Disatisfied, too (0.00 / 0)

But for a different reason.

Because of this three way race for Iowa and the way the compacted schedule breaks thereafter, HRC (the "least left" candidate) is advantaged.

The left is split between Obama and Edwards. In our winner take all political system they have to compete against on another and not just HRC.

It's almost like a prisoner's dilemma. Obama and Edwards reduce the likelihood of a liberal outcome by attacking one another. But they feel they have to do so in order to get enough voters added to their existing totals to catch up to HRC's lead.

It oversimplifies, but to illustrate let's say the Dem primary vote is 65% Obama/Edwards and 35% HRC. Edwards and Obama divide the 65% and HRC, opposed by a large majority of Dem voters, wins.

I would be thrilled if either Obama or Edwards found a way, for the sake of our country that they claim to value above their own selfish interest, to concede to the other in time to stop HRC.

It's time to be patriotic about something other than war and getting yourself elected.

Now back to political reality where I fear an Edwards win in the Iowa battle will mean a Clinton win in the war against corporate power and politics as usual.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

---

by: demondeac @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:04:18 AM UTC

If you want them to join forces (0.00 / 0)

Then the best strategy is for one of them to fall upon his sword and take down Hillary Clinton in a manner similar to the Gephardt-Dean "murder-suicide" of 2004 and try to make her unelectable by driving up her negatives.

Edwards would look kind of dopey taking #2 again, so if it were a deal for the vice-presidential slot, then Obama would have to take second banana.  The only other deal I could see happening is Edwards for AG.  However, Obama and Edwards probably won't look for deals until it looks like one of them has a severely diminished chance of winning.  Obama probably won't want to be an attack dog because that is not consistent with his image (and why he's probably not suited for veep on the campaign trail).  Also, Edwards' campaign rhetoric is probably better suited for a bloody full-frontal assault.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:05:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blogger-in-chief or President? (0.00 / 0)

"policy and rhetoric on identifying with the new progressive politics and recognizing the conservative opposition" is more important than cheerleading for a preemptive War based on fear that brought about the worst foreign policy blunder in our history?  Rhetoric more important than record, articulating the opposition more important than raw activist excitement that is literally training hundreds and hundreds of new grassroots idealists.  If that is progressivism, you're welcome to it.

---

by: DD2 @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:04:19 AM UTC

we've got a strong field (0.00 / 0)

I can think of things I really like about all of the candidates. I think a lot of undecided voters are struggling with the decision too. For instance, I have a friend who wants to support Richardson because of his stand on Iraq, Dodd because of his emphasis on our constitutional rights, and Edwards because of his economic policy agenda.

I have a friend who wants to support Richardson because he's the only governor in the field (so has actually run something), but also wants to support Edwards because he is the strongest communicator and has so many good policy ideas.

I could go on and on. At least the caucus system allows people to stand for one candidate and make a second choice depending on how things look in their precinct. But it's still hard for many people to make a first choice when they like several people in our field.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:28:45 AM UTC

I spoke to an Edwards person in NH (4.00 / 1)

this morning - and he tells me there is just massive uncertainty there.  The other campaigns are finding the same thing.  Voters migrate between candidates: no one has closed the deal, and all of the candidates are viewed as flawed.

Our view of the race in NH is that it has broken seriously once: Hillary's mistakes in November destroyed the sense of inevitability surrounding her candidacy.  It made it "OK" for Democrats to support someone else.  At some point the race will break again, but in which direction no one knows. My friend spoke with Andy Smith of the UNH polling center yesterday about his new poll showing Clinton up 12.  He had no idea why his numbers showed her stronger than the other polling, but said that New Hampshire will likely break 2 or 3 more times BEFORE Iowa.  In his view Iowa will make or break the race in New Hampshire. 

Clinton has never been as strong in Iowa as she has been in New Hampshire, but I am curious if you see something similar in the race in IOWA, particularly the idea that Hillary's mistakes somehow made it ok for the rank and file to vote against her. 

---

by: fladem @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:34:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I really find the blogosphere's biggest (4.00 / 2)

..................................weakness is it's willingness to fall for identity politics.

What is the frikin' difference between Bush being 'the kind of a guy you' d like to have a beer with....' and 'I'm your girl.....' or 'I'm here because of my personal conviction about Barack Obama...'.

Answer: Not a damn thing.

I've watched this charade from politicians saying essentially, 'Vote for me 'cause I'm just like you and I'll protect you from those who are not' since Nixon. Identity politics gave us Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. All of them disasters for the nation.

It's profoundly disappointing to find that JRE can't be our progressive candidate becAuse he's WHITE! That's totally wrong headed.

If JFK was running, if FDR were running we'd have to turn our backs on them because a woman and a black man are running?

I think not.

We must turn our backs on identity politics and start to choose our leaders on their proposed policies.

To continue down the road of identity politics as being practiced by Clinton and Obama leads to 'more of the same...' but...

The country simply cannot withstand any more of this destructive approach.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:15:52 AM UTC

Really? (0.00 / 0)

You think that a white Christian male candidate (and one from the south to boot) might cause hand-wringing among proponents of a Democratic coalition made up of non-Christians and non-whites (and women and non-Southerners)?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:35:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I find such analysis personally based on prejudices (4.00 / 2)

rather than on substance. I won't  use the dreaded 'r' word least I be attacked for it. But at the very least, to argue that one can't choose the best candidate because one wants to choose emotionally the non white candidate seems to totally miss the entire point of the civil rights movement, why we still need to do more with racial issues in this country, and whole host of other things I can talk about. It's the worse kind of tokenism. If people think Obama is the best candidate, they should choose him for that reason. The same with Clinton. The same with Edwards. Race in this regard or gender seems totally irrelevant- to me the issue is which set of policies and who is more likely in their style of leadership to help women and people of color more? The litmus tests, in other words, is what I call the Margaret Thatcher test. She was a woman too- but I honestly would imagine anyone thinking about it in the context of her conservatism in GB. The same should hold here- how will these candidates enact change- and will that change help the identity group most? I admit I have personal issues with this because I am black. To watch white liberals talk incessantly talk about identity politics as they do like this really bothers me. It seems all form over substance. If you want to help people of color or women- please offer us substance.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:24:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point is that when we are... (0.00 / 0)

....selecting our leaders we should be doing so on the substance of what the individual in question ir bringing to the table. What policies they want to implement. What political actions they propose to take.

This selection should not be about race or gender or even, as is is commonly felt to be acceptable, character.

The idea that you can 'know' a candidate in today's media environment would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. Do you feel you 'know' Julia Roberts. I would think not; and you'd get some strange looks from you friends if you said you did.

Yet, time and again people here in the blogosphere  argue from their 'knowledge' of the character or their perceived knowledge of that candidate's character because of the candidates gender or race.

Anybody remember the 'Year of the Woman'? Look how well that turned out.

I do would not give a flying fuck if Obama was a transexual from Mars if his policy and his speech met my expectations for a progressive candidate.

To argue that he deserves a shot because he is black is just as racist as saying he does not and many of his supporters come right up to that line. Many cross it.

Let teh pile on begin.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 22:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Welcome to the dissatisfied club (4.00 / 1)

I think some folks who liked Clinton in the 1990s and then liked Gore or Dean are finally having what I consider my normal experience of Democratic presidential candidates -- being forced to work for them as either lesser evils, "least worst" as a friend's daughter put it.

I"m a progressive. Always have been. So I've been working for candidates I thought at least flawed and sometimes downright repulsive since Hubert Humphrey. That's the experience a two party system gets us.

Like Chris, I might have actually liked Feingold -- but I am past thinking that I am going to get a candidate at the presidential level about whom I will be enthusiastic. Now some candidates at lower levels have actually commanded my respect and even sparked my enthusiasm -- and some even got elected.  It is really hard for genuinely inspiring progressives to rise to the heights of our system. It is up to us to change that, then we'll get candidates we like better.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:19:07 AM UTC

Please clarify: (0.00 / 0)

this statement: "It is really hard for genuinely inspiring progressives to rise to the heights of our system. It is up to us to change that, then we'll get candidates we like better."

When you say, "its up to us to change that" - do you mean the [two party] system, or the candidates chosen by the main stream parties?

Both, perhaps?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:16:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a "both" sort of person (0.00 / 0)

Probably if we succeeded in pushing more authentically progressive candidates into the upper reaches of the system, the Democratic Party would either suffer attrition from its corporate wing or split. But getting progressives on the track  to challenge for higher office seems to me the immediate project -- and has been for a long time.

I'm not much for 3rd party efforts, even at the local level. They seem a mostly a magnet for impractical egotists.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 18:11:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I agree about alternative parties in the current system (I really detest the derrogatory "third party" term) - especially at the national and state level.  But, they seem to have a positive effect at the city and county levels - as long as the state has good, supportive, election laws.  (most do not).

I'm from MN.  Yes - we have a recent example of an "impractical egotist" as a Governor from an alternative party - the Independence Party. But, talking about Jesse Ventura will only prove your contention.  At the local levels - our alternative supporting laws have made the Greens and Independence parties into true contenders for office and have gone beyond the kind of "individual cults" that are more typical.  The main thing that helps are making it easier to get on the ballots and gaining the right to tap into the state's public campaign funds.  Basically, if any candidate from an alternative party can muster 5% or greater of the popular vote in a STATE-WIDE race, then candidates from that party will get on the ballot in the next general election without any signatures required.  It also makes that party eligible for a check-box on our state tax forms that will send some campaign money their way.  This has made the alternative parties more focused on party building  - and they tend to run more candidates in more races - hoping (and working) for that magic 5%.

Locally, in Minneapolis for example (I think St. Paul is similar), we get a nice mix of parties on the councils and school boards.  Minneapolis is basically run by Greens, IPs, and DFLers (Democrats) - Republicans barely even try to run in the city.  Once we start with the IRV system in 2009 [?], we'll have a fairly well-functioning multi-party system - at the city/county level, at least.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 19:38:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

In San Francisco we have several Green office holders and they are okay ranging to pretty good. We've also had some local wackos worthy of comparison to Jesse. :-)

We have "ranked choice voting" -- I loath it because I consider it a kind of electoral magical thinking. More here. So far, I don't see that it has improved our officeholders, though it certainly is cheaper than run-offs.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:49:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No guilt about supporting Edwards (4.00 / 5)

Listen, I'm Latino and I cannot stand this obsession whites have with voting for Obama b/c he'll somehow magically change the way we and others see ourselves.  Basically, such people are voting for him b/c he's black.  It's true--and it's especially ridiculous considering the times we're living in.

Our nation is in crisis!  The Constitution is in tatters and we're willing to pick someone b/c he'll make us feel better about ourselves?!  Come on!  An image change will not restore America.  The next president will have an epic disaster on their hands and it'll take incredible political skill just to *cope* with the disastrous mess Bush has left our country in, let alone begin to fix it.  We need a bold leader who's unafraid to get their hands dirty.  That is not Obama.  Krugman is right about him; he's the anti-change candidate.  Edwards is our best bet.  Am I going to feel bad b/c he happens to be a white man and, thus, not look like me?  The hell I am!

And to be honest, it's quite absurd to think that an image change will have any substantive effect on racism.  Trust me, none of us who fail to fit the stereotype are able to disprove the stereotype (Proving a false negative is impossible).  A president Obama would never penetrate the bubble of racism; he'd just be considered the exception to the rule.

---

by: Patrickson @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:39:50 AM UTC

It's a kind of tokenism (4.00 / 2)

"Look how far we've come because we let one in." I don't want to let one of us in so that people can then ignore the deeper issues of race in this country. It's not about one. It's about a system.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:29:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On Obama and anti-Black racism (0.00 / 0)

I think you are right that a decent percentage of Obama's supporters are participating in a politics of tokenism -- a politics that is founded on an incredibly naive and superficial view of how anti-Black racism works in America.

Racism is a many-headed hydra.  It is sustained by a whole range of historically sedimented conscious and unconscious perceptions and actions on the part of individuals, as well as a complex of quasi-objective social systems (i.e. capitalism, imperialism).  Unraveling the knot of racism requires concerted action on a number of different fronts simultaneously, and can't possibly happen in one fell swoop.  So, while it is certainly true that electing Obama president won't dismantle racism in one fell swoop, we have to ask whether it would set in place conditions of possibility for the unraveling of racism in a way that electing, say, Clinton or Edwards would not. 

There are three arguments that are somewhat convincing to me as to why, as an anti-racist, supporting Obama makes sense.

1) Insofar as we live in a society characterized by alienation (I'm thinking along the lines of Marx and Adorno here), we are forced to realize ourselves, in a manner of speaking, through symbolic identification with leaders (and celebrities more generally).  This identification is mediated through the mass (corporate) media.  The president is a major figure for such identification (s/he is, afterall, the only person who can interrupt prime time television to give an 'address to the nation').  I think that this function of the presidency helps explain why so many on the Left have a visceral hatred and repulsion of GWB (we recoil at the thought of identifying with him).  I think it also explains why presidential approval ratings tend to erode over time -- when people withdraw their identification with a president, it is nearly possible for this identification to be forged anew (regardless of how one feels about this or that policy).  It also helps explain the importance of 'trust' or 'likability' to voters.  So, the value in having a person of color as president is not about 'dispelling stereotypes' (it is absolutely true, as another poster noted, that stereotypes are basically impossible to 'disprove' -- they don't operate on a rational level).  The value has more to do with the issue of identification.  If a majority of white people in America symbolically identify with a person of color (that is to say, see themselves in and through a Black leader), that would have effects on the American racial imaginary that are hard to quantify, but nevertheless real.  Incidentally, this is, I think, the best argument for why electing Clinton would further the cause of gender equality. 

2) Obama has the potential to disable/scramble GOP racial politics, thus cutting away one of the central unifiers of the Right in America.  My hope is that, as the election progresses (assuming Obama is our nominee), and as racist campaign messages actually backfire (as they seem to have done so far in the primary), white people in America will actually work through some of their unconscious racism (they will actually experience the feeling of *not* being moved by racist appeals, which will then make it more likely that, in teh future, such appeals won't be as automatically effective).  The hope is that this might actually fragment the Right, and help usher in a progressive political realignment.  Something that I think is interesting about this primary (especially about the argument that has been taking place between Edwards and Obama's supporters) is the way that it has raised the question of how to respond to the Right.  What I think is often forgotten/overlooked by Edwards' supporters, despite their being right in many of their criticisms of Obama and his supporters, is that rightist motivations and actions among the broad mass of people in this country (including even powerful people) are not static (that is to say, they actually could be disrupted, or even reversed).  People on the right are motivated by irrational anxieties and hopes (be they religious, racist, or whatever), and therefore have no good (lasting) reason to cling to their anxieties and hopes. 

3) Revolutionary/progressive Black intellectuals have Obama's ear.  I am thinking particularly of Cornel West here, but in truth there is a fairly long list of Black intellectuals who have a degree of access to Obama that they haven't had to previous candidates or presidents.  Cornel West, for instance, is at least as progressive as anyone either Clinton or Edwards are listening to (this is putting it generously -- in truth, I think he is far more progressive than anyone they are listening to).  For this reason, and because I believe Obama has a core progressive commitment, I think Obama has the potential to make progressive change in ways that are surprising (and maybe largely imperceptible -- I'm thinking of who he appoints to various departments, what executive orders he signs, what he does diplomatically, etc.) -- in other words, I think he might push the envelope on a range of issues important to people of color in ways that are hard to predict before he assumes office.  The reason that people like Cornel West have Obama's ear has to do with the history of Black intellectual/public culture in America.  It is the same reason why West has Tavis Smiley's ear (a man who certainly does not share West's politics).  It has to do with the politics of identity/solidarity in the Black community -- a politics forged in the crucible of struggles against white supremacy and for social equality (struggles that Obama explicitly aligns himself with). 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 18:39:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The nation could sure use.. (0.00 / 0)

.
...............some more folks like Cornell West. But I submit that although West might have 'Obama's ear....' the Senator does not, as far as I can see, appear to be listening.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 22:18:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Iowa and Why Obama (0.00 / 0)

Can anyone offer any guesses about why Obama is leading in Iowa and is far behind Hillary in multiple other states?

Does he just have more organizers there? Are Iowa Voters paying more attention?

On another note.
I agree that we have a field of candidates who all have great ingredients, but we need to put them all together to have a real recipe for progressivism.

I have pretty much been an Obama supporter the whole time.
My criteria for selection was voting record, authenticity, policies outlined for the campaign, and their chances of winning.

I have trouble believing anything Hillary says + Iran vote = out.

Edwards' policies are great, and I sense he is genuine, but he looks far too dopey everytime he gets up to speak. (Sorry I know how superficial that is-- I just imagine him next to Fred Thompson or Huckabee or Romney). Plus he lost the nomination last time, he lost the actual election; he was just through this entire process, and yet he is still stuck in third. Something is not firing here. Out.

I hate to lump the rest together, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, but they come across as smart, sharp policy wonks. Again I could vote for any of them, particularly Dodd, and I am sorry that he has never had a moment to stand out.

I think of Huckabee's rise and his Religious pandering.
Then I think of Dodd's fight against telecom immunity and am  saddened he has not gotten the same boost-- or at least a boost.

So in Oprah's words.. He's my favorite, he's my choice: Obama.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:15:38 AM UTC

Everyone is on the air and campaigning in IA and NH (0.00 / 0)

They are totally different from non-early states in terms of the campaign

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:07:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said. (4.00 / 1)

"If it were possible to combine the Richardson Iraq policy and blogger outreach with the Obama activism and background with the Edwards advisors and rhetoric and with the Dodd leadership in the Senate, then we might have something. Maybe we would just have Russ Feingold..."

If we can't have Feingold or Gore, I've come to see Obama as my clear third choice, but it's certainly a more difficult decision.

---

by: illissius @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 13:10:23 PM UTC

No more Gore. (4.00 / 2)

Yes Gore is great at fighting Global Warming!

But WHY doesn't anyone seem to remember the stiff stocky man from 2000 who couldn't stop talking about LOCKBOXES and who had LIEBERMAN as his running mate? We accuse Republicans of being nostalgic over Reagan, but we sure do rival them with our invokations of Gore.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 13:16:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If she doesn't win the nomination, the nominee better win the Presidency, or the grassroots will be screwed within the party indefinitely

I disagree.  Goldwater led to Reagan after all. 

What is disastrous for a party is when a president gets elected and then doesn't do so well like GWB or Carter.  That makes or breaks the way the country heads for the next 30 years.  Which is why I don't want edwards.

I think he would possibly fight for all the right things, lose on all the right things, and ultimately be unable to do anything at all for anyone.

---

by: Astera @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 13:17:30 PM UTC

It's ironic your choices (4.00 / 3)

Of the candidates- Obama is most like Carter for how he will magically change politics because Obama is Obama.

Clinton will most likely be a place holder and more like George Bush 1 in that she  like he is promising a continuation of another Presidency. With Bush 1 it was a continuation of Reagan, and Clinton 2 it will be a continuation of the Clinton 90s.

And then there is Edwards- who does he most resemble- again your post is ironic becuase it certainly not Carter or GWB.  GWB ran as a compassionate conservative, and then went further right than anything he ever said in his campaigns. Other than the accent Edwards has nothing in common with Carter.

The truth is we don't have a modern model for the kind of campaign Edwards is running or the type of Democratic presidency he is saying he will run. The truth is- when you talk of sucess- the other two are offering models of failure that have consistently created capitulation in the party  in the last 20 years. From losing the Congress (remember that happened under Clinton) to capitulation on a no brainers like FISA until one Senator showed courage.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:35:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you but I'd.... (0.00 / 0)

.......like to point to the President whom I knew and whom Edwards most reminds me of:

JFK

When JFK delivered his line:

Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what  you can do for you country!

...and he'd yell this out at the crowd, the crowd would respond with a wordless roar of approval that would put the hair on your head straight up.

I bring this up because I understand from Bleeding HeartLand and others that Edwards is starting to get this response from the same basic speeches he's been giving which might indicate that people are really connecting with him.

There are other comparisons to be made and most are good for Edwards.

It's certainly entergized the race to have Edwards come on so strong.

I've a pretty good appreciation of our pst Presidents, in my opinion anyway, since JFK and except for Carter and LBJ they've all had one thing in common....

They were small men in a job too big for them. And...yeah, that included Mr. Clinton.

I'm an Edwards backer because I think he has the right policies and the right attitude.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 22:33:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And McGovern led to the stream of DLC crap (0.00 / 0)

If the establishment doesn't get their candidate, they will become openly hostile to the rest of the coalition, claiming that every time that they try the hippie peacenik crap, then they lose big.  It won't matter if, say, Edwards won the popular vote and lost the electorals to Huckabee.  The Dem establishment would still spin it as a repudiation of progressivism.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:10:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everything that happens in America is... (0.00 / 0)

.........a stark repudiation of Progressive politics.

This will always be so in the 'minds' of the Dead Last Caucus and their MIC backers.

DLC?

I've shit 'em.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 22:41:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have thought from the beginning (4.00 / 1)

that this was weak field. 

It is.

I am comfortable with my choice for two reasons:
1.  Of the top three, Edwards is the only one who has tried to address some elements of the problems wrought by Globalization.
2.  In my view the critical task confronting liberals is the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  In the end I think Edwards has a better shot at beating Clinton, because in the end I do think Obama's lack of experience will become decisive.  That arguement will not work against Edwards.

Having said all of this, I am conflicted.  I hate the fact that I support someone who voted for the War.

---

by: fladem @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 14:42:46 PM UTC

Don't feel lonely (4.00 / 1)

about being conflicted about supporting someone who voted for the war.  So do I but I firmly believe from watching Obama that, if he'd been in the senate at the time, he would have also voted for it. 
Unless he could have found a way to miss the vote.  Let's be honest about this.  Giving an anti-war speech, to an anti-war rally, in your anti-war district, in 2002 is not exactly a profile in courage even for a state senator.

---

by: RalphB @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 15:05:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doesn't Edwards do better against the Repubs. than HRC? (4.00 / 1)

I fail to see the danger in her primary defeat, although her campaign has certainly worked hard to conjure up this notion.

---

by: sb @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 15:33:37 PM UTC

I don't know how much we can trust head to head matchups (0.00 / 0)

in hypothetical races a year from now.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:11:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd trust polling data more than imaginary narratives (0.00 / 0)

put forth by a campaign team.

---

by: sb @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:35:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fight ing Cannibal Capitalism is the key issue this election (0.00 / 0)

I want the troops out, I want the Constitution upheld. I want impeachment and conviction of Chenney and Bush.  Nonetheless, the key issue this election is the horrible impact free trade has had on the middle class, working class and poor people.  All this was brought to you by Bill Clinton.

Richards supports this policy.  H. Clinton supports this policy (although she hems and haws a bit).  Obama supports this policy.  The only two who do not support it are Edwards and Kucinich.  I agree with Kucinich a 100% of the time and supported him in 2004 because he was the only one raising these issues.  Edwards has moved toward Kucinich's position sufficiently to warrant support this time.

I find it superficial to fret about whether Edwards is a good choice because Obama has enthusiastic supporters, or if it is politically incorrect to not support the girl or minority candidate.  Given where each stands on cannibal capitalism, there is no choice but Edwards.

P.S.  I was looking forward to supporting Feingold, too.  I think he made the right decision to stay in the Senate.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 18:39:18 PM UTC

So...you went ahead and picked the "white guy"... (0.00 / 0)

Chris Bowers:

Do you realize how racist this statement by you is?

"I have to admit that a large part of me laments endorsing the one white guy among the top four, specifically as it relates to Obama."

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 20:35:15 PM UTC

The cultural change... (0.00 / 0)

You mention the "cultural change that Obama personally represents...".

Culturally speaking, I think the election of Hillary Clinton would signal a far deeper cultural change.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 23:15:34 PM UTC