I don't want to scare you but...these 2 candidates are pretty much the same.

[Phillycat]

Back before all the other candidates dropped out of the race, Clinton and Obama were consistently ranked LAST in DU polls. Know why? Because they were the 2 most centrist/moderate candidates running. At that time (not even a year ago, I'll remind you) hundreds of DUers expressed the hope that neither would be the nominee, because they wanted to see a more populist/progressive candidate.

I was an Edwards supporter. When he dropped out, I rather lukewarmly threw my support to Clinton, as she was the more experienced of the two. Their policies and ideologies are so similar, the only way to differentiate between the two was to start attacking each other's personalities - which is what they did.

I've warmed up to Clinton over the campaign because I like how tenacious she is, but the point of this post is that there is NO ENORMOUS DIVIDE happening in the Democratic party right now. There's no ideological canyon between progressives and centrists. The only divide we're seeing on DU right now is that some of us don't like Hillary and some of us don't like Obama. That's it. I think Obama is not to be trusted, you think Hillary is not to be trusted. It's all masturbatory posturing. I think Hillary would do a better job, but I'm perfectly willing to vote for Obama and I'm sure he'll do a damn sight better job than McCain ever could.

So please, spare us the hysterical posts about how the Democratic party is imploding. Outside of this tiny narrow world of DU, everything's fine. We have two good candidates. We'll end up with one good one. The world will go on. Deep breaths, everyone.

[thereismore]

1. No and no. They're not pretty much the same. IWR, K-L, etc. No. no. nt

[Phillycat]

2. Sigh.

OBAMA WASN'T A SENATOR FOR THE IWR.

[Radio_Lady]

6. Thanks for the post, Janesez. Gives me some hope that this place will

get back on its feet and win in November 2008.

After all, that IS the goal.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[lumpy]

90. Glad to read a modulated post, Radio Lady.

I am appalled at the vituperous garbage that is thrown at our worthy candidates. The Republicans would be happily applauding what is happening here on these forums if they bothered to read some of this stuff. Thank you for the calm and collected post.

[thereismore]

34. She was. nt

[niyad]

84. amazing how people have to be reminded of that little fact. obama couldn't have

voted, since HE HADN'T BEEN ELECTED YET. so, regardless of what he says, we don't KNOW what his vote would have been.

[last1standing]

19. Obama didn't bother to vote on Kyle-Lieberman.

I'm an Obama supporter but I don't think it's fair to slap Hillary around for voting when he didn't show. I agree with you about IWR but not K-L.

[leftofcool]

3. In the real world of Democrats

one meets another on the street and yells.........DEM IN THE WHITE HOUSE! You are right!

[Phillycat]

5. Exactly - ANYBODY BUT THE REPIGS!

Which is why it's good to get away from the computer sometimes. :)

[Radical Activist]

79. When I think back to Bill Clinton's support for NAFTA, telecom reform

that created the media monopolies. Then I remember that having any old Democrat is not enough. It matters.

[Arugula Latte]

4. My candidate didn't align himself with McCain against the other candidate of his party.

[Radio_Lady]

8. Well, your candidate deserves to win, right?

Give me a break...

[Phillycat]

9. Sigh.

Never mind.

[Arugula Latte]

13. I'm just saying ... They are NOT the same.

There are big differences in behavior. And that is very important to me.

[JuniperLea]

10. Can you take the high road and join the Democratic cry

Democrat in the White House!

???

If not, your post is divisive and part of the problem, not the solution.

[Radio_Lady]

15. See my journal post. I plan to let it remain there until November 2008.

"I am a Democrat and I will fully support the Democratic nominee -- whoever he or she may be."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Radio_Lady/238

[dogday]

21. Bravo from a fellow Democrat and we need more like you

who realize the party must come first.. If we don't concentrate on our Party and unite like the Republicans do, we will lose come November...

[Radio_Lady]

24. Thanks. I will never desert the Democratic party. Expect to vote that way for the rest of my life.

[JuniperLea]

40. Well done, Radio_Lady!

You set a shining example. DU is better for your being here!

[leftynyc]

7. Their voting records are practically

identical. I know Sen Obama supporters wish that weren't so and think that he wouldn't have voted for the IWR but there is absolutely no evidence that is true.

[Phillycat]

11. Their voting records, their platforms, their policy ideas, their ideology.

They are so similar, it's silly. But yeah, as evidenced already on this thread, the Obama supporters do NOT want to hear that.

[leftynyc]

118. The supporters of both candidates

have closed their ears to anything that doesn't conform to their worldviews. Try to step back and watch that - it's rather amusing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. That it is....

:-)

[Radio_Lady]

12. Remember, he couldn't ditch Wright until the time when he COULD ditch Wright!

Money morning quarterbacking on the IWR is rampant.

Too bad it has to down one important, interesting, experienced candidate.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[Levgreee]

14. He gave a major speech against it.

[Phillycat]

17. When he had NOTHING TO LOSE.

[Levgreee]

27. How did he have nothing to lose, exactly? A speech like that would follow him around his whole

career in politics. He was already an elected official and didn't have a guarantee that he'd stay that way.

[Phillycat]

29. He was a STATE SENATOR in a heavily Democratic area.

He would have lost more if he HADN'T come out against the war. God, it's like I'm the only person who remembers further back than 6 months ago.

[Levgreee]

38. And you believe he just wanted to stay a state senator the rest of his career?

:eyes:

There are "short-term drawbacks" and "long-term drawbacks" to actions

[TheDoorbellRang]

68. He gave that speech a few months before his run for US Senate

He had plenty to lose. At the time, the whole country was crazy to go into Iraq, and if you weren't, it didn't make the news.

Also the argument that he had an easy opponent is false. When he made that speech, he was pitted against a strong Repulican candidate. Obama made the speech in October, reiterated the position on Chicago tv in November. We went into Iraq the following March, and Barack's tough opposition in the race self-imploded in June and Obama got to face ridiculous Keyes instead. He had no way of knowing that's how it would turn out.

[lumpy]

99. I remember further back than 6 months ago. I and many more

Democrats who have no interest in the postings on Democratic Underground. People think that GDP is infested with rabble rousers on ego trips who like to see their names in print. Sad.

[BklnDem75]

44. How does he have nothing to lose?

Was he not running for Senate? Not many politicians go against the grain when they're running for office.

[Radical Activist]

69. Bullshit. He was running for Senate in a Democratic Primary.

At the time the war was popular and he was the ONLY anti-war Democrat in the primary. Educate yourself. Obama had plenty to lose and it took courage to speak out against the war.

[DanTex]

39. But Hillary actually did vote for the IWR

Its not some minor detail.

Its might be the worst thing Bush did.

And Hillary voted for it.

Why did she do that? Why won't she acknowledge that it was a mistake?


Are we really comparing Hillary's vote for IWR to a hypothetical vote that Barack might have cast. Really?

While we're at it, let's blame Barack for hypothetically invading Vietnam. This could be fun.

[Radio_Lady]

78. ... and Obama stayed in his church for 20 years!

It's not some minor detail.

It might be the worst thing Obama did.

And Hillary was not involved.

Why did he do that? Why would he ONLY acknowledge that it was a mistake AFTER the political unrest that followed his first speech?

Are we really comparing Obama's remaining in the church with his sanctioning the death of the U.S.A. as it exists today?

While we're at it, let's blame Hillary for everything that's wrong with the United States -- and add in all of her husband's peccadillos, too.

Both sides in this faulty and underwhelming election process are really making me absolutely nauseated.

Cordially,

Radio Lady Ellen

"I am a Democrat and I will fully support the Democratic nominee -- whoever he or she may be."

[beezlebum]

98. omg w/ the church shit

lame.

if going to church with an outspoken and provocotive preacher IS the worst thing obama has done, then i'm with him all the way.

sanctioning the death of the US? are you fucking kidding me? i thought that lack-of-context o'reilly shit was gone and buried, at least for dems.

and yep, i WILL blame hillary and her husband for many things that are wrong with United States- starting with NAFTA.

i am a democrat and i refuse to support pretend democrats who pander to warmongering neocon republicans and lead the DLC (read: warmongering neocon "democrats").

[Arugula Latte]

113. Are you kidding me? You're comparing a decision to allow the slaughter of innocents

tens of thousands of innocents, we're talking, with what is said in a stupid CHURCH?!

Seriously -- You're comparing the two? ... I am speechless.

[leftynyc]

120. You'll have to ask her why she voted

for it - along with Senators Kerry and Edwards (you know, the ones considered heroes for endorsing Sen Obama).

[Radical Activist]

65. So Hillary moved left for a year before the Democratic Primary.

That doesn't make her liberal. It makes her a calculating panderer who knew she would be challenged from the left in the primary. Their career records (yes you have to include Obama's entire record, not just in the US Senate) are not identical.

[leftynyc]

117. Don't speak to me about pandering

when Sen Obama just last week threw his spiritual advisor under a bus after it became apparent he was a liability. After claiming in his race speech that he could never do that. What a joke.

And before you call me a hillbot or some such other bullshit, I think both candidates suck.

[Zomby Woof]

16. I am alerting your post

It's much too reasonable and balanced to merit credibility in this forum. :P

Potential new sig line: "Outside of this tiny narrow world of DU, everything's fine."

[Phillycat]

22. Crap, sorry, forgot where I was for a minute.

Uh...DOOM! GLOOM! DISASTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zomby Woof]

28. Put some 1's with your exclamation points

Or I'll CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!111!!!1!

[Phillycat]

31. "I'm on hold with them now, what should I say?" - Arwalden

"Quick, Allen, tell them you're naked and oiled up!" - Matcom

"Yes, Mr Gannon, we'll put you right through." - ??

:rofl:

[KingFlorez]

18. Exactly

Some don't want to acknowledge that, but it's true.

[NorthCarolina]

20. One is DLC and the other is not

that makes a world of difference between them.

[Phillycat]

26. Perhaps to you.

I have, like, 10 bucks in my wallet or something...anyway, I'll put it all up to bet that, say, 85% of registered Democrats in this country don't know what the DLC is. Wanna take that action? :D

[NorthCarolina]

35. You're probably right, but the erradication of the DLC has to start someplace

so, I'll start with me.:patriot:

[Zodiak]

47. That's the spirit!

The awareness of the DLC has increased exponentially in the last two elections, mostly because DUers were asking themselves why the Democrats kept caving over and over. In this election, people began to ask why one candidate was trying to use the Republican machine to destroy another member of the party.

Knowledge of the DLC is also spreading beyond the blogosphere, mostly because blogger-types have families and you gotta talk about something around the dinner table.

I took the pledge to not support any DLCer about two years ago. They are anathema to the liberal/progressive cause. It is these causes that I feel the most loyalty, and that is out of necessity because the country is heading down the crapper without the left's input. The DLC is mostly dedicated to squelching the left and marginalizing them from having a place at the table in their own party.

Obama not being DLC (publicly disassociating himself from them early in his Senate career) means everything to me. He does not have the same allies, and therefore he would bring an entirely different executive branch than Hillary would. She has a lot more political debts to pay than he does....that what "experience" means in her case.

Plus, when Obama says he is going to invite everyone to the table, that means progressives and populists, too. With the DLC, they would invite themselves and the Republicans and say "both parties are represented", but we know that when it comes to economic issues, they and the Republicans have the same ideology.

I'm sorry if that sounds divisive, but that is the landscape as I see it.

[NorthCarolina]

49. Very well stated and I couldn't agree with you more

eom

[PassingFair]

110. We have broken their backs, there is NO DOUBT.

:patriot:

Even if she manages to steal it,
it is OVER for the DLC.

I have a screaming headache tonight,
but I am HAPPY!

[Two Americas]

45. The DLC members support Obama

Last time I looked, more DLC members supported Obama than Clinton.

[NorthCarolina]

50. If they do then it certainly seems

the DLC needs Obama more than he needs the DLC if they are willing to shun one of their own as you say. At least he will not be beholden to the DLC and can work beyond partisan politics.

[Two Americas]

53. I suppose

I guess I don't see the DLC the way some trufers see the Illuminati and what not.

[Zodiak]

101. You should look again

There have been some notable defections, but the Vilsacks, Stricklands, Fords, and Bayhs have been going for Hillary.

Let's redo Jackson Dems analysis, shall we? (he is the only one I know of who has tried to do this before, and since he is tombstoned, we should redo it in case it was biased....right?)

Let's just pick what I know...senators. There are a number of DLC senators (NDC).....20 total, I think.

Obama (5): Nelson (NE), Conrad, Johnson, Dorgan (Jackson_dem missed this one), Kerry (although it is arguable that he is done with the DLC)

Clinton (8): Nelson (FL), Pryor (Jackson Dem "missed" this one), Stabenow, Cantwell (Jackson Dem missed this one, too), Inouye (Jasckson Dem missed this one, too), Feinstein, Bayh, Menendez (yup...jackson dem missed this one, too).

Considering that the only analysis that has been done is a seriously flawed analysis done by a tombstoned DU who was far from unbaised, I would say that carrying this analysis on to the governors and other lower elected officils is moot. I don't really have the time to familiarize myself with all of them anyways.

I left out Chuck Schumer, who is not officially DLC, but has taken money from them for trips and has spoken at DLC engagements. He is for Hillary, by the way.

[Two Americas]

106. thanks

I didn't know what the updated count was. I think we can agree that this is not a good way to define the difference between the candidates.

[Romulox]

76. Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is also Head Economist for the DLC :(

World of difference???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee

[dogday]

23. A Politician is A Politician is A Politician

They speak from both sides of their mouth.. Their words and actions are scripted by advisors... That is why I can look at this with a neutral outlook....

[masshole]

25. well

I agree with your statement about the party not "imploding". Too much drama from both camps.

I support Obama for his positions on the issues and the way he has handled himself, and his campaign.
I support Hillary for her positions on the issues, but not for the way both she and her campaign have behaved.
Where you see her as "tenacious" I see her as divisive and selfish.
The fight is with the Republicans, not with a fellow Democrat.

[bowens43]

30. No, they're nothing alike.

Hillary is a lying, cheating, power crazed , back stabbing , dishonest, war monger. Obama isn't.

[Phillycat]

32. Hey, there's that reason and level-headedness I was looking for!

Fantastic.

[cbayer]

62. Uh, you forgot neocon feminazi. nt.

[niyad]

94. peter barack obama is an opportunist who would have us believe absurdities

(NOBODY with two arcing brain cells could possibly believe that he was a member of that church for 20 years, that the pastor was his mentor, his spiritual advisor, and, even though every other pastor in the area knew wright's views and sermons, obama had no clue) that is total and complete codswallop.

had he, as one of my friends put it "manned up" and said, "yes, he does preach that, and yes, that is the way many people feel, and if you don't believe it, try going into the inner cities sometime" I might have had some little respect for him.

his arrogance, his praise of ray-gun, his "repukes are the party of ideas", his "excesses of the 60's", his "women should consider abortion prayerfully", his "all her supporters will come to me, none of mine will go to her", his "abstinence education", his enlisting powell as a foreign policy advisor, etc., etc., make me realize he isn't the person I want in the white house.

but, as radio lady and others have said, whoever has the d after their name, we can't have bush 3.

[lumpy]

103. Hear hear The veil needs lifting

Down with idol worship

[highplainsdem]

33. K & R

:kick:

[NeedleCast]

36. On the issues, you're probably right

their integrity is where there is a gulf of difference.

[Phillycat]

37. Judging others' integrity is a pretty woolly business.

That's why you find on DU Obama supporters CAN'T BELIEVE anyone could support that lying, backstabbing, warmongering bitch, and Clinton supporters CAN'T BELIEVE anyone could support that arrogant, empty-suit, race-baiting dickhead.

It's subjective, is what I'm saying.

[redqueen]

41. Race-baiting eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5843953

[cbayer]

55. That's flame-baiting, not race-baiting.

This is the mental image I get of that thread:



Why would anyone in their right mind go in there?

[redqueen]

56. Asking for evidence is flamebait?

*sigh*

[cbayer]

71. Yes, Redqueen.

A brand new poster using his/her first OP to challenge all Clinton supporters by saying "I'm tired of constantly hearing about how Obama's campaign constantly pulls the racecard but never offers any support to this claim. Anyone, anyone, Bueller?????????????" is flamebaiting.

This followed by 20 responses which mock and taunt Clinton supporters only confirms that.

[redqueen]

80. I guess.

I don't see it... but I can see how it could be construed that way at least... *sigh*

[cbayer]

88. Awww, Redqueen.

You have been gentler lately and it suits you! I hope it's a sign of mellowing and not one of giving up (honestly).

:hug:

[redqueen]

102. I suppose it's a sign of being cowed.

I hadn't realized how nasty I had become... so maybe I owe something to those who were so nasty to me last week.

Thanks, cbayer. :hug:

[NashVegas]

112. Someone With 16 Posts To Their Credit Is Not Going to Be Taken Seriously As Inquisitor, Ya Know?

[zulchzulu]

42. The Clintons represent the Clintons...Obama represents the Democratic Party

It's that simple. I've had enough of the Clintons. No. More.

[Radio_Lady]

82. I vouchsafe that is YOUR opinion. I've come to a different conclusion.

"I am a Democrat and I will fully support the Democratic nominee -- whoever he or she may be."

[Triana]

43. They will NOT implement their policies or run the White House in the same way though!

...that is the issue I have with Clinton. Her methods and behavior in 'getting it done' are despicably Republican. Just like George W. bu$h's. We've had ENOUGH of that kind of politics.

Their policies are similar - the DIFFERENCE IS IN HOW THEY'LL GET IT DONE - how they'll implement those policies.

Hillary's way is the Republican / George W. way -(MY way or the damn highway - we've had enough of that)
Obama's is the collaborative consensus way.


It's not the policies.

It's how they'll GET IT DONE.

EDIT: and the post immediately previous - The Clintons represent THEMSELVES - Obama represents THE COUNTRY/people. I AGREE.

[Zomby Woof]

64. That's where he will disappoint his base

When Bill Clinton did the "collaborative consensus" way, he was called a "triangulator", a "sell-out", a "DLC whore", and other pejorative, ad hominen nonsense. Should Obama be held to a different standard, and get the benefit of the doubt? Compromise is what drives the American system, for better or for worse, and our system has never been patient or tolerant of purists. Obama is not a purist, and by much of his base seeing him as such, will be surely setting themselves up for disappointment and disillusionment. One cannot work for "change" within the system without placing the needs of the system first. Obama will serve the system which produced him, as would Hillary.

I don't see Hillary being nearly as arrogant or one-sided as Bush. Her record in the Senate is proof enough of this. Bush's utter lack of consensus-seeking, "triangulating", etc., is what his 30% base calls "unwavering principle" and "integrity". You know and I know that is utter bullshit, but you can see how one person's intractability is another person's bedrock principle. Of course a leader should have principles, and compromise adroitly. But if you want perfection, write yourself in on the ballot.

When given the choice of two similar entities, we often heighten and emphasize the differences to help justify our decision. What Clinton and Obama supporters of the more zealous stripe are doing is right out of a Psych 101 textbook. For those of us less zealous and ideological, dare I say practical, we tend to be more objective, and less likely to emphasize these differences. I see the fence-sitters and undecideds also of a more pragmatic bent. And for us practical types who have made a decision, whether for Clinton or Obama, we make it based on facts rather than emotion. We're not concerned with "likability" or "inspiration", or other media-driven pablum.

[Phillycat]

108. Shh, you'll confuse them.

They don't understand that there's any history of presidential politics before this election. Don't scare them!

[Zomby Woof]

124. Me? Scare?

I am just providing a public service, I swear on my clown shoes. :patriot:


































::patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[texshelters]

46. why would that scare me

They are similar, but I think Obama will be a better leader.

Tex Shelters

[dailykoff]

48. The world according to CNN.

You left out "and McCain is a maverick."

[TexasObserver]

51. No, they're not anything alike.

Leadership is more than votes made over a period of years.

Hillary does not lead. Look at the disaster her campaign is. In debt, mismanaged, deceptive, self centered, and underhanded. Obama has shown true leadership in the conduct of his campaign.

You're a former Edwards supporter and so am I. Just because we both supported Edwards does not make our ability to evaluate the candidacies of Hillary and Obama equal.

I suggest that your analysis is badly flawed, and that you're finding similarity that doesn't exist.

[eallen]

52. Do you expect Hillary to roll back the "unitary executive"?

One area where I see a large difference between Obama and Hillary has to do with their attitude to Constitutional limits and process. Obama has said that one of his first three acts in office would be to institute a review of Bush's executive orders, looking for the ones that exceed Constitutional bounds, and rescinding them. He has spoken on the need for the Department of Justice under his administration to investigate the illegalities committed by the DoJ under Bush, especially with regard to torture. In short, he has been much more forceful in addressing this area.

Now, no, it's not a policy area. It doesn't address taxes or spending or programs or trade. But to those of us who care about civil liberty and restoring the Constitution, it is the issue for 2008. And I see a huge difference between Obama and Hillary on this, not only in their words, but in their past actions.

:hippie:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Thanks for your concern, Ralph.

I'll file this away.

[FlyingSquirrel]

57. LOFL

[cbayer]

58. I am a Democrat and I will fully support the Democratic nominee

...whoever he or she may be.

Thanks to janesez for the OP and Radio Lady for the quote.

:toast:

[BeyondGeography]

59. Many of the same stated positions, two totally different people

But I agree on the so-called "divide" issue. Things will change for most of the holdouts once a running mate has been chosen and we get a good look at what we're up against.

[uponit7771]

60. Obamas energy postion is what makes me want to vote for him

[bunnies]

61. Actually. The people themselves are NOTHING alike.

Thats all Im going to say about that.

[Radical Activist]

63. Complete Bullshit.

No, Obama did not rank last in DU polls.
There are significant differences in ideology, approach and record between the two candidates. I realize its always fashionable to say it doesn't matter with condescension toward all the poor fools who think there's a difference. It makes people feel smarter than everyone else. It isn't true this time. Obama will be the first left wing movement activist and probably the most liberal nominee the party has had.

[speedoo]

70. delete

wrong place in the thread.

[Radical Activist]

74. Leading what?

Your post doesn't make sense to me. No, my view on how Obama and Hillary differ would not be different if she were winning the nomination, if that's what you mean.

[speedoo]

77. sorry, I deleted... was addressing OP and posted in the wrong place. nt

[Radical Activist]

81. ah!

It happens.

[NashVegas]

66. Say It Isn't So!

:hi:

[joeybee12]

67. you're right...

...that's all I gotta say.

[Radical Activist]

72. I hear a lot of progressive female supports of Hillary make this argument.

I think they're trying to convince themselves its true so that they don't feel like they're betraying their progressive principles by supporting Hillary because she's a woman. Well, they are.

[mudesi]

73. Except one of them has already won the nomination

That's the difference.

[Zomby Woof]

89. Absolutely untrue

Obama has not secured enough of the delegates. That is why Hillary has stayed in. She has every right to stay in until the delegate count is a settled matter. Wishing she would concede based on odds and projection isn't how the nomination process works down here. Nominations are not "won" based on tapping the ruby slippers together.

I know the odds favor Obama, and I think it is highly likely he will ultimately get the delegate count needed, but until it actually happens, the nomination has not been "won" in any form.

[Radical Activist]

91. That isn't how it worked for Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

All of them had their opponents drop out when it was clear who the nominee would be for the sake of the party. Why are the rules different for Obama and Hillary? Why doesn't Hillary respect the party and and its presumptive nominee the way that other candidates have done for decades?

[niyad]

97. please tell me exactly when peter barack obama secured the necessary 2.025 delegates

since I haven't seen that figure on the news anywhere

[speedoo]

75. And I suppose your opinion would be unchanged if Hillary were leading this?

Something tells me that is not the case.

[lumpy]

83. Well drawn post, janesez. I agree wholeheartedly with what

you have to say. I get the impression that many of the posters here are new in taking an interest in politics; which is a good thing that they are taking an interest, God knows. Hopefully they will mellow out and discard the bulldog tactics. I have a hard time trying to tolerate most of the comments put forth by the Obama supporters so consequently I don't come here often. It is a pity that some people simply have not followed politics long enough to know that there are elements that work to accomplish this very division of thought in the Democratic party.

[Radical Activist]

85. If you want to understand the difference between the two.

Study what they did after leaving college. They are two very different people with different outlooks.

[sellitman]

86. I use to agree with you.

That was before Hillary's scorched earth campaign. You know, the campaign where she actually came out for McCain over Obama?

She cannot get back to NY fast enough in my book.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Yes you are scaring me.....because it appears that you believe that folks here

haven't already made their own determination, based on more than your written brain fart.

The candidates are not the same. period.

[BlooInBloo]

92. Sure. One appeals to bigots and wants to obliterate 70 million people. The other doesn't...

It's SOOOOOO hard to tell the difference between them.

[jeffrey_X]

93. policy-wise...maybe

character, history and other attributes....not so much.

[niyad]

95. k & r

how DARE you be so reasonable?

[Catherine Vincent]

96. Tell me about it.

I don't know how many times Obamabots on here claim that "Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party".

[JoFerret]

100. Thanks janesez

This is true. But we sure have a deal of trumped up divides and differences going now don't we? And don't the media love it.

And people seem to actually believe they are deep, unbreachable and significant.

[Sancho]

104. Together they would be unbeatable...

too much to hope for...


:dem:

[MasonJar]

105. All of you who think it does not matter if a dem wins if it is not your

guy/gal had better read the post up today about McCain promising to appoint more conservative judges. We know that in the next 4 years at least one slot will be open, possibly 2. Does that bring you back to reality? If it doesn't then this country is doomed!!!!!

[Phillycat]

109. Not to mention HUNDREDS on the federal courts.

People tend to focus on the SCOTUS to the exception of the federal courts, at their peril!

[natrat]

107. please-clinton has run a completly sleazy campaign and her connections are right wing

and there are millions upon millions of people who would not vote for her under any circumstance ie 80% of black america-she is creepy

[bigwillq]

111. Pretty much

Except for a few things, their voting record in the Senate is the same.

And yes, they are both centrists. But they have a different approach and style in their delievery. I think a lot of people have bought into Obama's style..the hope that things will be better and that things will change. It's a great message. I'm just waiting for the results because that's what really matters.

[BigBearJohn]

114. Well said!

[eridani]

115. No, there is no ideological divide

There is, however, a serious FRAMIMG divide, which is an entirely different matter.

[hokies4ever]

116. Gas tax holiday ring a bell?

Baseless vote pandering vs. honest politics.

[DemGa]

119. You are saying Obama pandered three times in the State Senate?

Yes, you are.

[SoonerPride]

126. No, we're saying he learned a lesson and Clinton should stop getting ideas from McSame

That's the fact, Jack

[DemGa]

132. You know Clinton's plan is different than McCain's plan

That's just more Obama campaign disinformation.

So Obama was for it three times before he was against it - there's your fact, Jack.

[SoonerPride]

134. It is economic folly

All the experts agree.

Deal with reality.

For once.

[DemGa]

135. Then you also agree that Obama pandered three times

Good that you deal with reality.

[Celebration]

121. Hmmm, one is DLC and one isn't n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. Of course they are

Which is why the intensity of attachment on both sides is always about something else, something other than the candidate and his/her policies.

[Phillycat]

123. Yup. Has to be personal - there isn't anything else to argue about.

I remember when DU was filled with near-communists who wouldn't support either of these candidates if you paid them. :D Ah, the good old days..."I'm voting for Nader!"

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. As a full out

Marxist, I support Obama, but I don't pretend that his policy differences with Clinton are significant in any real (i.e., material) way. I'd just like to see something different, and the stink of Clintonism still galls me.

[ProSense]

128. Don't mean to stomp on your scare argument, but

before he was exposed as a warmonger, there was little difference between Hillary and Lieberman.

Lieberman's campaign exposed him as a Democrat in title only, just as Hillary's campaign has exposed her as ruthless and self-centered. On that score, she is nothing like Obama.

[Phillycat]

129. See post 76.

We see what we want to see.

[ProSense]

130. What does that have to do with the comparing Hillary to Obama?

Advisers come in all shapes and sizes.

[Phillycat]

131. You posted a thread about Hillary and Lieberman's DLC ties.

And why the DLC is "ruining the Democratic party". I pointed out that Obama also has DLC ties.

[ProSense]

133. An adviser with DLC ties, doesn't transform Obama's campaign into the DLC

He has other advisers, and they all don't share the same background and opinions. They simply advise.

The DLC is destroying the party, clearly demonstrated by Lieberman, Harold Ford and now Hillary.