Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?

[oberliner]

Interesting piece from The Nation (via cbsnews):

The other night I got an irate e-mail from an old acquaintance on the left. He was furious because I'd quipped in an interview that if people didn't stop making sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, I might just have to vote for her. Maybe he missed the ironic conditional: He thought I supported her. He went on to excoriate Clinton: she is militaristic and ultranationalistic; she would carry on Bush's policy of a long-term occupation of Iraq, define foreign policy around the "war on terror," support the hard-liners in Israel and promote the centrist-Democratic, left-smashing ideology of the DLC. We need to rebuild the left, he concluded, and that's why he was supporting...Barack Obama.

If you get your news from the progressive media, especially the Web, you would think large fields of ideological difference separate Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I haven't decided who I'm voting for. I would love to see a Democratic woman president; I'm not ashamed to say that. I'd love to see a Democratic black president too. But obviously - I shouldn't have to say this - what matters is what the candidates stand for and to whom they'll be beholden if elected. My problem is the three don't look so far apart to me - certainly not enough to justify demonizing one and canonizing another, as my left-wing correspondent does.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/opinion/main3335825.shtml

[Froward69]

1. I concur completely!

[hfojvt]

2. is this another variation of the 'dime's worth of difference?'

There are differences and similarities. They are more like each other than they are like Kucinich, but it seems like Edwards says more about poverty and income inequality than Kucinich does. It's just an impression but if I was gonna summarize them with a one line, this is what their campaign sounds like

Hillary - vote for me, everyone else is
Obama - I am a uniter, not a divider
Edwards - let's work to create one America

I find that the last message resonates far more with me than the other two, and I find that the other two have a disconcerting tendency to adopt rightwing talking points and to repudiate progressive principles. To me, that is a significant difference, even though none of the debates may bring that out.

[silverojo]

3. The reason I prefer Edwards

He's the only candidate for whom poverty is THE issue. Unless and until people are able to earn a decent living, nobody will have time or funds to buy eco-friendly items, donate to causes, or do anything besides trying to tread water.

Of course, that's just how the Republicans like it. :mad:

You'd think all the Dems would realize that they need to help the poor as well as the middle-class, and make that a top priority. Because no nation can lead the world, if it can't (WON'T) even help its own citizens.

[oberliner]

7. They are all Democrats

The "dime's worth of difference" remark was made in reference to Democrats being no different from Republicans.

This piece is illustrating that Democrats are different from Republicans, but are not that different from one another.

[hfojvt]

8. that's why I said "variation"

Which is it though? That there is no difference between a progressive democrat and a DLCer, or that the top three are essentially all DLCers?

[ProudDad]

4. it appears that Edwards is only about 2/5

as bought and paid for as hillary and Obama...

http://tinyurl.com/2hwbcn

As you can see:

Hillary...$62.5 Million
Obama...$58.6M (reputedly from smaller donors)
romney...$43.5M (most his own money)
gooliani...$35.4M
mccain...$25.9M
Edwards...$23.0M

etc.

[goodgd_yall]

5. The one part I like about the piece

is the writer saying (he or she) would love to see a black or woman president, but...

I would too and I'm regretful that neither Obama or Clinton is the candidate that I think would make the best president. I'm going with Edwards because of his emphasis on taking power from corporate scoundrels and I approve of his plan for Iraq.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. They're all good enough to vote for in November of 2008 if they get the nomination.

I'm sick of the fucking histrionic attacks against our people. Yeah, I have my differences with each of the candidates, and in the end, if Gore doesn't get in, I'm probably voting for Kucinich in the primary. Although I haven't written Edwards off entirely- if he's within striking distance I may overlook his inability to come around on Gay Marriage.

But the bottom line is, I AM A DEMOCRAT and I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE in 2008. If Hillary Rodham Clinton is that person, then I will be extremely pleased and excited that she will be the next President of the United States. I had my differences with her Husband, too- but I think you'd have to be smoking some serious Rush Limbaugh-grade crack not to have noticed that this nation was run a FUCKLOAD better between 1993-2001 than since.

No matter who gets the nomination, I will start looking forward to pressing our Democratic Congress to work with our Democratic President to GET US OUT of Iraq- not in 2013 but in 2009.

[Eagle_Eye]

9. That's right! They are all DEMOCRATS

We need to stop mauling our people and start supporting our people.
The Democrat nominee needs to be promoted to that position, not have the competing candidates beat down to the ground.
We need to save our fight for the republicans. We should be holding the republicans in account of Bush's actions, not how one of our Senators voted on a White House endorsed bill.
I support Hillary, but I will vote for which ever DEMOCRAT is running for President.