I'm all for unity, but the right kind, and not yet.

[Cronopio]

Unity for the sake of unity is what the GOP does. Political linedancing is what braindead freepheads do. All it requires is that everyone takes off their thinking caps and turns a blind eye to the ignorance within their own ranks, which is not what *I'm* going to do.

I keep it civil and ignore incivilities as much as possible, but if Obama supporters can't defend their candidate with anything more than homilies like "I've got a good feeling about him." and "He makes my heart SING!" and "What do you got against hope?" they should be able to understand it when people point out that that's the same feelings-over-thinking rationale that got Bush II elected and Jim Jones his jungle hangout.

If that kind of thing floats your boat, fine, but it's not good enough for people like me who need much better reasons for their vote. Reasons that are likely to convince something other than a slogan-spouting lemming, like "Which candidate do you think will more willing to work with, and negotiate with, Conyers on health-care legislation?" You know, something that gets your brain THINKING, rather than your arm saluting.

In the same vein, if Hillary supporters can't defend their candidate with anything more than "You must be one of those Hillary haters." they should get used to the fact that *they* are the ones trafficking in memes, not their opposition. They know damn well that disagreeing with someone isn't the same as hating them, but if that's how they want to frame the game, too bad for them. I'm not behind that kind of cynical aspersion casting and never will be. If you can't tell me why you're against the Iraq War and for one of the most stalwart Democratic proponents of the war *WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA'S RECORD* or sophomoric rationalizations like "Well, they're all corrupt anyway", then the best thing you can do for your candidate is to STFU.

Real unity has to be forged through civil disagreements and rational discussion, not threatened into existence with inane pseudo-bon mots like "You don't want President McCain, do ya?" It's *supposed* to take longer and be a lot messier among thinking people than zombies/Bush supporters. If you want proof that we're not quite in a Stasi society yet, look at this board and take a chill pill. People were way too unified and mutual when they were under the thumb of the East German regime - at least on the surface.

[peacebird]

1. tsk-tsk - there you go again, making sense... That's not what DU is about these days.

:hi:

[Cronopio]

9. I know. I try not to be unmutual ...

... but I'd rather relate to people than numbers.

:hi:

[hill08]

2. agree

I hope Dems wake up soon enough to send Obama back to the Senate

[John Q. Citizen]

3. If you want my reasons why I'm supporting Obama, please check out this

link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4504327&mesg_id=4504327

And if you do, please check out the linked articles in the post. Thanks!

[NastyRiffraff]

4. Excellent post!

I'm tired of the "you hate Hillary!" and "you're against hope!" comments and threads. You're right; both sides need to chill.

It took me awhile to decide on any candidate. I supported Edwards, because of his commitment to helping the poor and middle class, and because of his determination to take on entrenched interests, especially corporate lobbyists.

When Edwards bowed out (which I'm still sorry about), I took a long look at the remaining two viable candidates. I saw plusses and minuses in both; still do. My decision to support Hillary wasn't made out of hatred of Obama, although some things about him make me uneasy. It was a combination of factors, including her work for children's rights, her strong determination over the years in the face of adversity that would make most of us melt, and yes, her experience and stands on several issues I care about.

All the haters need to think about how they will act if their chosen candidate doesn't win the nomination. There are bigger things at stake than any one candidate.

[Cronopio]

8. Good reasons to support her, even though I need more reasons.

Either way, I'll be supporting your candidate in the GE!

:hi:

[blm]

5. I post consistently about open government and transparency being a priority and

the candidate who advocates FOR it gets my vote, and the candidate with a record that CLEARLY sides with closed government is one I will fight mightily to keep out of the oval office.

Another closed government Democrat in the WH is the next to LAST thing this country needs.

[nonconformist]

6. Sure, I'll tell you.

Because I'm a REALIST.

I know that there's no such thing as a perfect candidate.

I know that I struggled with this issue with John Kerry in 2004, but ultimately threw my support behind him because he was the superior candidate out of the two of them. I know that I strongly supported John Edwards in this primary, because he was the best for the country, despite his IWR vote.

I know that at this point in time, the general public is aware that many Senators voted for the IWR. But at this point, they just want a solution to the problem. They blame the Bush administration for the war, and that's where the blame should rightly land.

And, finally, that single vote is NOT my litmus test for who can be the most powerful person in the world. There are many, many factors that go into an informed decision on who is the best person for the job. I can't and won't defend her vote for the IWR. I think it sucks. But, again, I'm FAR more concerned, years later, that we find a solution to this mess. I'm also extremely concerned about other policy - both foreign and domestic.

And I call shenanigans on that the only thing Hillary supporters put forth to show that she is the best person for the job is shouting down dissent as "haters". I can give you numerous, detailed, and CIVIL reasons why I came to my decision, and I have several times on DU.

[Cronopio]

7. Wellstone agonized over his vote against IWR in the weeks before he cast it.

It's on record that, when he did, he told his wife, "I've just lost my Senate seat." So Edwards vote for IWR didn't concern me much after he disowned that vote. I spent most of 2004 waiting in vain for Kerry to just say "I made the wrong vote because I was lied to by the Bush administration and the CIA" and make his life a lot easier.

If Hillary had done that when Edwards did - when she found out that the intelligence was faked - she would probably have my support today. Her 11th-hour and half-assed mea culpa on the subject doesn't convince, especially given all of the qualifiers she's added. Obama's speaking out against the Iraq War before he was a senator, but voting for its funding until he announced his candidacy isn't particularly convincing either. On the critical issue of the Iraq War, both candidates come up short. Edwards would have also, had he not done the right thing at the right time.

Sad to say it, but if I end up supporting Obama it will mostly be because his support for the Iraq War has been less vociferous than Hillary's. Even through Hillary has the better healthcare plan, I have very little confidence that she would push for it much in its present state if she was in the Oval Office. Obama's healthcare plan is fatally flawed, but he seems like he's more likely to be influenced by the likes of Conyers than Hillary - mostly because he hasn't had the time to become too inured to the Beltway in-crowd yet. Hillary's experience is more behind closed doors than in the grassroots, and many Dems count that as a positive. I don't - it's the wrong experience for a populist.

My opinions about Obama are similar to what I thought about Clinton in 1996. Having a President who isn't dogmatic about their political positions is a two-edged sword, but it offers a better chance for a good outcome than someone who dogmatically "stays on track" to the point of dissing their own constituency. A certain spoiled-brat frat boy comes to mind. Hillary has acted a little too close to that on the Iraq War over the last few years for my liking.

Obama really needs a populist with more experience than him to round out the ticket, and preferably one who has been burned by the DLC. Like Edwards, or Gore.

[nonconformist]

10. I'd prefer to see Edwards get a very powerful cabinet position

AG, perhaps. Something where he can do some actual work for good, instead of just being trotted out on the ticket.

In fact, I think that Edwards has enough support that no matter who is the nominee, we as a party should put a LOT of pressure on them to give Edwards a significant role in their administration. It worked to get Dean as the head of the DNC, and it can work again. I want to see Gore in a position where he can continue to work tirelessly for the environment.

I'm a populist through and through, so as you can imagine this entire process has been painful.

Like I said, I can't and won't defend her IWR vote. I do know that she has been saying for a long time that had she known what Bush would have done with it, she wouldn't have voted for it. I know that's not an apology really, but she does regret it. But that doesn't excuse it, not in the least.

I actually disagree that Hillary won't push for health care. I actually have a LOT more confidence that she will push for it, over Obama. I know that it's something near and dear to her heart, because she tried so hard to get Universal Healthcare back in the 90's and was instrumental in getting SCHIP enacted. I feel she is also more aware of how important it is to the people, since demographically her supporters are more likely to be working to lower middle class and the older population. Health care is on their minds, much more so than it is for 18-21 year olds and the upper middle class. I also am troubled by Obama's "let's all negotiate and compromise" stance when it comes to this issue. Already his plan sucks, I don't know how you can negotiate it to please everyone. Fact is, you can't. That's why I think it's important that we have someone who knows that some people are just going to fight it, tooth and nail, and be prepared to sick to your ground. Her past experience in this arena gives me confidence she knows the inner workings of the industry and knows how to get it done, now.

I found this article on their health care plans very informative, and helpful when making my decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Cronopio]

11. I think Edwards would be a killer AG.

And not in the Gonzales sense. A breath of fresh air, given the mercenaries and psychotics that have filled that position the last eight years.

I think you're right about Edwards' support in the party, and I hope you're right about Hillary if she gets the nomination. I agree with you about the negatives of Obama in the healthcare issue - his plan does suck, and I hope it never sees the light of day in its present form. It's ironic that it incorporates the mistakes Hillary made in '93, and the fact that Hillary's plan is similar to Edwards got me thinking that she may have learned something from the experience. But they both have been supported by Big Pharma or HMOs, and I'm finding it difficult to believe that either one of them is going to betray their benefactors.

A case could be made that either could, but it all comes down to faith and readings of human nature. Obama could be naive enough to do that. Hillary could be gutsy enough. With companies increasingly behind the idea of having the government pay more for the healthcare industry, there's a big x-factor there. All the same, a bet has to be made.

Maybe the best tactic is just to wait and watch - vote for Edwards on principle in the primaries and vote for the Dem candidate in the GE. The healthcare issue isn't going to be decided by the President anyway. It will probably take state programs to do get it done, similar to how it happened in Canada.