Wellstone Democrats...Who do you support?

[Armstead]

I'm going for Obama by default, after Edwards left the race.

He's not enough of Wellstione for me, but a damn site better than eight years of Clintonian centrism.

Any other WD's out there?

[jackson_dem]

1. How is Barack any less centrist than Hillary?

[Armstead]

5. I think he'd be more open to progressive ideas

He hasn't spent 15 years trying to marginalize "the left."

It's a gamble I realize. But I know what we'll get with a Clinton and I know I don't like that prospect.

[jackson_dem]

8. Fair enough. I may wind up supporting him for similar reasons

At worst he will be Bill Clinton 2.0.

[kelligesq]

60. Vote Edwards- he's still in and wanting votes & delegates - he's entered in all 24 today &

has called up to make sure he's in North Dakota and Rhode Island

he's in the races in Feb 19, March and April

in Caucuses Edwards delegates are voting uncommitted so they can vote for him
as delegates at the convention

regular voters should vote for John to give him more delegates at the convention.

Then the other two are forced to take on his platform

Clue: Tom Daschle and all the old time dems, who have gotten us nowhere in more than the last 7 years...call it 16 years under Tomm Daschle as Senate Minority and Majority leader - which is why we voted him out -he did nothing against Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Frist.

So how can Obama be change, if Tom Daschle is his advisor

VOTE EDWARDS

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Edwards first, now maybe Obama.

[Fox Mulder]

3. I supported Kucinich, but after he dropped out, I support Edwards.

I'm going to vote for Edwards tomorrow in the MN caucus.

[KitchenWitch]

4. I cast my vote absentee for Edwards.

I have no clue, now that Edwards has chosen to suspend his campaign.

[democrattotheend]

51. I was pretty surprised too

Thought he'd stay in at least until Super Tuesday. I am an Obama supporter but Edwards was a close second, and I was bummed to see him drop out.

[KitchenWitch]

55. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Tatiana]

6. Are you sure you don't want to caucus for Edwards?

I mean, you don't have much to lose. If he doesn't get 15%, then you can move to Obama.

[flyarm]

7. Edwards...all the way! eom

[Radical Activist]

9. Another WD for Obama.

Obama has a solid progressive voting record and comes from the same kind of activist movement-politics background as Wellstone. I thought Obama was a closer match for me from the start. It was either Obama or Kucinich.

[flyarm]

10. Obama is even more of a centrist..he wants to negotiate with repigs on everything! eom

[Armstead]

I believe he wants to win over disaffected Repubs

The Clintons were the biggest GOP enablers we've had in memory.

[Radical Activist]

29. There's a difference between

presenting progressive policies in a way that appeals to moderates, like Obama does, and shifting your policy positions to become more centrist, as the Clintons do.

[flyarm]

42. obama is not a progressive..we let the progressive candidate go...

Edwards....so do not pander your bullshit here about Obama being a progressive..he is not!

eom

[Radical Activist]

58. I look at voting records

and Obama has the most consistent progressive voting record and platform of any candidate this year apart from Kucinich.

The biggest BS I've seen this campaign season was the far fetched campaign to paint Obama as a conservative. The baloney along the lines of, "Obama isn't progressive because he said Reagan's name, or he used a "right wing talking point" or because he ordered a ham sandwich last Wednesday." Everything Obama did was spun into some kind of secret signal that he wasn't progressive but none of those attacks ever had anything to do with his platform or voting record. I'm sorry you fell for it but I look at the real Obama.

[Bread and Circus]

11. Feingold to Gore to Edwards (briefly) to Obama (mainly my wife drew me in)

[Beausoir]

12. This Minnesota liberal supports Hillary Clinton and I do NOT support Obama.

I campaigned for Wellstone. I remember the day he died. Heartbreaking.

Paul Wellstone stood for solid policy. He could be a very inspirational speaker, but he had the policy to back it up.

Wellstone would NEVER suck up to Republicans just to garner votes. That's what he was all about.

Obama is no Paul Wellstone.

[buff2]

13. Amen to that!

Obama sucks up to the republicans way too much for me.Plus he acts like he has more experience than Hillary.I don't like anything about him. I hope he loses and loses BIG. GO HILLARY!!!!

[Maribelle]

49. Also, Obama dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a gadfly

But please hush about this.

Obama supporters don't want this mentioned.

Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was “magnificent.” He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a “gadfly,” in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama’s support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It’s because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/

[zulchzulu]

15. Hillary does suck up to Republicans

You can be for whoever you want, but I sincerely doubt Paul would be a Hillary fan.

[Beausoir]

18. And..you worked for Wellstone..when? Refresh my memory on that.

[zulchzulu]

26. I met Paul once in DC in 1999. I never had the good fortune to work for him

I've went to Camp Wellstone in 2004.

I simply ask you to compare these quotes and tell me where Obama is less of a "Wellstone" than Hillary. Compare these statements regarding the Iraq War Resolution.

Here is Hillary Clinton:

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Here is Paul Wellstone:

A go-it-alone approach, allowing for a ground invasion of Iraq without the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance. A pre-emptive go-it-alone strategy towards Iraq is wrong. I oppose it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2CLRZLK2E

Here is Barack Obama:

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.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

You could have worked for Paul Wellstone all you want, but if you think people aren't going to point out the obvious paradox of you thinking Obama isn't more like Wellstone than Clinton, then you must not have really learned about what Paul Wellstone was all about.

Good luck. Save any attacks on me for somebody else.

[cali]

39. The dems in the Senate who are closest to being Wellstone dems

support Obama. You can try and deny that all you want, but Pat Leahy is as liberal as Wellstone was and Kennedy is damn close. Furthermore it's an ill kept secret here that Bernie supports Obama. 11 members of the Progressive Caucus in the House support Obama and a tiny 3 support Clinton. Face it, Clintonians, the liberal wing of the party is backing Obama.

[MessiahRp]

16. No Clintons don't suck up to Republicans for votes...

They suck up to them and give them everything they want legislation-wise instead. NAFTA? Sure! DOMA? Why Not! Welfare Reform? Of Course! Media Consolidation? Great Idea!

Neither of these candidates is great (in retrospect the 2004 class was far more liberal) but the Clintons have been world-class Republican suck asses when it comes to working in Washington.

Rp

[Armstead]

19. Wellstone was very critical of Bill Clinton

He gave several speeches criticizing what Clinton and his form of "centrism" had done to the Democratic Party

[Beausoir]

22. Wellstone was critical of everyone. That's why he was Paul Wellstone.

And Paul Wellstone would not have stood still for one single minute of the Obama/Donnie McClurkin gay bashing southern tour.

You are not familiar with his views.

[Armstead]

32. I am familiar with his views -- I think you misinterpret Obama's

He screwed up. Okay, I've moved on from that. At this point it's just a cheap shot.

My view is that all of the candidates ought to stop squirming around and friggin support same sex marriage. Stop hedging.

That would show that they were truly enlightened. But neither Barak or Hillary is ready to take that step.

[mahina]

14. Obama all the way,

in a big green bus. God I miss Paul Wellstone! Tried to get his training here but it could not be done. His book, organizing the Wellstone way, is really good though.

[Beausoir]

20. So, you think Wellstone would support Donnie McClurkin/Obama's view that gay people can be cured?

You have NO idea what you are talking about with regard to Paul Wellstone. None.

[zulchzulu]

27. You are a LIAR

Find me the quote where Obama said that gays can be cured... I will give you $1,000. You know why? Because there is no such quote.

I'd supply you with what Obama said about MClurkin, but I know I'd be wasting my time.

[stimbox]

52. Is that a clean coal bus or a nuke powered bus? n/t

[mahina]

61. It's a tax cuts for renewable energy business bus.

Let's pretend we don't need coal. I've been a student of clean energy for three decades, and worked in our legislature on net metering, renewable portfolio standards, and against ethanol. I don't have to agree with every contributor or decision to know a good candidate when I see one, and Hillary is no better on either issue.
That is all.

[kentuck]

17. I'm going to flip a coin...

I swear, I don't know who to vote for? I am totally torn... :shrug:

[Armstead]

21. Obama

You know me. Trust me on this....or not.

But, based on what I know of you through your posts, I do think you'd be more of an Obama type.

[kentuck]

24. Thanks for your support Armstead.

:-)

[Beausoir]

25. Would Paul Wellstone approve of Obama hiring Donnie McClurkin to garner votes?

Donnie McClurkin, who believes that gay people can be "cured"?

Would Paul Wellstone stand still for that kind of hate for one single second?

Your decision is easy.

[EFerrari]

41. You're overstating your case. Remember Paul's own votes

and how he himself had to reconsider and refine his own position.

[mahina]

28. Really?

I can't imagine what that would feel like. I loved Obama since before he agreed to run, was dancing when he announced he would.

To me, he's as good, as W is bad. Just what we need to totally change the equation in the world. It would be like having a President for the first time in many many years.

Yeah, it's like that. I love him a lot and am so grateful to his family for supporting this for us.

Good luck with your decision; take a peek at these videos when you have a chance:http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

and this one, historic for sure. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms

Barack has my wholehearted support. I don’t agree with him on some important points, but I feel profoundly that he’s going to help bring this country back to sanity. The liberal/conservative thing, while based in reality, is so much bullshit sometimes- as if the right is in any sense conservative. Finding common ground is not just a tactic, it’s the truth about our interests as Americans. Lakoff had an interesting article about this today on Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

” This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major “issues” dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right — adopting right-wing positions — to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by “bipartisanship.” Obama means the opposite by “bipartisanship.” To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves “conservatives” or “independents,” but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn’t have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about “I,” I,” “I” (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about “you” and “we” (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama’s thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.”

You might have read Paul Rogat Loeb’s book, “Soul of a Citizen: How to Live with Conviction in a Cynical Time”. Paul Loeb wrote a good article summing up his newfound support for Barack that you can read here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/124418/149/483/446991


Much aloha, good luck.

[Dr.Phool]

23. If he's on the ballot, VOTE EDWARDS!

[Tatiana]

30. Wellstone was a stand-up guy. After I wrote all the Dem senators on the issue of Iraq

he and Dick Durbin were the only ones who responded to me. (And his message was a personal one; Durbin's seemed like a standard position message.)

In a book he published last year, ''The Conscience of a Liberal'' (Random House), Mr. Wellstone wrote, ''I feel as if 80 percent of my work as a senator has been playing defense, cutting the extremist enthusiasms of the conservative agenda (much of which originates in the House) rather than moving forward on a progressive agenda.''

In a speech in the Senate this month explaining his opposition to the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Mr. Wellstone stressed that Saddam Hussein was ''a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people.''

But Mr. Wellstone went on to say: ''Despite a desire to support our president, I believe many Americans still have profound questions about the wisdom of relying too heavily on a pre-emptive go-it-alone military approach. Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting sensibly and in a measured way, in concert with our allies, with bipartisan Congressional support, would be a sign of our strength.''

Later, Mr. Wellstone told a reporter that he did not believe his stance would hurt him politically. ''What would really hurt,'' he said, ''is if I was giving speeches and I didn't even believe what I was saying. Probably what would hurt is if people thought I was doing something just for political reasons.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E7DE1F3CF935A15753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[eridani]

31. Kucinich, then Edwards, then Uncommitted n/t

[Armstead]

33. Who is Uncommitted

That's a candidate I've never heard of.
:)

[eridani]

37. It's the anti-money candidate you get to support in caucus states

Seriously, you can go to the precinct, LD/county and CD conventions as an uncommitted delegate, and run as such at every level.

[KansDem]

46. Sounds like me!

Initially, I went with Kucinich, then he backed out. Then I went with Edwards, then he backed out. For awhile there, I thought I was dating again!

This evening, I plan to caucus for Edwards...

[Emit]

34. I was thrilled by

neither, but tossed my support to Obama in my caucus, by default.

[TexasObserver]

35. Feingold, then Edwards, now Obama

I'm very happy with where Obama is, and the overwhelmingly positive response he is getting. I have feared the party was aging badly, and going to cave into itself if we didn't infuse it with some vital new blood.

Politics is the plot of Animal Farm, played out over and over.

[Alexander]

36. Originally Gore, and now Obama.

[HughBeaumont]

38. I'm voting for Obama, simply because he's not Hillary.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/32
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/33

Among other reasons are that I'm not into legacy handoffs and I seriously don't think she'd beat McCain in a GE. One thing Repukes will unite around is their sense of pride, and that includes never letting their most hated enema, a female named "Clinton", defeat their candidate; even if that candidate isn't so well liked. She would mobilize Repukes like you wouldn't believe.

I just cannot cast my vote, GE or Primary, for a pro-job-offshorer and pro-free-trader and someone who believed the worst president this nation has ever had . . . twice. With here, there are too many negatives and unneeded baggage for me to overcome. A stand is a stand, and it means nothing unless it's backed by action. Surely DUers can understand that.

[mac56]

40. Edwards, today.

Whoever the nominee is in the general.

Neither of the "Big Two" is enough like Paul to suit me. But he would have voted for the nominated one.

[wheresthemind]

43. I got into politics because of Paul Wellstone... I support Obama

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. Hillary. Obama is NO Progressive. He wants to play nice with the very people who have destroyed our

country and has no intentions of having any of them investigated either. With Hillary, there's a better chance they will pay for their crimes.

[TornadoTN]

45. Obama here

Sure, he's not Wellstone but then again no one could be. He's my candidate and very proud of it!

[Zorra]

47. I'm not voting in the Dem primary for the first time in my life.

I see both of these candidates as nothing but representatives of some new and as yet unnamed hybrid political party, a cross between the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Corporatarian Party might be an appropriately descriptive name for this party. This new party has fully usurped our democracy, as it recognizes corporations and a ruling economic elite class as the sole legitimate determinant of the political, social and economic policies undertaken by the government of the United States.

In the general election, I'll vote for the candidate that is nominated by the Democratic party, but my vote will be cast in an attempt to prevent a republican from being elected President.

I'm not a "Socialist", but when I read this piece while searching for information on the two remaining Dem candidates, I found myself strongly inclined to agree with it:

"For millions of voters, and particularly for young people, the response to Obama’s campaign reflects both a deep-going desire for significant social and political change, as well as widespread illusions—fostered assiduously by the media—that the election of the first black president would represent a fundamental break with an old and discredited political order in the United States.

Obama is not, however, the product of the civil rights struggles against racial oppression, nor is he associated with any popular movement from below. His career has far more in common with those of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, individuals selected and groomed by the American ruling class to carry out its policies. Like them, he is being used to put a new face on fundamentally reactionary policies and institutions.
snip---
It is necessary to distinguish sharply between the political shift among working people and youth, a movement to the left which presages the outbreak of mass social and political struggles, and the efforts of the ruling elite to manipulate popular sentiments, manufacture illusions, and disarm the masses politically.

The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f04.shtml

[calmblueocean]

48. I remember waving at Wellstone outside my apt. window during a 4th of July parade. (Obama!)

Even in my Republican suburb, people just mobbed Wellstone. He sure was loved.

Obama isn't Paul Wellstone, not by a long shot, but I have no doubt Wellstone would've cast his vote for him.

[democrattotheend]

50. Obama may not be as liberal as Wellstone, but

he embodies the grassroots campaigns that Wellstone ran, and his understanding of the power of the grassroots is what does it to me. I am not sure I can consider myself a "Wellstone Democrat" (he was one of my favorite senators ever but a few of my views are to the right of where he stood, though I agreed with him most of the time), so I didn't vote in the poll, but as someone with a lot of admiration for Paul Wellstone, I will be proudly casting my vote for Obama next week in Virginia.

[indimuse]

53. Obama has NOT stood for ANYTHING his entire time in ANY office!

He is a wimpy "PRESENT" voter...! He said..."He would NOT fund the War when and IF he were elected to US Senate!"..He has voted FOR IT!>>every time he COULD! He has missed many important votes that REALLY DO matter! When asked viable questions ...he always deflects to other candidates...and never give an HONEST answer...REZKO...HE LIED! say what you will ...but this is just the beginning of the END of MR. Thinks HE"S ALL that and his wife too!

[calmblueocean]

57. Did you ever read this WaPo article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

[stimbox]

54. Gravel

I went Kucinich > Edwards > Gravel.

Hillary is out and proud DLC.
Obama is on the downlow DLC.

If you vote for the top 2 the DLC wins and the American people lose.

Vote for Gravel.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. I'm voting "uncommitted" in my caucus this evening

and I'm going to try to get elected as a delegate to the Senate district to promote a long-shot candidate.

It's a way of saying that I don't like either of the choices presented to me.

[newspeak]

59. Well, this is starting to look like the Dukakis race to me

everyone of my choices started dropping out like flies. My first choice was Kuccinich, then it was John Edwards, now it's grudgingly Obama. I wrote Wellstone a letter before the 2000 election pleading him to run for President. I've always supported him and even though I'm not from his state, I always sent him money. Wellstone, to me, was the man!!!!