Obama or Edwards...it's so hard to decide! You pick!

[More Than A Feeling]

If it were down to those two...what's yer pleasure?

[chimpymustgo]

1. Love them both! Edwards/Obama '08!!

nt

[More Than A Feeling]

3. If they were running mates, it'd have to be that way, I think.

Somehow, I doubt Edwards is willing to settle for second banana again.

[pocoloco]

7. Love Edwards?

Love the war.

WTF?

[chimpymustgo]

8. Love Edwards. Hate the war. Respect his apology. Wish he hadn't made the mistake.

I wish he were perfect. He's not. But he's really good. And he'll fight for the things that will make this country a better place for all of us.

[Kiouni]

34. Thats my ticket!

[ripple]

48. That ticket won't work

Neither has enough foreign policy experience to balance the other's inexperience in that area. I don't think we'll see any of the announced 'top tier' candiates on the same ticket, for that very reason.

Obama/Clark would be a fabulous ticket!

[Adelante]

59. The foreign policy expertise is needed in the president

So that ticket doesn't work, either, I'm afraid.

[ripple]

71. Judgement is the most important factor for president, IMHO

With an experienced VP and Secretary of State, a president with good judgement will do well. I honestly think Clark might be putting himself in position to be tapped for a VP slot. If he truly has his eye on the big prize, he's going to have a lot of ground to make up financially, in order to be a serious contender.

I like Clark a lot and I wouldn't have a problem with him on the top of the ticket, but to be honest, I don't think he will be as effective at selling the ticket as Obama. Clark plays well with political junkies, but he doesn't really resonate well with the general population. Of course, that's just my humble opinion. I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree.

[Adelante]

72. Going into a third war now

It sure would be nice to have an experienced commander in chief with good judgment and foreign policy experience to get us out of this spiral.

[Arugula Latte]

78. I like them both, too. That's my dream ticket. n/t

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

2. Actually, it's pretty easy: Obama

The measure of a politican is not what he does in office, but what he does before he gets there.

Edwards raked up millions as a trial lawyer and gave little back to his community.

Obama was a community organizer and from day one was working for society.

[saracat]

12. "Gave little back to his community" ? Better do some research

before you sling allegations like that around.Both Edwards are well known for their contributions and foundations.

[Radical Activist]

18. Edwards does give

and he deserves credit for that. But giving to foundations is different than someone knocking on doors in poor black neighborhoods as an organizer and personally helping someone sue for their civil rights. Obama wins the experience argument because he got his fingers dirty helping the poor.

[Kahuna]

22. He does it NOW.. Since he's been unemployed for the past couple of years..

Nothing too much to speak of before that.

[Radicalman]

33. Really? Got any evidence for that?

[FrenchieCat]

36. Can't have evidence for something that didn't happen....

point is that in Edwards' 6 years in the senate, 4 of which was a majority Dem senate, Edwards didn't sponsor a single bill speaking directly on the issues of poverty. He voted on some minimum wage bills, but so did most Democrats.

The point being made is that prior to running for President, poor folks were not foremost in John Edwards' mind. After his 2 America speech took off, then yes, poverty became Edwards' cause.....so his timing is off in terms of proving authentic passion.

Obama practiced law as a civil rights attorney making $13,000 per year....working with the poor, starting day one coming out of Harvard Law.....repeat....HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!

Contrast and compare on actions taken demonstrating AUTHENTIC passion on the issue of poverty, and Obama's got Edwards beat and then some.

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

63. Frenchie said it best

I can't show you what Edwards didn't do. I could cite thousands of links that all fail to mention that he gave before he went into politics. You could find article showing that he did. I have heard this from multiple people and Edwards saying 'I've never done a pro bono case'. I've never read about Edwards giving happening before he entered politics. It's great that he does what he does now, but it's suspect to say the least that the poor have always been a prority of Edwards. I would love for you to prove me wrong. I would be happy about one other candidate in the race. Sadly I think you would just be wasting your time though.

[saracat]

27. He started his own foundations .One gave computers and training to high schoolers

There are several I believe.And John and Elizabeth both personally worked with the students.

[Kahuna]

37. When was that? Was it prior to his presidential aspirations?

:shrug:

[saracat]

44. Prior to running.It was after Wade died.

I have no idea when he first considered running for president. It was before he considered running for the Senate though.

[venable]

70. Edwards started and paid for computer centers for teenagers

started, ran them, expanded them. fantastic model and success. the pilot one was named for his late son, the Wade Edwards Learning Lab in Raleigh, which has leveled the playing field for many underprivileged.

[Kahuna]

21. I posted links below to your challenge. Why don't you check them out..

There are many sources for you to peruse.

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

62. Yes and that would be after Edwards entered politics

Don't get me wrong, Edwards has and continues to do great work. He has his foundations and gives a lot to Democratic candidates. However, I have checked WAY back and the time that all of Edwards' generousity begins is the exact same time he enters into politics. Perhaps it is you that should be doing research before you type.

[saracat]

66. Not so.This is just one!

The Wade Edwards Foundation is a public, non-profit organization, with charitable organization status under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) founded in 1996 to honor the life and spirit of Wade Edwards by supporting in other young people the pursuit of the virtues of honor, determination, responsibility, and charity. The Foundation supports activities that honor these qualities in students of achievement as well as activities that encourage all students to strive for excellence.

[Adelante]

4. CLARK!

In this poll Obama :)

[FrenchieCat]

5. Obama was right about the war from the "get"....

Edwards was wrong.

Instinctual foresight and sound judgment are very key qualities to any Commander in Chief/President's job description considering the fragility of things as they stand.

Apologies after the fact about grave mistakes of life and death may count toward repentance
but not towards being rewarded with a promotion last I checked....

[Radicalman]

32. Well......

I have trouble admitting my mistakes......especially the big ones.

[fuzzyball]

53. Obama never voted against IWR

How could he? he was not even in the senate at the time.

[IndianaGreen]

68. But he publicly opposed the war at a time when it was not popular to do so

At the same time Obama was speaking against the war, the Dixie Chicks were doing the same, and they were kicked out of country radio in retaliation.

Hillary went along with the crowd, like a good German, and only began to shift after the polls showed that a clear majority of Americans had turned sour on the war they had once supported. That's not leadership!

[fuzzyball]

73. There is not much wrong with having a flexible outlook on

many issues, since no one can really predict the future.
If you recall, there was strong opposition to Gulf War I,
by atleast a significant minority, to the tune of predicting
50,000 body count. After the war was over, the opposition
disppeared in thin air.

As the popular saying goes "Success has many fathers, failure is
an orphan". Hillary Clinton made the correct decision as did the following senators, based on briefings provided by our intelligence services.


Here are the Dem YES votes for the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[IndianaGreen]

76. No, Hillary chose to ignore the thousands of her own constituents

that warned her about the folly of invading Iraq. She also ignored all of the evidence published in the British and foreign press that debunked the WMD claims of Bush officials (much of that evidence was posted and debated in DU and Kos. She also chose to ignore the millions of people across this entire world that marched against this war.

Hillary also chose to remain silent when spiritual leaders such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Pope John Paul II publicly warned Bush and Tony Blair against attacking Iraq.

In summary, this is what Hillary's choices came down to: Hillary chose to believe in Bush, or she knew Bush was lying but she made a calculated decision that the war would be over in a short time and that by summer of 2003 no one would care that the country was lied to about WMD.

If the former is true, then Hillary is too gullible to be President. If the latter, then she has a co-conspirator in a war of aggression and she shouldn't be President.

[AnOhioan]

6. If that is my choice...Obama

In reality....no-one but Dennis

[Auntie Bush]

9. I don't know...

Obama...I guess. :shrug: Maybe Edwards! :shrug: Tough question. Ask me later.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Obama on Oct. 26, 2002.

"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Good judgement on matters of war and peace means alot to me.

[Dr Fate]

23. Good to know that some were going on the facts on this BEFORE the polls said it was cool.

Dare we call it- GASP- leadership?

[Kahuna]

39. That's what I'm saying, Doc! Everything Obama predicted has come to

pass. Which tells me that he had demonstrated wisdom that a lot of the so-called experienced politicians did not possess.

[Dr Fate]

56. Good Talking point- "The so called 'experienced' politicos are the ones who got us into Iraq."

"If that's the kind of 'experience' everyone is talking about, then who needs it?" ;)

[Kahuna]

11. No contest for me. I'll pick the guy who went to law school to equip

himself to help people over the guy who went to law school to become a millionaire, and never did a pro bono case, but suddenly has a bigger social conscience than ALL the other people who have been doing it all their lives.

[saracat]

13. Never did a pro bono case? I would check on that.

[Kahuna]

17. He didn't. I heard him say it with his own mouth. He was asked if he ever did a pro

bono case and he said no, he hadn't. As far as proof, take your pick.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+edwards+no+pro+bono+cases&btnG=Google+Search

This is why Edwards can never do anything or say anything to impress me. And people were SHOCKED that he bought a 28K square foot compound. :rofl:

[Leilani]

58. I agree with you on Edwards

Obama is everything Edwards pretends to be.

As Harvard Law Review Chief, his ticket to vast wealth was assured. But he took a different road.

In addition, it would be nice to have a Constitutional Lawyer as Prez. I don't think Edward's lawyering would come in too handy. Let's sanction Germany, they manufactured faulty spas.

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

14. I think it really will be one of these two.

Seeing them on a ticket together would be an excellent way to win.

[More Than A Feeling]

16. The world could not contain that much combined charisma.

Every person for miles would be enthralled! :silly:

[Radical Activist]

19. hehe

cool!
Its about time we had a ticket with good charisma again. I want to win this time!

[Clark2008]

84. I just fail, completely, to see Edwards' so-called "charisma."

He seems like one of those medicine men to me: all schtick and no substance.

I don't get it. I didn't get it when he ran for Senate. I didn't get it in 2004 and I don't get it now.

:shrug:

[PresidentObama]

15. Barack Obama.

Edwards was the Barack Obama of 2004. Young, exciting, and fresh. Edwards is still exciting, and still has that appearance of youth. Obama was right about the war from the beginning, and Edwards was not. Both are clearly against the war now. But what it comes down to me is this. John Edwards is a great man, would make a fine President. But Barack Obama isn't just a phase, he's legimately one of the few people who can play the crowd like a violin and excites and energizes our base. He reminds me of JFK or Bill Clinton in his appeal to all citizens, Republicans and Democrats alike. Edwards is much more polarizing. Because of his race in 2004, and because he was a trial lawyer (a lot of people don't like that)

I like both, but Obama out of those two. Perhaps Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama?

[Dr Fate]

20. Hard to pick- they are both so fantastic.

I love Edwards and his "2 Americas" theme- but Obama has shown today that he knows how come back with a retort (Sorry, but this is important in today's world of sound-bytes)

His response to Howard was brilliant- if all of his responses are this great, he will put the Repubs in their place everytime.

[Laurab]

24. Obama without a doubt

I have nothing bad really to say about Edwards, he just does nothing for me. Obama - at this point in time - is exciting to watch, listen to, and like someone else on this board said, after watching his announcement, I wanted to rush to his website and donate.

I didn't, because in my opinion, it's still way too early, but in this poll, no contest!

[More Than A Feeling]

25. I guess its just that I haven't seen Obama in person yet.

When I saw Edwards, it was a thrilling experience. At some points, I heard my words coming out of his mouth. Yet, for all of that, I am not convinced. I distrust my emotional reaction too much to make a decision for him as the result of it.

[FrenchieCat]

41. You must look at what these men have done over their lifetime....

not just in the last few years. Go prior to Edwards running for President and see what he did...back in 2003 and before.

check to see what Obama did prior to 2006 when he in fact started running.

Don't just listen to what they say now of a couple of years ago......instead see what they have truly done. Done, not since cameras have been trained on them...but done prior to the cameras knowing who they were. Look at what they did prior to politics. See who appears to have always had a passion in the causes that you admire, causes that one would consider selfless.

See what type of bills they have proposed in their time in the Senate, what type of legislation they sponsored or co-sponsored? What did they seem passionate about prior to running for President.

Look at their detailed plans on Iraq, health Care...

what they are saying about Iran? Are they talking tough...or speaking words of stateman/diplomat?

In other words, listen to your heart, but judge with your brains based on tangible evidence predating their aspiration for the presidency.

[Dean Martin]

83. I'm with you, Obama all the way

Although I would not object to Edwards being vice president to Obama.

[The Count]

26. Hope for more choices, but between these, the anti-war guy

[IndianaGreen]

28. Obama has not endorsed same sex marriage

Whatever you may have heard about some of the Left's detractors, with some exceptions we are not the "we demand 100-percent agreement with our issues before we support you" types.

There is much good about Obama, and much potential in him to move further in the struggle for full equality for LGBTs, that makes him an atractive choice for President.

Dennis Kucinich is the one candidate that comes closest to my views, but he has as much a chance of becoming the Democratic nominee as I have of becoming a star on America's Idol. I will as a matter of conscience continue to support Kucinich, as I did in 2004 after Howard Dean dropped out.

Second best choice, and a great and exciting choice is Barack Obama.

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

64. Sorry, has Edwards done this?

[IndianaGreen]

67. Neither Edwards nor Hillary support full marriage rights for LGBTs

Only Dennis Kucinich supports full rights of citizenship for LGBTs, including marriage rights.

[saltpoint]

29. Either of these two Democrats eclipses anybody the Thugs nominate.

Went with Edwards in your poll, but love 'em both.

[MrSlayer]

30. I'm really warming up to Obama.

Of the two I take Obama easily. Clark is still far and away my number one though.

[Radicalman]

31. John Edwards Is The Man!!

He's got a detailed National Health Insurance plan. Obama has none. Edwards wants to pull 40,000 troops out of Iraq now. I don't know what Obama wants 'cause he speaks in generalizations about the issue. Edwards speaks the truth about Two Americas. Obama talks about being a uniter, not a divider. Really!! How you gunna unite the rich and the poor? The way you do it is to level the playing field between them. That's what Edwards says, not Obama.

All of this crap about healing divisions is just that -crap! The poor and working class have been so oppressed that we don't need to heal divisions! We need to lift up what Jesus called "the poor amongst us," not get them to love their oppressors! Obama's message is like Rodney King's - "Can't We All Just Get Along?" It's shallow and has no substance. Hey Barack, "Where's The Beef?"

Of course if he hung out with John Edwards for a while, say as his vice-presidential candidate, he might learn to care about the poor and the disappearance of the middle class.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Does Edwards have a "detailed" plan on

his pulling 40,000 troops out of Iraq now?

I'd like to hear exactly what his plan is, cause I've only heard the slogan...40,000 troops out to date. :shrug:

Obama's detailed plan on iraq:
Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama's November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush's own statements and Administration documents and include:

Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.
http://iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1100/Iraq_Barack_Obamas_Exit_Strategy

[Clark2008]

45. Edwards' national heath care plan involves the insurance companies

I think I'll pass...

[chimpymustgo]

75. Krugman says: "Edwards Gets It Right" (healthcare). I'll trust his opinion.

Edwards Gets It Right

By PAUL KRUGMAN

-snip-

At first glance, the Edwards health care plan looks similar to several other proposals out there, including one recently unveiled by Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. But a closer look reveals extra features in the Edwards plan that take it a lot closer to what the country really needs.

Like Mr. Schwarzenegger, Mr. Edwards sets out to cover the uninsured with a combination of regulation and financial aid. Right now, many people are uninsured because, as the Edwards press release puts it, insurance companies “game the system to cover only healthy people.” So the Edwards plan, like Schwarzenegger’s, imposes “community rating” on insurers, basically requiring them to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.

Many other people are uninsured because they simply can’t afford the cost. So the Edwards plan, again like other proposals, offers financial aid to help lower-income families buy insurance. To pay for this aid, he proposes rolling back tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000 a year.

Finally, some people try to save money by going without coverage, so if they get sick they end up in emergency rooms at public expense. Like other plans, the Edwards plan would “require all American residents to get insurance,” and would require that all employers either provide insurance to their workers or pay a percentage of their payrolls into a government fund used to buy insurance.

-snip-
Better still, “Health Markets,” the press release says, “will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare.” This would offer a crucial degree of competition. The public insurance plan would almost certainly be cheaper than anything the private sector offers right now — after all, Medicare has very low overhead. Private insurers would either have to match the public plan’s low premiums, or lose the competition.

And Mr. Edwards is O.K. with that. “Over time,” the press release says, “the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.”

So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable.

-snip-
http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/2007/02/edwards-gets-it-right.html

[Clark2008]

85. Go right ahead...

I'll trust my husband - who happens to work in the insurance industry and KNOWS it's a racket.

[FrenchieCat]

86. On health care, I will wait till all the plans have been rolled out....

easy to favor the only out at this point. But not necessarily the wisest thing to do.

I'll go with Krugman on this: "To be fair, these are still early days."...so I'll wait for the other plans, since Edwards has no one to be compared to except Arnold Schwarzenegger in California...which just doesn't quite do it for me.

Now, how about that detailed 50,000 troops out now detailed Iraq plan? What does Edwards say in that one?

[AJH032]

35. Between just those 2? Easy

Obama 1000%

[invictus]

40. Obama !!!! n/t

[Clarkie1]

42. It's not a difficult decision at all: Obama has integrity. I vote for the one with integrity. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

43. No contest. Obama as

long as Wes remains undeclared. Respect for the constitution and good judgment are prerequisites for a prsidential contender worthy of the office. If there are a lot of mistakes and mea culpas in an individual's professional past, then their judgment is proven faulty. An admission of that does not make a president. It is important to elect people who have demosntrated longterm commitments to their principles and ideas, not new ideas for their platforms. Obama has passed the test. Clark/Obama would be a ticket I would work for with pride! :patriot:

[ribrepin]

46. I voted Obama

I like Edwards, but he needs to be able to win his home state. He didn't as a VP candidate.

[nevergiveup]

47. Edwards is a good guy

but I like Obama's leadership potential and I love the way he immediately shot back at Australia's PM.

[Bronyraurus]

49. Barack's my man

[zulchzulu]

50. Hillary!!!

Jus' kidding!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Adelante]

51. Wow, those numbers are steady nt

[Cameron27]

52. Obama, no contest.

Now if Clark jumps in, that's a different story.:)

[Clarkie1]

54. I just don't see how Edwards can ever compete with Obama.

Absent a major misstep by Obama or some scandalous revelation. And I'm not just talking here on DU.

[Colobo]

55. The true poll is...

Hillary or Obama...

[Clarkie1]

65. At this point anyway, yes....but

I think that could change. Someone could emerge, but it doesn't change the fact that I just don't see Edwards support ever exceeding Obama's (unless as I said there is an unexpected scandal).

[Imagevision]

57. Ewards is good, Obama seems to have a razor-edge sharpness to him though...

[Australian]

60. Obama as VP

An outside view; but the impression I still get is that Senator Obama has great potential but needs a chance to get up to speed with the full range of inter-connected issues before taking on your position as President. One term as VP, and my guess would be he'd then make a great President for the next term or two.

Just a word of caution, on the down side of that idea, if he does spend extra time in Washington before becoming President - - you had all better keep an eye on the neocon corporations to make sure they don't buy him or slip in some of their advisors again. Having gotten one of their people into the top job once, I doubt they'd let go easily.

[AtomicKitten]

61. Gobama !!!!

[Nutmegger]

69. Obama

From what I've read, he came out against the war when it was popular to march in lockstep with Bush Inc.

[marlakay]

74. I like Elizabeth more than John

sorry to say. Something about him strikes me as power hungry in a charming way. Same with Hillary. Obama also has the charm but comes across more real.

[bigwillq]

77. Now, it's Obama

A few weeks ago, it would've been Edwards.

[rep the dems]

79. There both likeable, but Edwards doesn't have the same charisma

that Obama does. And although I'm glad he's come around, Obama really did oppose the war from the start. And I think he opposes the death penalty, which Edwards does not.

[Vinca]

80. I'm leaning towards Obama because I don't like the health plan

offered by Edwards. I was very disappointed that it's essentially "universal insurance," not "universal health care."

[lwesty]

81. A write in vote for Gore :)

[Superman Returns]

82. Edwards is a good guy

I like his populism - something the Democrats need to embrace again- and I felt he had the best chance to win in 2004.

However, this time I'm for Obama. Edwards talks tough but when he served in the Senate he lacked a record to back up his rhetoric. When it suited him he was a moderate southern Dem, in the Clinton mold, now that there is an opening to be the liberal anti-war candidate he has transformed himself. Its just a bit too opportunistic for my taste. I'm glad he apologized for his war vote and co-sponorship, but then, why does he deserve the nomination?

I'm supporting Obama this time. I feel he is progresive yet pragmatic (not in the false "centrist" mode) but in the sense that he can properly balance his ideals with a genuine, fair consensus. He brings something fresh to Washington, and transcends the traditional right/left red/blue state culture wars. He has been very ambitious in the Senate, and has written numerous legislation. Finally, he has been anti-war from the beginning, and has the most detailed plan in getting us out of Iraq.

[tammywammy]

87. Obama hands down