Your brief, measured thoughts on our "top 3?"

[Syrinx]

Greetings from the mean streets of downtown Insomnia, Alabama!

I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the state of our Democratic candidates.

It's funny, not in that "ha-ha" way. Early on in this process, I felt embarrassed by our perceived bounty of riches. I don't really feel that way anymore.

It seems it's coming down to Obama, Clinton, and maybe Edwards.

Edwards is ex-DLC, it seems. I like his current rhetoric, but he was so wrong on so many issues so many times in the past, I find it difficult to have complete trust in him.

Hillary Clinton seems to be current DLC, totally establishment oriented. Is it fair to judge her through the lens of her husband's legacy? I think it is, unless she disavows Bill's presidency. She can't do that because those eight years count against her thirty-five years of experience.

Barack Obama seems mostly a cipher. Sure, I could be less lazy, especially since I can't sleep anyway, and look up his promises and past accomplishments. You would think, though, he would talk more about that stuff in his speeches, so that I wouldn't have to take such extreme measures. ;)

Change. All of them are talking about "change." Everybody loves change. I was happy when I got change back at Pizza Hut the other night. We need to hear more specific information about the specific changes each candidate wants to make.

Overall I think I prefer Edwards, because he sounds ready to kick some Republican "balls." (Reference to a post by someone else.) But I'm even a little leery of him, given his past comments and legislation.

I'm not thrilled with our current lineup of candidates, but any one of ours would be very much better than any of the Republicans. That's for sure. Every last one of their serious candidates is a completely crazy warmongering power-mad fool.

My order is Edwards, Obama, Clinton, but I've been warming to Obama.

What do you think?

[Swamp Rat]

1. Dennis Kucinich #1

:)

:patriot: GEAUX KUCINICH!!! :patriot:

[Syrinx]

2. yeah, I like Dennis!

I wish he didn't criticize Edwards in the way that he did. But I know Edwards ain't pure.

It's a catch-22. It would take Kucinich's election to make Kucinich electable.

Or something like that. ;)

[shadowknows69]

4. Bingo

I think Edwards winning could take us a lot closer to that world if he does take on the corporate power structure like he says he will.

[shadowknows69]

3. Edwards, Obama, Clinton

I supported Edwards in 2004 as well and wasn't happy at all to see him play VP candidate to Kerry except that I figured it would get him a shot in 8 years. I have no doubt Kerry would have been a great President but he should have stomped the shit out of Bush, voting machines aside. He had a weak and ineffectual campaign strategy IMO.

I am troubled by Edwards past votes, obviously the IWR, but he satisfied me on that point in 2004 and I allow for people to be able to change. That's why I think it's Elizabeth Edwards and her health struggles that allows me to trust John even more this time around. Situations like that make a person really take stock of their life and they either become changed by it or not. I believe John Edwards has learned what is important in his life and it has changed him. I believe he really wants to make a better america for the american. We need someone to shake up the corporate power structure or nothing else constructive will get done in this country and it will continue to go to shit because all the american people represent to them is an expendable resource to further increase shareholder profits.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. Thank you for speaking for me as well...

I prefer the "top 3" in that order as well.

I like John for the same reasons. He inspires me.

I am indeed inspired by Obama as well.

I don't dislike Hillary.

I have faith that whoever gets in will surprise us all in a delightful way by working to change the power structure.

[cornermouse]

5. top 3

Clinton - maybe
Edwards - yes
Obama - no

More and more Obama is starting to remind me of Reagan and G.W. with his "rosy future" and likeability. As someone else said recently, I don't want a great motivational speaker for President. I want a someone who will do the job right.

[Syrinx]

6. I'm worried about Obama

I've posted about this before. But maybe not as explicitly.

My congressman in Alabama is Artur Davis. An African-American congressperson with some star power. Graduate of Harvard. Close friend of Barack Obama.

I don't know if Davis is officially DLC, but he votes like them anyway.

For the bankruptcy bill. Lockstep with AIPAC. For the Military Commissions Act (repeal of Habeas Corpus).

Like I said, Obama is something of a cipher. I hope he doesn't share the POV of this particular friend. :(

[cornermouse]

7. Yeah.

He may be all right. I just don't know.

[cali]

28. Dennis is very friendly with Ron Paul

Do you believe that his friendship means he'll vote like Paul on domestic issues.

You're indulging in a logical fallacy.

Obama isn't a cipher. You're simply ignorant and you clearly haven't really listened to him.

[Syrinx]

36. friend and rabid supporter

Davis is Obama's friend, AND rabid supporter, so I assume they probably have views in common.

Let's all "HOPE FOR CHANGE."

You and your name-calling are pretty "ignorant," if you ask me.

[shadowknows69]

8. I have this little fantasy that if Obama wins it all

At his inaugaration he will suddenly come out with the most left leaning ideas that DC has seen. Gotcha!!!

[Syrinx]

10. that would be cool!

And he has George Clinton play "Chocolate City." :)

[shadowknows69]

18. Hell make George Clinton Secretary of Funk

And that is the only circumstance where I want either a George or a Clinton in our White House again.

[Syrinx]

20. good one

Well two, really! :hi:

[XemaSab]

23. I gotta say...

Stranger things have happened. :)

[baby_mouse]

31. George in reverse...

Yes, that's occurred to me, too...

[PCIntern]

9. Here's my brief:

I'll be back with my 'measured thoughts' in a minute...

[Syrinx]

13. sounds like you're thinking about measuring

:rofl:

[sendero]

11. Ok....

... from least favorite to favorite

HRC - Bush lite. Same ol' same ol'. Votes against our interests and then explains why her vote doesn't mean what it means. More beholden to AIPAC than her Dem base. Note to HRC: you are not running a NY campaign here.


Obama - pleasant enough but not sure how much substance is there. Will admit that he has details on his positions on his web site, and they are not bad, but I wish he'd talk more specifics and less "hope" in his speeches.

Edwards - not perfect by any means but closer than the other two. HIS MESSAGE OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE is going to resonate more and more as more and more people realize what an absolute disaster the economy of this country has become. Unfortunately, the recession might have come a couple months too late to help him.

[HughBeaumont]

14. ABC.

How brief is that?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

15. Any one of ours is better than all of theirs put together

and the one who becomes our nominee is the one I will vote for in November.

[ThomWV]

21. You want to know something? That simply is not true.

You deamonize the opposition at your own peril. They are smart, strong, and very well financed. To think that the inexperienced batch of clowns we have settled on as our best can beat that without breaking a sweat is a sad mistake.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

25. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I didn't say anything about our candidate winning without breaking a sweat. You just want an opportunity to bash Dems. Take it someplace else.

[MadHound]

16. I'm not impressed with the top three at all

Hillary is probably my least favorite of the group, not only will I not vote for her in the primary, I won't vote for her in the general either. I find her to be corporately compromised, and the most hawkish on the war despite her latest pronouncements.

Edwards I don't trust, and frankly I'm a bit pissed at him for ripping off Dennis Kucinich's platform, trying to become a born again populist. Yet despite his rhetoric, I notice that he continues to accept money for both the financial and legal sector, along with any other corporation that will throw him money. I can easily see him dropping this populist persona as soon as he's elected and going back to his DLC/corporatist/centerist roots. I would have to think long and hard before voting for him in the general, and I certainly wouldn't like doing so.

Obama is an enigma to a great degree. He seems like a run of the mill centerist/corporatist, but he could be disguising a number of things at this point, both good and bad. Again, I would have to think on this one long and hard before voting for him in the general.

Kucinich is about the only one of the bunch that I wholeheartedly support, because he is the only one, in my opinion, who has been right on virtually all the issues all the time. Sadly, he can't overcome both his own party and the media who are all working against him. God forbid we have a genuine peoples' president in the White House.

So depending on who our nominee is, I may or may not vote for them in the general, and will have to wrestle with my conscience in order to do so. I've never been impressed by the slate this time around, and with each passing primary, it becomes worse and worse. Once again, it will come down to whether or not I want to vote for the "lesser of two evils" even though that vote will still be for evil.

[Syrinx]

17. thanks for those interesting words!

I largely agree with you, but I will continue to vote, even if I suspect it doesn't count. And maybe I do.

[Desertrose]

32. You pretty much summed it up for me,too.

Actually....I couldn't have said it better myself.:)

Am looking to vote DK in the primary..the general...gonna be tough and like you, will have to think long & hard....the never ending choice of "the lesser of two evils" is getting rather old.

[ThomWV]

19. We had a great bottom 3, a lackluster top 3, and we'll end up with a dud.

It is as if we were seeking the least electable candidate of the bunch.

[AndyA]

22. 1. Edwards, 2. Clinton, 3. N/A

Edwards: YES
Clinton: YES
Obama: NO

I believe John Edwards is in the best position to do what he says he's going to do. He has no obligations to the big business factors that have largely controlled the Bush Administration. Yes, he's made mistakes but he's learned from those mistakes and he's admitted he was wrong. That takes courage and I admire that. It's not easy to say you were wrong in front of millions of people.

Hillary Clinton is...well, she's Hillary. We pretty much know what we're going to get with her. I think if there are any surprises from her, they will likely be good ones. And I can handle that, it's the bad surprises I don't like.

Barack Obama is a bigot and a hypocrite. He says he has no problem with gays, yet he allows a bigoted preacher named McClurkin a podium and a captive audience to preach to. And he tells how praying "cured him" of homosexuality. I find that highly offensive and insulting.

Would Barack allow someone the same opportunity to preach about a cure for being black? I don't think so.

Barack should know better, and I will not support him because of this and his ties to big business. Those donations he's accepting from big business come with expectations, which will compromise him and prevent him from making any real changes - changes we desperately need in America.

[NC_Nurse]

24. I am undecided, leaned toward Dodd, like EDwards health plan...

Frankly, I liked Dodd better than anyone else. What can I say, I love a loser apparently.
I was a huge Dean fan back in the day...:(

I like Edwards health plan best. But he makes a LOT of big promises for someone with so little experience and a pretty conservative past record. I like his wife better
than him.

Hillary has so many corporate ties and I was disappointed in her husband's presidency - after working my ASS off in the '92 election for him. I ran the doorstep
Democratic combined campaign for him in this state with Dan Blue's wife. Then he caves on shit like "Don't ask, don't tell". Very disappointing.
Welfare reform, NAFTA. dereg of telecom co.'s. ...I realize that Hill's not Bill, but she hasn't exactly run from his record either.

Obama makes me nervous with all the "old time religion" shit. I despise religious pandering. Period.

The most frustrating thing for me, though, is watching stupid things like how Hillary laughs or cries, John's haircut, and Obama's race be the focus so much discussion.
And the fact that unrepresentative states are calling the shots in the process, making what I think irrelevant.

[XemaSab]

26. Here's my assessment:

Hillary is a known quantity. She's a corporatist and a DLC'er, and she's in bed with some of the slime of the party, but I don't think she would make an awful president. Hell, she might even be a better president than Bill. The biggest problem I have with her is the fact that a large portion of the country will NEVER accept her, and I'd like a president who half the country doesn't hate.

Edwards I just don't trust. I feel like I'm one of the few people to NOTICE that he was a different person as a lawyer, as a senator, as a candidate in 2004, in corporate life between 2004 and 2007, and as a candidate today. I don't feel like Hillary has been DIFFERENT PEOPLE during her time in the public eye. I don't think he has the experience to lead, and I don't think he has the judgement to be president. If Edwards was president, would we get the guy who was suckered into a war vote based on false intel? Or the guy who was all about being positive and bipartisan in 2004? Or the corporatist DLC'er? Or the anti-corporate crusader we're seeing today? Or all of the above depending on the day? :shrug:

Obama is the candidate I am supporting. I am not without my hesitations, however. He was pretty centrist as a senator, and I am uncomfortable with some of his non-votes and other equivocations. I'm also worried about his views on gays. My support for him is partly a process of elimination and partly that I think he's the only candidate of the top three who could REALLY turn the page for us as a nation, both here and abroad. He's got loads of charisma, and could inspire people through the power of the bully pulpit. I think he's got a pretty strong moral compass and I trust him to do the right thing. :)

So it's Obama-Clinton-Edwards for me.

Oh yeah, and on edit: Obama didn't vote for the war. I know he wasn't in the senate at the time, but Edwards and Clinton are CULPABLE in a way that Obama isn't.

[Sparkly]

27. Their policy proposals are essentially THE SAME.

There's no great difference there.

So the differences are about:
1. style
2. biography
3. "electability"

Obama has it on style, clearly. He's very appealing, charismatic, exciting to many people. To me, it rings familiar rather than "new." The talk of "change" is so old now (or, I am so old now) it's reminiscent of elections gone by -- lots of them. Most of them, actually. But I guess a new politician can go back to it every time. He does it well, and it looks like he has the potential to really get out the vote.

Clinton has the biography in terms of her experience (yes, DUers, her experience). To me, biography also goes to depth of intellect and I love seeing something in their early years that's like an epiphany -- a sign, a choice they make, that shows they have something extraordinary just built-in. Intellectual depth is what I saw in President Clinton and General Clark -- the way they answered questions, circling around a host of related matters and considering the issue from all angles before coming back in summary to an answer. Those two are jaw-droppingly brilliant; Gore and Kerry are close, and I'd put HRC in with them. Her answers to the Q/A's lately have been pretty stunning. However, other people call this trait "being wonky" so I guess it's just me. As for the little "ephiphany" moments, I saw those in the stories of Kerry, Clark, Pres. Clinton, and Gore, but unfortunately I don't see it in any of our candidates now. Point to Clinton though for intellect and experience.

"Electability" -- who knows. I am pretty bad at guessing this, it seems! At the moment, it seems this goes to Obama. It depends on whether, under scrutiny and RNC attacks, he could hold up through the general election. Who knows what they're loading their cannons with right now. HRC is "the devil we know" when it comes to their ammo against her. Edwards is somewhere in the middle. And then there's the question of "is America ready for a woman/black man," and I think they're more ready for a black man than for a woman. A white southern man is certainly 'safer.'

All would make competent presidents. I think HRC has grappled with issues -- turning them around and looking at them from different angles and watching things pass and fail and succeed and falter for a very long time. I think "very long time" is good; others sneer at is as "the past." But if the popular love of hating her prevails, she wouldn't be able to enact anything anyway -- she'd have to get elected first. There's the rub.

I'm rambling, but I think there are pro's and con's to any of them. I just want to see a fair and participatory PROCESS.

[XemaSab]

29. .

:kick:

[dorkulon]

30. I like Obama and Edwards, but

I'm starting to dislike Edwards' supporters, at least the ones here on DU who seem hellbent on trashing Obama constantly. Seriously, can't we discuss, even argue about who's better without being so vile?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. My thoughts are almost...

identical to yours.

Of all the "talk" from the top 3 I've heard, Edwards comes the closest to my ideal. But, like you, I find his history deeply disturbing and it would take a serious leap of faith on my part to believe him. I excitedly took that leap with Bill Clinton the first go around, and feel what I got was vastly different than what was advertised.

Obama -- a cypher, the exact word I would have chosen.

And Clinton? Too many bad, politically-motivated calls on her part to want her as President. Kyle-Lieberman was the final straw that sent me into the "loathing" territory.

America will never elect my guy, the Kuch, so pale-imitation Edwards would be the logical option.

Sadly, 12 years of Catholic school left me with a serious deficit of "faith"...

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Same Here. Edwards, Obama, Clinton. nt

[timtom]

35. Ya pays your money,

ya takes your chances.

Top 3: Bought and Paid For.

Sorry...

[Fading Captain]

37. My take

Edwards — He's talking the talk. I'd love to see him have the nomination for no other reason than to hear him talk the talk. America needs this dialogue. It couldn't be ignored, he was the Dem nominee. Democracy must be rescued from the clutch of Multi-national corporations, who seek to erase borders and replace the ballot box with the credit card.

Obama — Great public speaker. But I'm still not sure where he stands. There are times when I say, hey, he wouldn't be bad at all. There are also times when I am disgusted by his Oprah-fied pandering.

Clinton — She's getting out oprah-fied by Obama. A shrewd politican who is probably the best at getting things done. But she's shown herself to be an American Imperialist. A corporate stooge. No thanks.

[cynatnite]

38. Clinton, Obama and Edwards...

That's my order or candidates. I've always liked Hillary a lot since her days campaigning with Bill back in the early 90's. Thought she was great and I still do. I really enjoy Obama a lot. He's very inspirational and gives a lot of hope for the future. Edwards grew on me a lot more than ever before during the last debate. I honestly wasn't liking him all that much prior, but he really changed my opinion of him with that debate.

I like all three of them, but I'm going with who I think is best for the job. I think that's Hillary. If she doesn't get the nomination I won't feel the least bit slighted at all because I think Obama and Edwards are great individuals, too. They'd make fine presidents and I'd be as proud to vote for them as I would Hillary.

It wasn't an easy choice for me this year.

[brazos121200]

39. I like Edward's rhetoric now, but I feel perhaps it's just that,

rhetoric, meant to garner votes. That may be unfair, its just the impression I get. That doesn't mean he doesn't really believe what he says or that he would not try to enact what he says, just that I don't know why he waited so long. Obama really looks good now, nothing succeeds like success, but can he win a national election, with all of the crap the repubs will throw at him? I always thought our top candidates weren't as good as the others, but these are who we have now, and of the three I guess I like Obama best. That might change if Edwards can gain some traction.