting to fund the war...it is his burden he has to bear.

[jenmito]

46. Apples and oranges. Dealing with the mess the pro-war people voted for is totally different

from trying to figure out how to end it. And Obama was a sponsor of the Iraq De-escalation Act.

[Horse with no Name]

48. Actually it isn't

Congress was given cherry-picked intelligence, ramped up intel etc for the Iraq War. Lots of SMART people were fooled.
However, Obama knew it was a farce and STILL chose to fund it.

What's the worst crime? Doing something and not knowing the outcome? Or knowing the outcome and still doing it?

[jenmito]

50. Lots of smart people WEREN'T fooled. And others voted for it for political reasons.

Obama spoke out clearly against it. And like I said, he sponsored the Iraq De-escalation Act.

[Horse with no Name]

53. Where is the progress on that? n/t

[jenmito]

78. He TRIED. Would you ask where the progress was if he had voted against the K/L amendment?

[Horse with no Name]

91. Why get all huffy about asking the progress of something that I have seen the Obaman's tout

as an accomplishment.
Many of you were on the bandwagon ridiculing John Edwards about naming the Patient Rights Act as an accomplishment. He tried too, you know, or do you only give passes for trying to Obama?

[surfermaw]

75. You go horse

[GreenArrow]

88. nobody was fucking fooled

It was an agressive, premptive war, waged for resources, power and lucre, and utterly unecessary. Votes for it were either in support of general US policy in the region, and/or out of political expedience/moral bankruptcy. Anyone who was fooled is too fucking stupid to be President.

What's worse, walking into a trap that's covered in flashing signs that scream "this is a fucking trap", or trying to find a rational and responsible way out of the trap that other idiots have somehow managed to get you into?

[krkaufman]

93. Hey, I'm an Edwards fan ...

... but if it's supposed to be about judgement, there were a LOT of people who saw through the bullxxit we were being fed, said so at the time, and voted against the "use of force" resolution.

Edwards' judgement on that resolution was lacking. And it's considerably more difficult to get out of a war than staying out of one, so Obama gets that point.

[ellisonz]

66. The heroes:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[TwilightGardener]

3. Edwards re-invented himself. Obama is who he always was--that's why I'm

for Obama.

[terisan]

5. "Reinvented" were you one of the ones who tarred Gore with that phrase?

[TwilightGardener]

24. Uh...no. I wasn't a big Gore fan, though, for other reasons--but I did vote for him.

[LisaM]

6. Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill

Which is ironic, since, according to himeself, he was recently dead broke.

He was not in a position to vote against the Iraq war (as Howard Dean likewise was not) so it's an easy issue for him.

[maximusveritas]

9. That's just not true. He voted against it n/t

[LisaM]

15. Excuse me. I heard it on the radio this morning, but you are correct

The person on the radio was wrong. My apologies.

[Benhurst]

40. "Obama is who he always was... ."

Even in high school and at Columbia University when he was "Barry" Obama?

Re-inventing oneself is as American as apple pie. Edwards has done it. Romney has done it. Huckabee has done it. Hillary has done it. They all have done it, even Barak (a.k.a. "Barry") Obama has done it.

So what?

[jenmito]

49. You're comparing Edwards (and Hillary) with Romney in defense of "re-inventing" oneself?

And that's supposed to be a GOOD thing? No-Obama didn't re-invent himself like those you named. He matured. BIG difference.

[Benhurst]

83. To boldly reinvent where no man has gone before, is a bit much, and

Romney has surely done so.

But all the other candidates, as well as most people, have changed course and reinvented themselves to some extent, call it "matured" or whatever you want, but it's still reinvention.

It only becomes a negative when done dishonestly, which I can't help but feel is the case in Romney's major changes.

As for Obama or our other candidates, I don't see it as a fault given the extent to which they have done it. I don't even fault Reagan for the rather thorough reinvention he performed in midlife. Be that as may, Obama has reinvented himself, and denying it is being defensive to the point of paranoia.

[jenmito]

85. You're the one who named Romney as someone who has "evolved."

And to compare Obama growing up from a high school kid to where he is now to Edwards changing his positions (as well as Hillary) when politically convenient.

[Benhurst]

94. Obama's voting record is at times politically convenient.

But to his groupies, he has doesn't have the failings of mere human politicians. The cult of personality tolerates no mortal flaws.

[ellisonz]

71. And you're holding that against him?

He grew up. You try being young with that name.

[Benhurst]

81. Whose holding it against him?

He did it. It's a fact. But so have many, many others. So what?

[terisan]

4. Obama has voted for Iraq War since getting to Senate. He is only antiwar when making speeches.

[cali]

10. bullfuckingshit.

Obama has voted for every bit of legislation aimed at ending the war. Every single one. His voting record on Iraq is no different from Kennedy's and very close to Leahy's, Sanders and Feingold's.

I've had it with the stinking lies.

[redqueen]

19. You're right that he didn't vote for the bill, BUT...

he also voted against an amendment that would have capped interest rates at 30%. Why?

[terisan]

38. Apologize. Obama is the BSer not me: Read it and Weep: Obama defends war vote

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.
"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."
Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

[smoogatz]

20. Not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/

[AX10]

25. Yes he has.

Obama's rhetoric does not match his record.
He also said he did not know which way he would have voted on the IWR if he were a Senator in 2002.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. Obama won't be able to deliver either...

He will be beholden to those who financed his campaign.

If Edwards won and then didn't deliver, we would only have him to blame.

[killbotfactory]

13. Yes, he will be accountable to his half a million individual donors

Many of them, more than people from any one industry, are small donors. I am counting on him to remember that.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

30. 47,643 actually, not half a million

% from Donors of $200 or less...
25%

[Egnever]

41. 351,000 as of october I am sure its much higher now but way to get it wrong

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/27/213425/931

Barack Obama has had a huge lead during 2007 in gaining individual donors and that feat continued during the 3rd Quarter. In part, it's due to their innovative methodology of counting those that pay $5 to hear a speech by Obama or that buy a $4.50 Obama key chain as donors*, but even withstanding the inclusion of concert & paraphernalia sales in their totals, Obama's fundraising has been extraordinary, and his total number of donors by the end of the primaries will be a historical marker.


A week ago, Obama was at 333,235 donors, and with a push that upped the number by an average of about 2.5K daily in the final week, Obama surpassed Dean's 2003 primary record of donors. The total number of donors to Dean's campaign was about 318,000 and the total number of donations made was about 454,000. Obama now sits at 351,000 and 501,000 donors respectively. Obama's growth has trailed off though, in terms of comparison, from the previous quarters.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

51. opensecrets.org is where I got that info

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

I was reading it wrong. :shrug:

[Egnever]

52. You didnt even do the math

you only counted one section of his support. Your math skills suck.

[terisan]

43. He will be accountable to his big money donors.

[Ninga]

8. How do you feel about Obama voting yes to continue funding the war? And how

do you feel about Obama not giving a major speech in opposition to Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Sam Alto.

With his passion and oratory skills, why didn't he speak up? Why didn't he call for a filibuster. He was silent.

The Supreme Court appointments are for life....and Obama had nothing to say.

How do you feel about Obama not demonstrating leadership and being vocal and marshalling the Senate Democrats to not vote for those 2 ultra-conservatives.

Obama has plenty of baggage to be accountable for...just watch and you will see his feet being put to the fire.

[maximusveritas]

17. Every Senate Democrat has voted for funding

Unless you're willing to criticize Feingold, Boxer, Kerry, etc. for that, it's just a cheap shot.

And criticizing Obama for not pulling off a filibuster is just as cheap. As if a speech would suddenly change the minds of the more than dozen Dems who voted for cloture.

[cali]

18. Lame. Obama has voted for all the legislation aimed at getting us out of Iraq

all of it. His voting record on Iraq is like Kennedy's and Leahy's and Sander's and close to Feingold's.

Oooh, you didn't like his speech against Roberts or Alito? Tough shit. He voted right. Better than Edwards on his best day. And he's a junior Senator. He'd just been elected when Roberts was nominated. Your attacks on Obama are so weak, and that's because you don't have anything to attack him with. Your candidate? I could write volumes.

[Ninga]

26. He didn't step up to the podium and give a speech to like or dislike, and so what

how he voted......he voted late after it was known the nominations would pass.....and Obama was a big no-show on the Iran resolution vote.

If he is such a great leader with tremendous potential, why didn't' he give the speech of a life time when it meant putting his Senate reputation on line?????? !


Obama was right in the thick of things, along with the rest of the chicken shit Democrats who let life time appointment to the Supreme Court go without a fight.

And he was a NO SHOW.....on the Iran vote.

Perfect? NOT!

[terisan]

44. Obama voted for the funding to keep us there but he doesn't tell his supporters.

[smoogatz]

23. Not great.

He's not perfect, and I would never claim that he was. Frankly, I wish he'd done more leading and less talking about leading. But he did hold out for timelines, at least.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/

[Ninga]

dupe - sorry

[Ninga]

28. what has he led on as a Senator?????

[peacebird]

11. I don't think that Obama has done anything "brave" or shown any leadership on Iraq

I have read all the policy info on both of their websites and I think Edwards is the best hope we have to protect the middle class, and to get us OUT of Iraq. He won't increase the size of the Army, and he wants all our people out in 10 months.

Edwards at least admitted he was wrong to vote initially to give bush the war powers. The fact that our CURRENT congress, even with (slim) Dem majorities is still not holding the bush admin accountable, and that our current congress are still NOT enforcing their role in checks and balances, that troubles me a LOT MORE than the initial vote.

I was wobbling between Obama and Edwards a long time, and I came down on Edwards side. Both are good, strong candidates. I think either would serve us well.

[avaistheone1]

29. Obama never voted on Iraq.

It is easy for Obama to say he always was against the Iraq war. Obama never saw the bogus, cherry-picked intel, and Obama was never responsible to any constituency for an Iraq vote since he was not in Congress at the time when the vote was taken.

Obama has only made a quarter of the Senate votes, and was "no-show" on the critical H.R. 2764, a 2008 fiscal year omnibus appropriations bill that provides additional war funding. So don't tell me how brave Obama is!

[peacebird]

34. I didn't - I told you I didn't think he had shown any bravery or leadership....

we're on the same page I think...

:hi:

[ellisonz]

74. Yes...because bogus, cherry picked intel...

...would have changed the mind of someone who was against aggressive interventionist foreign policy.

[CoffeeCat]

12. I was leaning Edwards, and I caucused for Obama...

I love John Edwards and I continue to cheer for him.

In the end it was a few main things for me that tilted me toward Obama:

--He's a constitutional scholar and he will not destroy what our Founding Fathers laid down, as Bush has.
Obama will respect our Constitution and uphold it, as Bush was supposed to do. If we don't have democracy
our basic right and a functioning government--we have nothing. Obama will preserve and repair our basic
framework--including restore Habeas Corpus.
--Obama was against the Iraq war from the onset. I like that position, but most importantly, Obama stood
up to George Bush during a time when speaking out against he war was tantamount to being with the terrorists.
Remember what those times were like? Bush had a 70 percent approval rating and the nation was gripped with
fear. Obama came out and said, "This won't work." It's remarkable.
--Obama's campaign is a highly organized machine unlike no other. Yes, this is a "mechanical" issue. However,
it's important. He has the intellect, the organization and the messaging to take this train to the White House.
I saw this first hand in Iowa. He can parlay what he did in Iowa to the rest of the nation--and there's just
no stopping how effective the campaign is.
--Obama appeals to Republicans, Independents and Dems. No other candidate could as successfully peel off
Indy, and disenfranchised Reps--like Obama. That's why he got the Indy vote in Iowa. That's why we increased
voter turnout by 100 percent. 100 percent!

Obama has the substance, but he's also got the entire formula for securing the nomination and the WH.

After seeing this in Iowa, there's just so doubt for me.

[Colobo]

14. Thanks, and you're right!

[VenusRising]

58. Actually, Edwards is the only candidate that beats

every other candidate in Ohio, Republicans and Democrats alike.

And in the debates the other night, the independents had a very good reaction to Edwards according to the real-time pulse poll streamed online vs the other two candidates.

I hope that if Obama gets the nomination he can make it through to the end. Being in Ohio, I'm going with Edwards.

Isn't Democracy fun? :bounce:

[moc]

21. Absolutely how I feel, on every single point. Thanks for putting it so

well.

:hi:

[Adelante]

22. Very good

Gobama :toast:

[krabigirl]

27. But

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the IWR vote happened. How easy it is for him to say he was against the war from the beginning. I think it's great that he says that, don't get me wrong. I said it too.

[smoogatz]

32. His opposition was on the record in 2002.

His speech was spot-on, almost prescient. You should read it:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

If Obama could get it right, why couldn't Edwards?

[terisan]

45. Maybe because Edwards was in the Senate then, as soon as obama got in the Senate he voted pro war.

[smoogatz]

54. Not true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/

Don't forget—23 senators voted against the IWR. Why did Edwards lack their foresight and courage?

[terisan]

56. For the same reason Obama has lacked courage on Iraq votes since getting to senate?

[cali]

73. not so. All of the senators who voted against the war

have voted for funding. All of them. Criticize Obama for it, you better criticize Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold and Boxer.

[terisan]

82. My issue with Obama as candidate is he highlights antiwar stance before he had to vote on it

but doesn;t talk about his vote to fund. I consider that a distortion, especially since many supporters on DU apparently did not know about his Senate votes to fund.

[FrenchieCat]

33. One didn't have to be in the senate to make their views heard on

Iraq. Ask Al Gore!

I like the 2nd speech way better. More substance, and no big ass lies.
That happened when Bush was at 70% approval, and Edwards was sitting on the "Intelligence" committee, where the Dem chairman voted nay on the Resolution.

Delivered on October 7, 2002 in the Halls of power-
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel.
snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won. --John Edwards
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

VERSUS...

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 arm-chair, 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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. 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, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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 US 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 today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation 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.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[Cameron27]

31. If I wasn't supporting Clinton,

I'd make the same choice.

[aein]

35. This is exactly how I feel.

[readmoreoften]

42. No president will ever be more progressive than their rhetoric.

Once you're in office, the corporate powers that be and the desire for reelection manipulate your agenda.

Obama said in 2004 that his position on Iraq was the same as Bush's. He's voted for it plenty.
He says he won't get out until 2013.

Edwards' position evolves as circumstances change. He was wrong. He admitted it. He grew more critical of his own position. He now stays things have worsened and he says there is no military solution. He now says all troops out within 9 months.

Both men have blood on their hands, Edwards for starting it and Obama for continuing it.

If you want to vote to punish those who voted for the IWR, vote Obama. If you want to vote for someone who's going to correct the mistake he made, vote Edwards.

[GreenArrow]

90. vote for someone who's going to correct the mistake he made

I think either one will try to get us out, sooner or later. Personally, I'd rather not reward the one who helped get us in there to begin with. Additonally, I don't think anyone of either party is going to get us out as fast as a lot of us would like.

[frogmarch]

47. Edwards doesn't swing with

whichever way the wind blows at any given moment. He's steadfast and stays on message.

I never know about Obama.

[smoogatz]

55. I disagree.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that when you really look at Edwards' record, he emerges as a crass political opportunist of the first order. For the war before the polls turned against it. For the bankruptcy bill when Wellstone was against it, the he's suddenly the defender of the poor when he does the math and figures out that the only way he gets the nom is to run left of everybody but Kucinich. Whichever way the wind blows, indeed.

[terisan]

57. I would think running to the center and giving few specifics is winning strategy in America.

[smoogatz]

59. So far so good.

As I noted in the OP, I'd rather vote the record than the rhetoric. Edwards' record as a progressive is abysmal.

[terisan]

60. But he sure isn't running to the center or pandering to corporations.

[smoogatz]

61. Because he knows he can't.

Hillary's already cornered the market. But he pandered his ass off when the opportunity arose during his brief Senate career.

[terisan]

62. Obama is running to the center.

[smoogatz]

63. Good move on his part.

He can pull it off because he opposed the war, so he's clearly differentiated from Clinton on that account. See how it works?

[terisan]

67. Uh he is voting as Bush requested --for war. He's ceding ground to the right on

this and on social security.

I think he is being smart/clever re the war but not too principled. On social security I think he is doing the bidding of Wall Street contributors.

On Clinton I appreciate that she doesn't move to the right on reproductive health and keeps it up on her website.

I am not interested in being given "hope" I want real gains. Reagan was big on giving hope to middle class people and wealth to the rich.

On Edwards I appreciate his going after corporations. He is not afraid to identify the problem.

[smoogatz]

69. You're right about SS, wrong about the war.

I think he'll end the war in short order if he wins, but his SS position is a big blunder.

[terisan]

79. What would you want him to do re social security ? (I'd like to keep writing to his campaign on this

issue). My only thought so far is to end the Bush tax cuts on super rich and pay back the social security trust fund.

[terisan]

64. I like to see how people evolve. Obama was against the war, now he is for it. Edwards was for the

war, now he is against it.

[smoogatz]

65. Obama has worked consistently in the Senate to tie funding to withdrawal.

What has Edwards done to end the war? Talk?

[terisan]

68. But he voted for the Bush appropriation request for the war.

[smoogatz]

70. He voted for a version that tied funding to withdrawal.

He voted against the stripped-out version. What do you want him to do—set himself on fire in protest?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/

[terisan]

77. I want him to keep his word about being against Iraq War.

[cali]

76. omg

Edwards has changed his postition on everything and he does it constantly. unbelievable delusion.

[Cha]

80. Yeah, I have a different take

on it of course.. I like Edwards and I like Obama. Edwards has evolved into his position; one isn't always enlightened from the start.

They're both good for what our country needs now and I hope they both do exceedingly well today and gain momentum in the ensuing gruelling weeks and months ahead!

[smoogatz]

84. Second that.

Good luck to all three.

[Tennessee Gal]

86. You are dead wrong.

Please read this: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

[robbedvoter]

87. Checking records - always healthy. Well thought out.

[ngant17]

89. Very well said, my feelings exactly

I always suspected that JE was doing the old 'smoke and mirrors' act for the primaries. Accurate predictions tend to be based on past events. At least, that's how probability and statistics work.

I'd rather take my chances with Obama, who conceiveably could make an about-face on all the important promises he made prior to the election. Sure, anything's possible, but at least he was predictable BEFORE the elections.

Once you introduce variances into the data set, it gets real blurry and the risk increases. Consistency is even more important than previous experience. Because if your actions were/are inconsistent, then your experience doesn't mean anything to me.

JE is a warmonger compared to Obama, no question about that IMHO. Not surprising, as NC is a state saturated with the military-industrial complex (Army, Marine and Special Forces bases, Blackwater HQ, merc capital of the world, ect.).

[ecstatic]

95. excellent observation. Actions speak louder than words... The brilliant

thing about Obama is he is pulling in Indies and Repugs with a "message of hope" and they have no idea how progressive/liberal he truly is! Even people on our side seem to be confused, thinking he is too centrist. Whereas, Edwards rhetoric, which is not even remotely tied to his record, scares those people off, not to mention the fact that he has no intention of backing up his promises.