Edwards supporters: Are we coming around to Obama yet?

[marions ghost]

I was an Edwards supporter. It's taken a little time to get used to his vacancy in the race and I hope he remains a strong player on the stage of American politics. At this point I see Obama, despite certain flaws, as the best remaining Dem for the job. Are others leaning this way?

Also I am becoming ever more fearful of the reality of a John McBush presidency. Dems -- we need to pull together in the next critical months. It's obvious we must overwhelm the Repugs in numbers. We have seen the Republican tendency to cheat in elections and there's no reason to think they will not do it again with enthusiasm. Our election systems remain unprotected and compromised. We cannot let McBush (much less Hucksterbee) prevail. This country has to pull out of this steep nosedive the warmongers have us locked into. They may not have God, but they still have Diebold & election riggers on their side.

How to attract Independents and ex-Republicans to the Dem candidate. Will they go for Obama or Hillary or both equally?

So former Edwards supporters, are you ready to pull for Obama? Or are there reasons why you couldn't? Are there any Edwards supporters switching to Hillary? If so, why?

[griffi94]

1. since edwards dropped

i guess i'm going with hillary

[marions ghost]

3. thanks for reply

and what's your main reason for that choice? :)

[joshcryer]

6. I imagine because she's using his Health Care, Immigration Reform, and Iraq Withdrawal plans.

Her plans are his plans.

[griffi94]

23. they're not that different

and i don't think obama can pull it off.
my fear is that he'll win in nov and be totally ineffective.
i expect the repubs to obstruct as much as possible, and probly some of the more conservative dems. as well.
good intentions wrapped around inexperience coupled with a divided populace is not imo a good combination.
if he can't deliver he'll be tarred worse than carter was. setting the stage for jeb bush in 2012...thanks but no thanks

[cali]

42. nope. the Senate will be even more democratic

with at least 54 Seats held by dems and Bernie. The House will be even more democratic as well. And when that happens, historically the party in power is coherent. It's simple stuff, really.

[elixir]

52. 54 does not make the senate the 60% majority we need. HRC has worked w/ both sides w/ great success

[peacebaby3]

148. Why would you need 60% majority with a Democratic president? n/t

[elixir]

48. Nicely put. I couldn't say it better myself. Thanks again, griffi94.

[thetaoofterri]

62. Ditto

I was one of those waiting for Gore to enter the race. When he didn't I switched to Edwards and when he dropped out (after I stopped jumping up and down, stomping my feet, screaming and crying), I switched to Hillary for pretty close to the same reasons.

[Carrieyazel]

208. Obama still has a long road to the White House. I doubt he even gets there.

He has to overcome Hillary, and she isn't going anywhere.

And even if he does that, its all year long with being called "Barack Hussein Obama" and it being broadcast on every media outlet you can think of until November.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. On what grounds?

Of course, they're both lawyers connected to corporations. On opposite sides of the table - she fought for them with Rose Law Firm; Edwards made his carreer fighting against them.
They are both 100% regarding corporate donations - Hillary 100% for, Edwards 100% against.

I'm having difficulty coming up with the same conclusion. Please enlighten me.

[dchill]

36. The reason you're "having difficulty"...

is because it's impossible. Hillary adopted Edwards' "babies" so she could drown them after the election. Obama is closer to Edwards in his voting record - in fact, he is more liberal.

[elixir]

54. Nice touch. It's easier to have a substantive discussion when rheotoric is left out

[dchill]

75. "Rhetoric?"

I call it plain talk, with just a little ketchup!

[mrbluto]

92. Um..what is a discussion otherwise?

rhet·o·ric

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

Yeah!

Let's ditch all those things. And spelling too!

Some people just won't quit with all those fancy words and phrases and logic and thinking.

To hell with'em!

[elixir]

46. Thanks, Griffi94, we need your support.

[grantcart]

2. with Obama

[cboy4]

4. We are not.

[SammyWinstonJack]

160. Definitely not.

[DaLittle Kitty]

192. Wait til The Convention... see what Edwards DOES... There Are Plenty of NEgatives yet to Come Out..

By the Convention NEITHER MAY BE ELECTABLE... Watch and wait....:)

[lwcon]

5. Nope:

http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_endorses_hillary_rodham_clinton

[Coexist]

7. I moved to Obama - I am now thrilled with my choice

and its not even because of the cool robes and kool-aid I get.

This graph helped me make up my mind. He has seriously addressed issues of poverty. It was his #2 issue behind healthcare.

He was boots on the ground on this issue for years, when he could've been making himself a rich man.

and before it gets lost by the graphic, you might want to read this. Great quotes from it:

"After graduating from Columbia, Obama went to work with churches that organized job training and other programs for residents of a massive housing project in Chicago. He persuaded the city to provide summer jobs, remove asbestos, repair toilets, pipes and ceilings. He went door to door, offering help for three years, then went to Harvard Law School.

As a member of the minority party of the Senate for six of his eight years there, Obama wrote a health insurance law that covered an additional 20,000 children, a welfare reform law, an earned-income-tax-credit law for working-poor families, and death penalty reform that passed unanimously. During his last two years in the majority, he sponsored 780 bills, 280 of which became law."

[Kittycat]

35. Thank you for the link.

I hadn't read that before, it's nice side by side of the two. Being from IL, we're pretty familiar with all the great things he's done for our state, and particularly the poor. But the graph you shared is also a great summary - putting exacts to his policy.

[SoFlaJet]

37. Ex-Edwards supporter now solidly FOR Obama

and hey Fldem-we may get to vote for him AGAIN down here in The Sunshine State

[Coexist]

43. I will (as will my DH, daughter and mom) vote for Obama this time.

I hope so!

[SoFlaJet]

57. My wife too

we were both in Edwards corner up until about a week before our faux primary. Then I read a piece in the Huff Post titled "Edwards doesn't expect to win any primaries" at which point I said even THEY know they can't win so we might as well vote for the next best thing-and help stop Clinton. Those were the 3 factors.

[WillyT]

211. Yes... Thanks For That Link !!!

:yourock:

[jsamuel]

8. nope

[xchrom]

9. i won't go with obama.

because of this among other things.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force


i don't need some hetero giving me a ''basic set of rights'' -- i don't need to learn how to behave so that i'm not discriminated against.

just a fuckin horrifying statement -- combine that with obama's donnie and the anti-gay gospellers -- and he can kiss my gay ass.

i'm happy with my edwards vote.

[marions ghost]

29. I understand

your reaction to this statement. I can't defend it--Obama needs to tho.

From a legal perspective we all may need a new bill of rights after the invasive policies of the current administration.

[xchrom]

33. indeed w may -- given that any of us can be arrested and ''interrogated'' now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. So you oppose him because he favors civil unions.

Ohh kay.

[xchrom]

96. so you're in favor of some special ''basic set of rights''.

ohh kay.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. He never said 'special'. And yes, everybody has a basic set of rights.

As things stand now, those rights are being denied to gay couples. His civil unions corrects that.

He believes that civil unions which are written to fully protect the rights granted by marriage is an adequate compromise to sacrificing the word "marriage".

Personlly, I think "marriage" is a religious term, and that we, like France, should ALL have civil unions, and those who wish to get a church wedding are free to do so. The state should not be mixed up in religious ceremonies.

[xchrom]

197. he most certainly does not believe in the same rights for gay folk as for heteros --

read the damn statement.

he believes in rights outside of the ones now reserved for heteros. period.

you can whitewash it all you want -- but as far as i'm concerned -- you are coming off as a bigot -- married can be done by a justice of the peace or a judge or a mayor or a sea captain -- there are -- as i'm certain you know -- some 400 hundred laws federally that set aside marriage as a legal institution. -- they are not going to confer all of those laws into civil unions. not. going. to. happen.

obama is using -- by anyone's standards -- gay folk as a kind of tug and pull wedge issue.

drag out donnie as a threatening figure -- and set up the ''rebuttal'' -- except he DEFENDS donnie in the same breath.

don't fuckin tell me something isn't fishy in obamaland when it comes to gay folk -- cause it fuckin stinks -- and again -- you know it -- but don't fuckin care.

don't try to tell me black is beige when i'm lookin right at it.

that statement reads like he thinks gay folk are untrained animals.

[begin_within]

10. No. Without Edwards or Kucinich, it's no longer an election. It's just a beauty contest now

between which factions of the ruling class get to camp out in the White House for 4 years.

[theHandpuppet]

14. Don't remind me

I can't remember an election cycle when I felt this discouraged.

:(

[MrCoffee]

133. Standing Ovation, bob_weaver!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Blue_In_AK]

166. You got it, Bob_Weaver.

That's how I feel.

[citizen snips]

174. you are close

its more like a celebrity contest.

[Catchawave]

203. Couldn't have said it better !

:applause:

[LWolf]

11. Absolutely not.

Of course, I was only a possible Edwards supporter for a few weeks, the weeks between my candidate's dropping out and Edwards' decision to do the same.

Every one of the candidates that I considered as a compromise in case mine didn't make it to my May 20 primary is gone, leaving the only two that I have repeatedly sworn not to support at any time.

I stand by that vow.

[marions ghost]

15. interesting

so you will sit it out or write in Edwards or Kucinich?

[LWolf]

47. Gravel may still be on my primary ballot.

If so, he'll get my primary vote. If not, I'll write in DK.

Same for the GE.

[tnlefty]

13. I voted for Edwards in our primary.

My spouse who was strongly Edwards for over a year voted for Obama.

[NastyRiffraff]

16. No. I'm supporting Hillary

For many reasons, one of which is she is honoring her pledge to Edwards to push issues for the poor. I'm not saying Obama is anti-poor, but it's difficult to tell where he is on almost any issue, but "change." He's just too vague for my taste, although if nominated, I'll vote for him in the GE.

[katandmoon]

17. I've finally decided to go with Hillary

I have some problems with her. But on the whole, I feel less alienated from her than I do from Obama.

[griffi94]

27. alienated?

that's funny...i get that when i watch him as well
i'm sure he'll do a fine job but i just can't seem to warm up to him

[highflyingbird]

80. Agree

I have way too many problems with Obama. I'm firmly in Hillary's camp even if Edwards were to endorse Obama- it wouldn't change my mind. If Obama's the nominee I'll write in John Edwards in the GE.

[NC_Nurse]

18. I have.

I have donated and made calls for Obama. I like Edwards, but he's out and
I'm determined to get the most progressive, most electable Dem into office.
Gobama!

[AndyA]

19. I can't decide.

I find both of them intolerable and unacceptable.

Better than any Republican, but that bar is pretty low. :(

[Mark Twain Girl]

20. No.

[Marie26]

21. No, switched to Clinton

But I'm slowly accepting that Obama will probably be the nominee. IMO we really don't have to worry to much about McCain - Dem turnout more than doubled Republican turnout in the primaries. The GOP is DOA.

[marions ghost]

72. I'd like to think

the GOP is DOA. But I'm conditioned never to underestimate the potential for Republican theft. They take what they want when they can't get it any other way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. OTOH, republicans almost always fall in line.

Republicans don't bother with primaries because they know they will vote for whoever their nominee is. The obviously don't pay as much attention to issues, the difference between the nominees. That's one of the hallmarks of being a Republican. If they cared about issues, they'd be Democrats.

[Justyce]

22. No, we're leaning toward HRC since Edwards is out.

Some of my reasons are that I believe she's closer to Edwards on the issues and has more of a chance beating the repubs in the GE, especially in terms of experience. We really would've preferred Edwards though. :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Obama has always been in a tie for 4th ranking for me,

with Biden and Gravel, after Gore, Kucinich, Edwards, and before Richardson and Clinton. And Clinton remains the only one I could never vote for.

[splat]

25. Obama is no John Edwards

This feels like a hustle, as does so much from Obama supporters.

[marions ghost]

55. Agreed

going from Edwards to Obama requires a certain adjustment. I have contributed to Edwards, have had his bumper stickers on my car from the first, have followed his campaign avidly, have been to one of his rallies, have even talked some of my family into supporting him. I was looking forward to voting for him in the primary.

I don't work for any campaign...but I understand how you could see this as another hustle.

No, I've been watching the reprise of John McCain and suddenly the possibility seems all too real. We Dems cannot afford to splinter if we ever want to see the climate that would support an Edwards (or Kucinich) in the highest office. I admitted my leaning towards Obama as I do believe he is "most electable" and his policies aren't too different from Hillary's. I think that Hillary is the most vulnerable of the two, but I'm curious about the reasons why people would switch from Edwards to Hillary.

I'm interested in people's reactions at this point in general as we face the question of can we compromise to get a Dem elected?

Already the answers have been very much to the point and thanks to those like you who speak their mind.

[TexasObserver]

26. I almost never get my first choice, so moving on is part of it.

Until the day he announced he was dropping out, I really thought there was a chance John would go all the way to the convention, there would be no candidate who could win a majority of the delegates, and he might emerge as the consensus candidate.

Since I was hoping for Edwards-Obama, it's only a slight shift for me. I've never understood why anyone is hostile to Obama. What's not to like about the guy?

Now that it's down to two, I think we are fighting for the heart and soul of the party, for its future. Will we be viable, or do we become a party that cannot win the presidency? We're seeing a chance to bring a whole new wave of talent and energy into the party, and if we foul this chance, we'll be getting beat every four years from here on.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. NOPE. This Edwards supporter is voting for Hillary. Her health care plan is MUCH better than Obama's

and closer to John's plan than is Obama's.

The IWR is not a fair comparison. Obama wasn't even in the Senate at the time. He was running for the Senate. Had he been faced with the same bogus crap given as reasons to invade, I suspect he'd be singing a different tune right now.

Hillary has been vetted by the MSM and all repuke. She's been attacked and attacked and attacked over the years , fought back and won. Obama's closet is still tightly closed. You KNOW they have garbage on the guy and are just sitting on it until the GE and then they will open his closet and destroy him. The repukes FEAR a Hillary candidate and are foaming at the mouth for an Obama candidate. If it's Obama, they have a VERY easy win on their hands. If it's a Hillary candidate, not so much. Hillary will kick McCain's "100 YEARS in Iraq" ASS.

[RaleighNCDUer]

200. So much delusional drivel, I don't know where to start.

She HAD no health plan, until she looted Edwards' plan - despite it being a priority with her since '92. She is not invested in it, and when it gets before congress she'll negotiate out the good parts (Edwards' parts) and cling to the giveaway to the insurance industry.

IWR: True, he was not there to vote, but he DID speak against it, and along with 15 million other Americans, knew that the reasons for war were bogus. So claiming 'he couldn't know' is a cop out.

Hillary has been attacked for years and years. But when has she actually fought back and won? She has won a single elected office against political midgets (no offense to small persons). Now, with years of preparation and a huge war chest she's barely holding her own against a guy who four years ago was a state senator. This is a winner?

And don't think the repukes are not going to come up with brand new shiney slanders to add to the chests full of old ones to throw against Hillary. They have a full armory of ammo to use against her, and are well practiced in using it - they've been preparing to face her for at least a decade.

I have yet to hear any rationale as to why they would 'fear' Hillary. As I pointed out, she's never been tested against strength (except for recently against Edwards and Obama, and that has not reflected well on her). They know full well that she has the DLC machine behind her, but no mass movement. Obama, OTOH, seems to galvanize supporters, and the republicans haven't faced anyone that could do that since, well, Bill. No one could ever accuse Hillary of heading a 'cult' - she doesn't have the chops. The 'garbage' they have on Obama is a single backer with crooked connections - and we haven't heard ANYTHING about Hillary having backers with crooked connections, now, have we?

[Jennos20]

201. OMG Thank You!

I agree with everything you just said :)

[krabigirl]

30. hell no

I don't feel that I can trust Obama...he seems a media creation, very into himself, an egomaniac. Also, his health care plan is not as good as Hillary's, and I'm tired of him talking about that fact that he didn't vote for the war in Iraq, when he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

I am not going to donate to Hillary or anything, but I have a slight preference for her, if only due to the health care plan and the fact that while I disagree with some of her stances, I feel that I can at least know what side she takes on issues.

Honestly, I really don't like either candidate, but there you have it.

[rubberducky]

31. Obama, but I`m definitely not happy about it.

Edwards had my heart!! Obama has corps money and ownership. Whoever has the "D" will get my vote, but in my heart I feel that we NEEDED Edwards. Sorry, but I just can`t seem to work up the enthusiam for Obama.

[vanbean]

32. Will vote in GE for the nominee but voted Edwards in the primary.

I am still holding out hope that the candidate will name Edwards as AG.

[musicblind]

93. if the candidate is smart

they will give Edwards whatever position he desires.

[Demeter]

34. Obama By Default

There's nothing about Hillary that appeals to me personally, and I've seen her style of governing, campaigning, treating people, and I'm appalled.

[Donnachaidh]

38. nope

not even considering that option.

[amandabeech]

39. No.

There are pluses and minuses to both Clinton and Obama, but I don't see either as standing above the other.

I'll vote for the Dem candidate in the general, but I'll hold my nose.

I'm older, though, and have financial hardships from family problems and from being a crime victim who couldn't recover easily. I'll be saving my pennies harder, that's all.

[havocmom]

40. Question: Who/what does Obama favor for control of DNC?

Personally, I favor Obama a bit over HRC, though I am saddened not to see more difference in the policies of the two.

What I fear most is the real fight is for a continuation of the 50 State strategy (which Obama does seem to have adopted with success) or the return to the McAuliffe tactics and methods (seen more in HRC approach to campaign) which brought so much distance between big machine DEMS and the people who have traditionally been the very soul of the Democratic Party.

My big fear with HRC as nominee is the Party's return to the style and smugness that lost us so much ground back in the mid-90s. I DO NOT want to see the top DEMS treat the heartland like so much cultural rubble that is best ignored. Our culture is more homogenized than the simplistic views of that type of leadership.

There are more urban refugees out in the heartland than the McAuliffes of the party seem to notice. There are more rural people forced to leave the lands and head for urban centers for jobs to support them as family farming/ranching is less able to sustain the generations coming of age. We are NOT Blue (to be attended to) and Red (to be pretty much ignored). We are America and I want Party Leadership that addresses that reality.

I lean toward Obama. He has shown an understanding of and respect for the idea that America is not just the coasts. I hope he will follow through with a shape chop to any McAuliffe shoots that try to sprout and crowd out the grassroots.

[KansDem]

41. Ask me on November 4th...

Even though he suspended his campaign, I caucused for Edwards last Tuesday in Kansas. In November, I will vote for the candidate whose last name ends with capital "D."

[Karmageddon]

44. Yet? I came around to Obama about 2 seconds after Edwards dropped out.

It's politics people. It's a contact sport. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. The primaries are the "playoffs" and the general election is the Super Bowl. When your guy loses, you can either cry about the loss and give up with another "wait until next election", or you can man up, move on to the next round, and pick a side to cheer for and support.

To all you people who can't or won't stop supporting Edwards now that he's gone, I ask you this. What if he had never entered the race? Would you still be writing his name in? Would you still be holding signs for him and defending his message and his policies? Or would you have chosen to champion a different candidate?

He's out of the race. At this point in time, it's exactly the same as if he never joined. Like the Green Bay Packers, he was knocked out of the playoffs and he won't be in the Super Bowl and wearing green and gold and a block of cheese on your head won't change that.

As for me, I'm still enjoying the game, cheering on my favorite out of who's left. For now, for me, that's Obama. If he loses to Hillary, then I'll support her and campaign for her and donate money to her in the general election.

Far more important than the playoffs, we MUST win the Super Bowl. Our nation and the world depends on it. Whether you like who's left in the Democratic campaign or not, the other choice is 4 more years of Republican rule. Try to choke that down when you're staying home or writing in your protest vote "on principle" in November.

[marions ghost]

67. yeah

and personally I hate the sports analogy, however true it is. The Gladiators fight-to-the-death thing is just Super Boring, esp when it's more hype than substance.

However I understand why in a "winner take all" system like ours everything is reduced to a contest--either/or, black/white, us vs them. In a proportional democracy we could have Edwards/Kucinich AND Obama/Hillary.

It's discouraging and stressful for people to have to strongly support a candidate like Edwards and then
have to switch to a compromise candidate. You can't just turn on a dime. However I agree with you that the real US VS THEM battle is yet to begin and we MUST win that Super Bowl.

There won't be any point to protest votes in November. What we must do is bend the candidates and the system to our way of thinking in other ways...at least right now under the system as it is.

[Marrah_G]

45. I switched to Clinton- I believe out of the remaining choices, she is the best one for the job.

This does not mean I dislike Obama or will not work for him if he gets the Nom.

I simply feel that Hillary is the better choice of the two, both for the job and for winning the election.

[Justyce]

49. K&R, hoping for more replies -- very interesting thread. nt

[Arkansas Granny]

50. Actually, I've decided to go with Hillary, but it wasn't a quick

decision. I looked at them both and feel that while their positions on many key issues are close, Hillary comes closer to representing my views. I also think that at this point she has the best chance of winning against John McCain and that was a big influence. Regardless, If Obama is the eventual nominee, I will gladly vote for him in the GE.

[Catchawave]

51. Uncommitted, but leaning Hillary.....

We just lost our strongest candidate with crossover appeal :cry:

As for Hillary, I think there's a stronger anti-Hillary movement, than a Pro-Obama surge, thanks to the same old liberals who help us lose every 4 years.

I know what I'm getting with Clinton, and damn, she beat the Kennedys and Kerrys in Massachusetts! Not to mention Oprah!

Remember Lieberman was financed by the GOP, which is worrisome to me about the obscene amounts Obama's been raising.

Edwards inspired me to be a better person and allowed me to see his vision for the future with actual policies and positions he presented. That world is gone now. I'll be okay, so it really doesn't matter who wins to me, but I prefer to vote FOR someone, and that's why I'm leaning to Girl Power :D

[Independent-Voter]

79. Strongest candidate?

You're out of your fucking mind. Look, I like John fine, but he couldn't even pull votes in a Democratic primary. What world are you living in where you think that Edwards was going to pull votes from the independents and GOP moderates?

[marions ghost]

118. If Edwards had been anointed by the media

he could have pulled a lot more votes from everywhere IMO.

[Catchawave]

124. I must respectfully disagree.....

When the Old Guard (Kennedys,Kerrys, Oh My!) came out in force to endorse Barack, my red flag went up......they hate John and Elizabeth, they may even hate Al and Tipper more.....where was the fight for the rest of us in 2000, 2004?

Dems have done NOTHING to correct the election reforms this country so desperately needs....you all do realize Indies are shit in the primaries in most states....

[goldcanyonaz]

99. She did beat the Kennedys, Kerrys and Oprah. Clinton also brought out the Hispanic voters.

More came out to support her in California for the Primary than for Kerry in the 2004 General Election.

She's a fighter.

[Catchawave]

119. She's a shark, Obama's the bait

I'll go with the shark up against the GOP....I have her back :hi:

[goldcanyonaz]

130. Great to have you on her side!

:hug:

[formernaderite]

53. maybe i guess

i was thinking of voting for edwards anyway...but now i'm looking at my vote as a vote against hillary....so i'll prob pull the lever for obama. I certainly favor him over hillary, i'm just not quite over my man crush on edwards.

[Stuckinthebush]

56. Yes

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Hillary and so I'm going for electability.

Hillary is less electable than Obama. Cold, calculating, and emotionless.

[MissDeeds]

58. Not going to happen n/t

[FreeStateDemocrat]

59. BO is a puke sellout, I have to hold my nose it will be a vote for Bubba, at least I know he

handle the job. Bubba is far from perfect but he is easily better than BO,a empty suit lightweight or any of the pukes.

[mntleo2]

60. Leaning Towards Obama But ...

this Saturday is the caucus for us and many Edwards supporters are considering becoming Undecideds. I will go to the caucus and listen to the arguments.

My "issue" that attracted me to Edwards is poverty and I do not see Clinton doing much about it and I believe it is a huge issue affecting just about every family in America. Poverty is growing by leaps and bounds and was deeply affected by NAFTA and Welfare DEformed. Another "issue" is about the indictment of former administration members and their role in corrupting our Constitution with domestic spying, outing CIA agents who work on WMDs and the FISA business, and no-bid contracts with war criminals who will never see any consequences for all the murder, war mongering and war profiteering they did and for which they are responsible.

With the NAFTA and Welfare DEformed programs Clinton and her husband touted, Hillary going around the country just three years ago with Joe LIEnerman crowing about how "wonderful" Welfare Deformed was, when in reality it has plunged millions of women into permanent poverty and left children on the streets (no childcare, a time limit for services when we are in a depressed economy, no education help not even for a GED). She is part of the establishment and has not said a word about what she would do about upholding the Consititution, which tells me she would do nothing.

I do not hear poverty in the forefront of Obama's platform either and it concerns me. However he HAS done much more on-the-ground and face-to-face work in this area and for this I respect him greatly. But I wonder how seduced he will be by having limitless power from Big Business, and special interests that actually harm many Americans and favors the rich. He also has not addressed the FISA or Constitutional issues that I know about.

My problem is that often the issue of poverty gets put on the back burner when it affects just about everything from the war to the economy and to me, is the root of many of our problems because we won't address it. Many people in poverty are forced into the military thinking they have a future (they often don't and wind up on the street as disabled vets with no support) and working for a livable wage is getting harder and harder to find, thanks to NAFTA. Our policies for the poor are punitive and the poor often take the brunt of society's ills being blamed on the low income individual, when in reality poverty is about our sick society's racism, sexism, and ageism.

My other problem is that, if you do not uphold the Constitution, we will lose the power of its message not only to the rest of the world, but to ourselves, and how can we expect anything to get done for We The People on poverty, the war, or the economy if that sacred document is trashed and left to die?

So for me, it will depend on the commitments being made that have real impact for We The People rather then pandering to They The Corporations or Them The Rich If either one talked about putting someone like John Edwards in there as Attorney General, I might have confidence they would go after these criminals and do something about poverty. ...

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[cooolandrew]

69. Barack on habeas corpus, video link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbrb09p1L5g

[cooolandrew]

70. All I've heard from HRC on haveas corpus is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_c6921tBK4

[marions ghost]

114. "our policies for the poor are punitive"

I couldn't agree with you more. A society that keeps people down and out is not a healthy society. But the exploitative American business sector lacks the vision to understand this.

[mrbluto]

61. No: Rezko issue & whatever else

Who knows what else will come out of the woodwork?

At least with Hillary it's all been wrung out of the system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. Do you REALLY believe that?

Obama has one questionable backer. How many does Hillary have?

If you haven't heard of them yet, just wait for her to get the nomination.

[mrbluto]

82. It's not a matter of "having" them now

It's a matter of which has "managed" and "laundered" their vulnerabilities better.

Hillary is a pro at this stuff by now - it's less likely to bite us on the ass.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. I'm not sure I would WANT my candidate to be more skilled and

experienced at covering up associations with crooked backers.

[mrbluto]

87. Like it or not - that's your choice. Our choice.

sigh

We did, at one point, have at least one candidate who was operating within public finance limits.

For the life of me I can't recall who, but I do remember people claiming to be Obama supporters telling me to get over it when he suspended his campaign. Or was people claiming to be Hillary supporters?

Doesn't matter - neither made an argument compelling enough for me to dismiss my disgust for how this whole process is going.

Two or three states decided the whole thing in this rigged set-up.

Don't feel represented.

Don't feel like I'm gonna be represented.

[surfermaw]

63. no...

I remember the Clinton days, and I am looking for more , remember how quickly the intelligent Mr.Rubin and Clinton stoped the GHWB recession, raised tax on the top 2% handled the 17 billion dollar debt left by GHWB...help to get H insurance for the most children in our time. we had 8 years of peace and prosperity, why chance it on a man withe NO experience. We are desperate in this nation, and we are considering going with a person with little to none experience.

[theHandpuppet]

64. No.

Sorry. I've decided for Clinton.

[jackson_dem]

65. Remember whose "supporters" swiftboated Edwards on the netroots?

Remember whose top aide went on national tv and deliberately lied about Edwards? Remember who sent out mailers attacking Edwards in Iowa? Remember which candidate basically called Edwards a phony in New Hampshire? Hillary isn't the answer to any of these questions...

[damonm]

100. Was Edwards, now Obama

Hillary's dicier in the GE, especially against McCain.

[mac56]

66. Ummm...no.

I voted for Edwards at my caucus on Tuesday night.

I'll vote for the nominee in November, whichever one he or she turns out to be. But beyond that, I really don't give a fat rat's ass anymore.

[Hawkowl]

108. You said it.

I really do not give a rat's ass which remaining corporate media candidate is jammed down my throat. I'll vote D in November (probably if not further left) but that's it. No donations. No volunteering.

[Arugula Latte]

68. I am -- definitely.

Of course he's not perfect, but he's a whole hell of a lot better than Hillary, that's for sure.

[IsItJustMe]

71. Already voted for Edwards. I will vote for HRC or BO in the general. Not saying anything bad about

either one of them for the duration of the election.

[AndyTiedye]

73. No. They are Both Weak Candidates Who Will Have a Tough Time Winning in November

I'll vote for whichever one comes out on top in the general election, of course.
A McCain presidency, soon to be followed by a Fuckabee presidency (after McCain kicks the bucket) would be truely horrible.

[red2blue]

78. NO THANKS!!!

I don't love Hillary but i know what i'm getting.

Beside i agree with Obama that she is "like-able enough"

[Stop Cornyn]

81. I want to (because Obama would help us down ballot more than Hillary) but every time he whines about

"I will get all of Hillary's votes but she won't get all of my votes" I want to scream. Those votes don't belong to Obama. Moreover, I feel certain that some moderate Republican women will vote to elect the first women president, but they may or may not vote for Obama.

Obama frustrates me so much, but I'll probably pinch my nose and vote for him.

[mrbluto]

85. Has he really said that?

Do you have a link, a quote?

If he did then that's one more nail in the coffin.

Why?

Because he thinks such a thing?

No - any rational person would have to make that calculation.

No, it would because of the shear arrogance, sense of entitlement, poor discipline and outright disrespect saying such a thing would demonstrate.

I hope he didn't say that.

[Stop Cornyn]

89. He says it A LOT. Link:

"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

[mrbluto]

91. You just saved me a lot of leg work.

Now I don't have to think about politics until the general election day.

[Laelth]

83. Obama for me.

Of course, I'll vote for whomever the party nominates. It may be that Obama already has the nomination sewn up.

Super Tuesday Result: de-facto election of President Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4473170&mesg_id=4473170

:dem:

-Laelth

[Emillereid]

84. Obama all the way!

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Dennis to John to?

I've got until May. I'll probably skip a Presidential vote if it is between these two. Obama for his code word laden backhanded way of speaking about gay people and of course his use of Evangelists to sermonize against my family at his events as a way to 'reach out' to bigoted voters. Clinton for the cluster bomb vote.
Obama seems to be saying clearly that he intends to throw gays and maybe choice limits to his Fundie pals as a 'bone' for voting D. McClurkin and that crowd are all loyal public Bushies. So, when he says he can 'bring us together' I know he does not include in that 'us' those that McClurkinites call cursed and demon influenced. McClurkin called for gays to be 'delivered by God' at Obama official campaign events. Chew on that one. Not only did Obama not apologize, he defended the bigots as 'good moral people' and continued to use the basher line up. So far Senator Obama refuses to say if the actual bashing speeches were made at his request,or against his orders. He won't even say. So fill in the word 'jew' or 'mexican' where Obama and McClurkin say 'gay' and there is no way in hell any Democrat would defend it. It was a vile event, and one that is likely to lose Obama my vote, and if such tactics are allowed to flourish in this Party against any minority, I will not be ethically able to remain active.
At this time, my oppostion to Obama is a hair less than to Huckabee, and a hair more than Clinton.
I'll vote D in the general and be sick about it either way. To vote for a friend of those who call me demonic is very much for the Party and its members to ask of me, and it will not come easily nor with the kid glove silence Obama boosters prefer. I

[Tennessee Gal]

90. Absolutely not!

It's Hillary for me, not that I am so enamored with her.

I simply cannot abide things like this:

In South Carolina, Obama also said this:
"At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, `I have to vote for Barack!'"

[goldcanyonaz]

101. OMG! That is very scary.

[Tennessee Gal]

104. Yep, it chilled me to the bone.

[Blue_In_AK]

167. I hope he was being facetious when he said that.

He HAD to be making a joke (albeit a kind of scary one), right?

[Iceburg]

94. Edwards ---> Clinton!!!! Economy + Healthcare + Environment /nt

[musicblind]

95. Donated to Edwards originally but am def in Hillary's corner now!

I always supported both Hill and John, but now that Edwards is not in the race I'm very much behind Hillary Clinton.

[PresidentObama]

97. I leaned towards Obama, and thought I was going to vote for him. Support Hillary, and voted for her.

One of the reasons I loved John Edwards was the fact he had specific solutions to all our problems, and he was talking about the issues and not about hope and not about inevitability. He was going from town to town, state by state to talk about the issues. I was leaning towards Obama because I felt he championed many of the same issues that John did.

But I don't know that Obama isn't all hype, and happy talk. And plus, Hillary like John is talking about the issues and has substance and solutions. And I really think she has the toughness and resources to compete and beat John McCain or Mike Huckabee.

I respect ALL Edwards supporters, and hope they've decided who to support.

Not here to bash anyone. Just posting my opinion, and who I voted for on Feb. 5th.

[judaspriestess]

98. No

I am supporting Hillary Clinton. I've always liked Hillary Clinton and I DO appreciate her experience. Obviously she is not perfect but John Edwards voted for the Iraq war and I supported him so I can do the same for Clinton. And I think its time we have a woman president.

[RestoreGore]

102. No, because I lived in an era he thinks was "excessive"

His mocking of an entire generation of Americans just to fish for votes from the younger generation, and his apparent disdain for some Democrats who actually did good for this country while embracing only those he believes will further his own personal aspirations has turned me off to him. And also his love of nuclear, corn ethanol, and coal, which I will never support. And generally, the overall arrogant smug attitude that he and some of his supporters seem to have in believing he deserves this to be handed to him. That is the impression I get of him, and it is a huge turnoff.

[Iceburg]

103. We of the so called "lunch bucket crowd" proudly move our votes to Clinton /nt

[jzodda]

105. Obama supporter as of yesterday officially.

It was hard as I like HRC, but after listening to Obama on Super Tuesday night I decided that I will move my support to him. I just think he is an amazing individual.

[Tennessee Gal]

106. k & r

[jannyk]

107. No, I'm now 'pulling' for Hillary. nt

[CatnHat]

111. Ex-Edwards Supporter

going with Hillary.:bounce:

[grytpype]

110. Obama beats McCain in the general election... that's all I need to know. GO OBAMA!

Hillary is just tying him right now... and if she is involved that will get Repugs to the polls.

Sorry, but it's true. We have to beat McCain and Obama can do it, with Hillary it would be too risky.

[CatnHat]

112. And you believe that

Seriously, what makes you think Obama can beat McCain. Because some the polls and republicans say it's so.:rofl:

[Hieronymus]

128. You're not alone in this ... Obama is the safe bet.

[grytpype]

138. Safer than Hillary anyway. Edwards was the really safe bet and he was my candidate.

[the other one]

113. No. They both suck about the same. I have no preference.

I don't care what the polls say, there is no way either of those two shmagegies can beat that old geezer.

I will probably pull the lever for the Dem nominee, but at this point it hardly matters who it is, and it won't matter later as whomever it is will lose.

[Melissa G]

115. Nope, not sold yet on either corporate tweedledee or tweedledum.n/t

[ncliberal]

116. No.

If I have to choose I'll go with Clinton because her health plan is better. Plus, I'd like to see a woman in office.

[burythehatchet]

117. I just need to read about 12 more pro-Hillary posts and I'm there.

[Booster]

120. I will vote for whichever one of them wins the primaries, but Obama

turned me off completely when he refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsome - talk about being petty, not to mention downright rude. There's just something about Obama that rubs me the wrong way, and although Hillary wasn't my first choice (Edwards was) I hope she wins, even though she's going to have it tougher than any man ever has because the good old boys on both sides will be trying their best to be able to say "see, we told you a woman couldn't do this job."

[BlackVelvet04]

121. I was an Edwards supporter

and I now support Hillary Clinton. She has the better health care plan....more like Edwards'. She has a better grasp of the issues and I think she is the best person to deal with the economic issues that face this country.

[vanboggie]

122. Nope

I hope I'm not forced to vote for him in the GE. Excited about Hillary? Nope - she's just the least offensive to me of the mediocre choices remaining. On the issues, at least Clinton is a known quantity. On an emotional level, there's still something about Obama that makes me not trust him.

So no lawn signs, phone banking or cheerleading for either of them from me. The most important election ever, and nothing left to get excited about.

It's McCain's time to be repaid for hugging and kissing Bush, so the fix is probably already in anyway. Rover's been hiding in the shadows doing something. On the other hand they may need HillOrBama to take the rap for the mess the Chimp is leaving, so the machines may let us win this time.

Cynical, me ????????? :mad:

[cascadiance]

123. With the race this close, I think it pays to stick together and still demand some more action...

... from the Obama camp to shore up some of its less progressive stances or at least nebulousness on many issues. Right now, the voters that Edwards has could make a difference to put Obama ahead, not either tied up in the delegates that Edwards already has, or might get, or even the voting blocks that are decided by arcane delegate assignment rules rather than being tied to Obama through votes instead.

The sooner the Obama campaign realizes that if they want a bigger tent to get our crucial votes, I think the better off they will be. But it will only work if we hold out a bit more. If there was a clear advantage to either Obama or Clinton at this point in terms of delegates, we might have gotten ignored, but right now, the closeness of the race works to our advantage. I say we USE that advantage to help force some commitments out of these people.

[marions ghost]

127. makes sense to me...

yes, I see that advantage you're talking about because of the closeness of the race.

So then both types of supporters, ie. Edwards-->Hillary supporters and Edwards-->Obama supporters --have some ability to push more of Edwards'point of view?

[xspowr]

125. Edwards to Clinton

For most of the specific reasons already enumerated above. Obviously, neither remaining candidate is addressing the fundamental CLASS issues that are the real problem underlying everything from the war to the environment to health care, which JRE at least tried to get on the table, and which lie at the core of my personal political beliefs. Nevertheless, the progressive "edge" (whatever remains of it, anyway) goes to HRC.

And I am frankly quite worried about the irrational, messianic subtext of the Obama "movement" (I think "cult" in its traditional sense is far too strong a word and inaccurate in this context, but Obama supporters, with the implicit consent of Obama himself, have undeniably constructed a "cult of personality" around him, which is something quite different but no less dangerous). Difficult political and economic periods often produce demagogic leaders, which is the one thing we absolutely cannot afford at this critical juncture. Say what you will, and disagree with the specifics if you wish (I often do), but at least HRC operates from a reasoned, issues-based, policy-oriented position. And a reasoned, empirical, reality-based approach is the only way out of the present quagmire. The parallels between Obama's "hope and change" narrative and the disastrous "faith based" approach of modern conservatism is worrisome. Put simply, wishing does not make something so, neither in life nor in Washington.

After the past 40 years of conservative dominance of the national political agenda (aided and abetted, admittedly, by centrist and corporatist Democrats like the Clintons AND Obama), and particularly the last 7 years of unmitigated disaster, any campaign based on "unity" and amorphous "change" has, IMHO, simply lost touch with reality. There is, and never will be, any bipartisanship or unity with the radical right that currently dominates the Republican party. While so-called moderate Republicans and independents seem to be waking up somewhat to the highjacking of their party, and give some hope that a degree of moderation may eventually return to that side of the aisle, the fact is that such a move back to the center is years if not decades away. The Democratic president who takes office in less than a year will be up against the radical right wing version of "convervatism" that lives and breathes a zero-sum, take no prisoners approach. Far from being a "new kind of politics" (to use a phrase often heard from Obama supporters), this type of "unity" and "bipartisanship" with the radical right has been tested almost daily since centrist Democrats regained a Congressional majority in 2006. The results are quite clear to any that are paying attention.

Asking the arsonist who just burned down my house to join hands with with me in rebuilding it may be a sastisfying spiritual theme, but turning the other cheek to elected officials and their enablers who have spent the last decade essentially destroying the economic, social, and political fabric of this country is simply nonsense. The continuing inability of Obama and his supporters to recognize that the divisions in this country (and any society) stem not from "politics as usual" but rather from real, meaningful, and long-standing disagreements over the allocation of power and resources in our society reveals to me a political and historical naivete that is dangerous in the face of the challenges the next president will face. Again, fully admitting all of my misgivings about HRC and all of my disagreements with a centrist and corporatist approach (which both candidates espouse), she is the only remaining candidate who seems to acknowledge and understand these real divisions, and who offers at least the possibility of addressing them favorably. It is, frankly, a probability game here in figuring which remaining candidate will act in the best interests of progressive policy and who will give an actual fight to the radical rightwing, and the odds do not favor Obama in this regard.

So much for my short post, which was supposed to be just the first line! :hi:

[marions ghost]

131. you really think Obama is that naive?

that he doesn't realize the real challenges the next prez will face?

[nolabels]

142. No, from what i have heard, he believes all us can work together to get it done...

To me that only makes sense. I wouldn't expect him to do anything that WE shouldn't be doing for ourselves. That is a scary thing for some, having people themselves all together help make those decisions.

Almost sounds like chaos if you are running some kind of business / president-CEO model

[xspowr]

155. Not what I said

I didn't say that Obama was naive because he does not "realize" the challenges that the next president will face. Obama is clearly an intelligent man, and he certainly lists those challenges when he speaks and writes: the Iraq War, health care, environment, etc. All the candidates do (and did) this, including JRE, HRC, and DK. However, "realizing" that such challenges exist is quite different from understanding the root causes of those challenges and the appropriate responses to them. Further, mere realization does not equate with correctly understanding the nature, tactics, and resources of your opponents, who most assuredly do not wish to change the status quo, and in fact continue to seek the rollback of the minimal progress we have already achieved.

Stated differently, the "hope and change" and "unity" narratives, while certainly inspirational, reflect an aspiration that is not in accord with the political, economic, or historical reality that will present itself to the next president just 10 months from now, or over the next 8 years. While the aspiration to change is unquestionably important and necessary, the truly transformative presidents, candidates, and leaders in our history (e.g. Lincoln, FDR, MLK, RFK) coupled their transformational rhetoric with a firm and clear-eyed understanding of the realities of their time, including the roots of the problems they faced, the possible remedies to those problems, and the nature and strength of the opposition to such remedies. These transformative leaders, in other words, recognized (often after very painful early attempts at compromise and reconciliation), that the opponents to their progressive agendas would NEVER voluntarily join a coalition of the willing to achieve those goals. The painful, but undeniable, lesson of history is that one cannot compromise with evil, only confront it (and yes, "evil" is a strong word and a label that often does more to cloud than clarify, but I don't believe a lesser term will do with respect to the rightwing agenda and the damage it has wrought). IMHO, this is the element missing from Obama's understanding of the present circumstances, and why I believe the term "naive" is appropriate in this case.

[marions ghost]

159. OK

I agree that one cannot compromise with evil, only confront it. It is naive to think that the Rightwing will "compromise." The only thing they respect and learn from is force. Agreed.

But what reason do you have to believe that (despite the feel-good rhetoric) Obama does not know this? Hillary also is in the same bind of talking substantive change but having to work with those who operate outside acceptable rules of ethics.

So did you support Edwards because you thought he could accomplish what Obama and Hillary might not be able to?

[huskerlaw]

126. Nope

I will support whomever wins the nomination, but I will support nobody else in the primaries.

I've already voted, so it really doesn't matter whom I would support now anyway. But more to the point, neither Clinton nor Obama have earned my vote. In my opinion, they both have HUGE flaws. I suppose, if forced, I could tell you who I prefer, but why? I don't believe in either one of them enough to campaign for them (at this point) or donate money to either campaign, so I might as well just kick back and let it play out. And I certainly don't believe in either one of them over the other enough to bother trying to sway anyone in any particular direction. So for now, I'm done.

Also, honestly, I don't have much nice to say about either remaining candidate and I think we have enough poo slinging. I don't need to add to the chaos.

Once there's a nominee, it's a different story, of course. I will bust my ass for either one of them because regardless of how unexcited I am about them now, I clearly understand that a democrat MUST win. Regardless of who it is or how I feel about them personally.

[VotesForWomen]

129. kucinich -> edwards -> clinton. nt

[wryter2000]

132. Yup

There are only two choices left, and Obama is the better, imho. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm for her.

[Phillycat]

134. I'm coming around to the other one, actually.

[marions ghost]

135. & what tips you over

to the other one?

[Phillycat]

144. Honestly, it's because she's taking so much of a shellacking for being female.

Is she a liar? Probably. Is she 100% politician? Yup. Would she do almost anything to get elected? Definitely.

Are these 3 statements true of EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN ON THE NATIONAL STAGE?

YES. But because she's a woman, these traits are just so much more objectionable.

Fuck that.

[marions ghost]

158. well I guess we all knew she'd

be given that special hazing reserved for female candidates...but is anger about sexism a reason to vote for Hillary?

It must be --because a significant amount of the female support for Hillary is founded in 'payback' and equal time for women rather than more positive things. I even know a woman who is supporting Hillary primarily to get back at her Repug husband for helping to put us all through the Bush nightmare (since Hillary is his worst nightmare). When you ask her how Hill differs from Edwards or Obama she can't say.

I think there are many female supporters of Hillary who simply hope to find some justice for women in this world. In that case Hillary is a symbol as I'm sure Obama is for many African Americans. And I certainly can't fault anyone who feels that way.

I wish these particular symbolic "firsts" were NOT weighing on the candidates at this point actually. Maybe someday we will not pay much attention to these superficials.

[we can do it]

136. No Freaking Way Unless Its November

Reasons? Healthcare, anti-gay bigot on his stage, wishy-washy, too preachy, doesn't stand for anything other than hope......

[Tennessee Gal]

137. Interesting. Most posting here are not shifting to Obama.

[harun]

139. From Kucinich, to Edwards, to Obama (and I am at the end of the road now jack)

[jonnyblitz]

140. VERY interesting responses. most seem to prefer Clinton.

I am seriously surprised. I prefer Clinton over Obama and I was a fervent Clinton hater at one time, or so I was dubbed earlier in life here at DU.

[OzarkDem]

163. Edwards supporters are more "policy" folks

People supported Edwards because they took time to do their homework and look closely at position papers, issues briefs, etc. on Iraq, the economy, jobs, health care reform, etc. Edwards was great in those areas. He laid it all out on the table and it was very quality stuff.

Obama's platform is pretty thin soup. It doesn't persuade us the way it does others. Sort of like the difference between a Big Mac and a gourmet dinner. See, the kids like the Big Mac, but we older folks prefer gourmet.

[southern_dem]

141. yep

I actually started as a Hillary supporter, but she turned me off last December. Went to Edwards from then until he dropped out. Now I'm with Obama by default and somewhat happily. He's our best chance to both win and also have coat-tails to increase our margins in the House and Senate. I truly believe that Hillary will have negative coat-tails, even if she manages to win.

[sofeisty]

143. Hell no

Sorry, I just haven't been able to do it.

[marions ghost]

146. yes it's hard to suddenly switch candidates in midstream...

JE was a very worthy candidate IMO. I wish we could have more parties instead of factions within the 2 mega-parties. At least then you could stick with your candidate til the end.

[AnneD]

145. I am still voting for Edwards in the Texas Primary.

And to be honest-I haven't made up my mind. I liked Edwards anti corp pro middle class stance. Clinton and Obama are both too chummy with business for me.

But I can tell you one thing...I may vote Democratic but I won't phone bank, block walk or donate money to them like I was willing to do for Edwards. The two of them together are not half the candidate John was.

Edited to add, I would vote for the person that Edwards endorses.

[Bread and Circus]

147. The real one's are, that is in the real world outside of DU - and in large numbers.

[enigmatic]

149. no n/t

[Neo-wobbly]

150. No

Sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama. I've posted my list of what I'm looking for before, but I'll give you the highlights:

1. All U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq, yesterday. I am willing to compromise on the time-line, but not the troop levels.

2. Bush, Cheney, et al. to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, with no pardon. Better yet, let the U.N. set up a war crimes tribunal and turn them over to it. Bonus points for handing Kissinger over, as well.

3. Reversal of the No Child Left Behind act; the details are complicated, but let's start by going back to when our education system was at least partially effective, and work on it from there.

4. Reversal of the Patriot Act, FISA, etc. Also, prosecution of the telecoms involved in illegal wire-tapping.

5. Universal Health Care; let me be clear: single-payer. The simplest solution, as I see it, would be to expand (and fund) medicare.

6. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drugs. Start with "medical" marijuana if you must, tax the bejeezus out of it, but quit ruining people's lives and spending billions of dollars for nothing.

7. Legalize dueling, at least for heads of state; I'm not a boxing/wrestling/fencing fan, but I would have paid good money to watch W and Saddam go toe-to-toe.

And no, I don't expect to find a candidate who agrees with all, or even most, of these opinions, but I'm not voting for anyone who doesn't agree with at least one. This rules out both Obama and Clinton.

[marions ghost]

153. I'm with you on most of your list

Particularly the prosecution of white collar criminals and reversal of the damage done by the current criminals.

Out of Iraq yesterday, yes.
Single payer health care--yes, it's the only way ultimately.
Legalize drugs, yes.

Legalize dueling for criminal heads of state such as Saddam and Dubya I'm against. ;-) Make them play Twister until they go insane. I guess that's torture but I'm not sure.

-------------

So are you not voting at all for president then?

Hillary or Obama will get us out of Iraq sooner than McCain anyway.

[Neo-wobbly]

168. Oooh, that's even worse

I may still vote for Obama, but he would have to make some real progress in the next 9 months, and my honest opinion of Hillary would violate the forum rules.

Otherwise, I'll write-in or vote 3rd party; the 2-party system is a problem, too.

[marions ghost]

170. yep

the 2-party system isn't working for this country. It's too diverse. We need proportional representation.

[Neo-wobbly]

180. Something

At the least, a strong 3rd party would help to keep the other 2 honest. Combine that with mandatory public financing of campaigns and break up the network conglomerates and we might get a system that works.

[southernleftylady]

151. I havent decided yet... hate all this infighting nt

[Iceburg]

152. 1) Edwards 2) Hillary 3)McCain 4) Obama 5) Huckabee

Progressive first, theocracy last

[marions ghost]

156. Please explain

how Obama represents Theocracy. :shrug: ?????

And how does McCain come in better than Obama on your Theocracy Alert scale?

McCain sucked up to the evangelicals before Suckabee really sucked them up. See
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141&page=1

[OzarkDem]

164. Ok, I get it!

:thumbsup:

[Horse with no Name]

154. Nope. Can't do it.

I had talked myself into it at one point...but my vote is mine.
It is going to John Edwards.

[marions ghost]

157. OK

I respect that decision.

[Bluebear]

161. Obama doesn't need me, he has the South Carolina evangelicals to vote for him

I am not an "unhappy gay" that needs deprogramming.

[OzarkDem]

162. No, I'm leaning towards Clinton

better health care reform plan

[Blue_In_AK]

165. I'm still sitting on the fence.

I see pluses and minuses in both of the two remaining. I really don't care at this point. I think the smack-talking around here, though, has gotten out of hand. From my experience, the Obama supporters have been a bit more fanatic and over-the-top, but I guess enthusiasm is a good thing. After some of the stuff I've read here, it's hard to imagine how we'll all be on the same side come November, but we're going to have to be if we hope to win.

[saracat]

169. Never. He has insulted boomers and labor and women Both he and Michelle have indicated they will

not support the Dem nominee if it is not Barak.Barack has made snide rfemarks about Edwards. I am now supporting Hillary.She has at least incprporated Johns meassage.She actually spoke out aginst the corporations today. Barack has NEVER done so.

[Shine]

171. I'm just waiting and watching to see what happens for now.

I voted for Edwards in my CA primary on Tuesday b/c it was a vote of conscience.

I'm more than a bit turned off by all the infighting here at DU about Hillary and Barack. The truth is, they've BOTH got pros and cons and when the time comes, I'll be happy to get behind which ever of them gets the Dem nomination .

I refuse to get sucked into the drama and upset that so many others seem to be feeling.

I just hope everybody can come together and remember our common ground of desire to get the Repukes OUT of power.

THAT'S what we need to be focusing on. Not all this bullshit sniping back and forth between Hillary supporters and Barack supporters.

[HughBeaumont]

172. Obama is my last hope.

I was a huge Edwards supporter, but since a message of triangulation, occupation, capitulation and globalization seemed much more sincere among Democratic voters than populism, opportunity and accountability, he's no longer around.

So I'm leaning towards Obama. Why?

His record on civil rights, the Senatorial record pointed out above and I think he simply has a better chance to win, get things done and move far away from the dynastic destiny our wealthy hope for.

Oh, and this also: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/32

[marions ghost]

173. thanks

for your definitive answer Hugh. I can see you've thought about this a lot.

(You would have to put that photo of Hill and Murdoch in your journal. :puke: Murdoch = Big Brother Inc. -- but so many people don't know that).

[Tennessee Gal]

175. Consider this before you do!

In South Carolina, Obama said this:
"At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, `I have to vote for Barack!'

[marions ghost]

177. context?

maybe humorous? Sounds like fundyland fun to me. Got any more info about it?

thanx for input

[Tennessee Gal]

178. No matter the context, to me it is appalling.

I think it is inappropriate under any circumstances for any candidate.

[marions ghost]

183. well OK but I just can't imagine

that Obama meant that to be taken seriously. Yes it sounds kind of irreverent but I can't think that he sees himself as some kind of hypnotist..."when you awaken you will vote for me...." woo woo

--or maybe like the frying pan that hits the people over the head in that commercial and suddenly they have "an epiphany"? I mean, this joke is out there in the culture...

[alteredstate]

189. He was being irreverent.

i was at the rally.

[Tennessee Gal]

193. I hope you don't consider that acceptable for a presidential candidate..

[alteredstate]

196. I wasn't offended.

I'm glad Barack Obama has a sense of humor.

[Norwood]

179. I thought it was kinda funny

[alteredstate]

188. I was there

He was joking.

[Tennessee Gal]

194. Unacceptable.

[alteredstate]

195. No, it was funny.

[Norwood]

176. Don't really care for either one, but I unenthusiastically joined the Obama camp

[citizen snips]

181. I am supporting Clinton

But I hope Edwards gets the AG nod.

[nonconformist]

182. I'm an Edwards supporter who has switched to Hillary.

On the issues, they're very similar. So, I have to look at what differences there are in the issues.

This article about their health care plans sums up the differences there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Ok, score 1 for Hillary.

Then, I had to look at experience. I just feel that Obama is far too inexperienced to be the most powerful person in the world. Up until two years ago, he was a mere state senator.

Score 2, Hillary.

Then, I had to look at electibility. That's a tricky one... so many variables. It's really hard to say. But I had to give Hillary the edge here, because she is very strong with core blocks like the GLBT community, the Hispanics, the Asians, and the working class. Obama is weak in these areas, but strong with moderate Republicans. That gives me pause. I don't trust that they won't flip to McCain when it counts, and I also don't think we should hang our hat on the youth vote. It can be fair-weather. The older folks are the ones that vote, come hell or high water, and they're strongly in Hillary's camp. And finally, I feel that Hillary is very much aware of the shark tank she's getting into. She knows the right wing smear machine, and she can fight it. She's been doing it for years, successfully. I don't think Obama (or his supporters) are prepared for that in the least. All they ever say is "he's clean". Well, he's not totally clean, but that doesn't even matter. These are the same people that took Kerry's and Max Cleland's very honorable military service and trashed them with it. Don't underestimate them.

Score 3, Hillary.

Then, I considered their approach, how they would be effective in office. Obama wants to compromise with the republicans, reach across the aisle. Well that sounds good, but it doesn't work. It only results in weak policy that nobody likes. Bush doesn't care who likes his policies, but yet he's managed to ram through nearly everything he wants. I think we need a president that knows that tough approach might be necessary to really change anything. I think Hillary knows that.

Score 4, Hillary.

Finally, I have to look at why Edwards was my guy in the first place. I'm a populist, a progressive, a liberal. While Hillary is flawed, she is more liberal than Obama. While their policies are very similar, hers are closer to Edwards than Obama's are.

Score 5, Hillary.

So that's how I came to my decision. It wasn't an easy one, I weighed a lot of things.

[marions ghost]

184. thanks

for the link to the health care article.

---------------------

Here's a link to the points about the Obama healthcare plan:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all


Here's a link to the points about the Clinton health care plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

---------------------

They seem very similar and nowhere does the Clinton plan say "mandate." It uses the word choice. So I'm not getting the distinction made on that point very clearly.

[saltpoint]

185. I'm still shopping. If the Pukes lay into the remaining 3 candidates

I will defend them as best I can.

I could do without the "cult" bullshit and the "pimping" bullshit between the two factions hereabouts.

About 10 seconds into any speech by John McCain and I like both of them better by contrast, but the domestic platform is a chief concern for me and I thought Edwards blew the pack away on that count.

I may just wait to see which of the two is still standing in a month or two, and/or which of the two Edwards endorses.

[marions ghost]

202. so you think

the Pukes will go after McCain like they will go after Hill/Obama? They can't afford to do that can they?

I guess I'm just too fearful of any kind of Republican administration to even imagine defending McCain.

Think there are more voters out there who will consider McCain as an alternative to Edwards? I'm not seeing that, but I'm not in touch with a lot of potential voters...which is why I put out questions. :)

[saltpoint]

207. The questions are good ones and worth asking. Overnight, marions ghost,

I opted for Senator Obama.

I've never been a Clinton Democrat. I supported Mario Cuomo in the 1992 primaries and was very sad when he decided against the run. It was the even of the filing deadline for New Hampshire. His plane was fueled on the tarmac and the pilot was waiting. Cuomo canceled the flight, paid and thanked the pilot for his trouble, and in effect left the race.

I like Hillary Clinton personally and feel she would be a far stronger and more convincing candidate without her husband's pals all over the place.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

186. Yep, Going with Obama

There were too many things that I couldn't get past with Clinton.

I was not excited to e voting for Obama at first, still mourning Edwards, but, then I revisited the 2004 Convention speech and rediscovered my interest in him. Now, I'm very excited to support him.

[Guava Jelly]

187. I chose Obama

..

[Digit]

190. If it comes down to Obama or Hillary, I will definitely go w/ Hillary.

[readmoreoften]

191. Hell no. Look at his military ideas:

<>
Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

<>

You can read more about why neoconservatives are happy about Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

One more telling clip:

<>
Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
<>

[nonconformist]

198. Holy shit.

I had not seen this. This should be a thread of it's own.

[Faygo Kid]

204. Yes, and enthusiastically.

Donated to John, who didn't really lose, because he reframed the debate and set the issues.

I have donated to Obama and will again, and do so enthusiastically. Despite all the name-calling and vile accusations ("cult"), I still have the right to support the candidate of my choice, and it isn't even close. It's Obama.

[helderheid]

199. HELL YES!!

[Orsino]

205. I was a Kucinich supporter, then hoped in vain to vote for Edwards...

...and am now an Obama supporter. With each successive drop-out, I am finding less reason for optimism. I fear that the machine will soon dispose of Obama, too, and that I'll have to muster some enthusiasm for Clinton.

[WillyT]

206. Been There, Done That !!! - Kucinich -> Edwards -> Obama

:shrug:

[Qanisqineq]

209. no, I chose Hillary

but I like them both. Why did I go with Clinton? Something about the way Obama brings up religion creeps me out. And yes, as a woman I'd like to see a woman win.

But really, I like them both and Hillary just barely edged past Obama with me.

[never_get_over_it]

210. This Edwards supporter is now supporting Hillary

because

1. not that much real difference between them
2 like it or not she does have MORE experience
3 because there isn't a big difference between them and I have waited for a like minded or sort of like minded woman for President ALL my life

but I've already voted for Edwards in the FL primary - and I think that the vote as cast should be seated because ALL candidates were on the ballot - AND - both Clinton and Obmas "broke" the rules concerning FL - and it would be down right stupid to vote AGAIN

MI is another story - I don't know what the hell "they" should do about that

but really how pathetically stupid of the DNC to think that these two huge states wouldn't matter in the end....AND how stupid to "punish" the general population because of in party bickering - these are two big states with IMPORTANT electoral votes....

[Geek_Girl]

212. I voted for Obama on super tuesday

nt