The choice is clear: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton

[Onlooker]

The planets have to be aligned just right for this racist, sexist country to elect a woman or a black man president. Once that happens, it will transform the presidency, and open it up once and for all to all Americans, not just white, almost exclusively Protestant men. It will make us a role model for much of the world, showing that we can overcome gender and racial divisions. Nothing will speak more to world peace than if the US sets an example of that order. Nothing will cause more damage to the right wing if their obstacles to success come from the groups they've ostracized and demeaned.

Let's face it, women and blacks have disadvantages. There are deep-rooted prejudices that work against them. It shows in many workplaces, in the stereotypes people have of them, and in the level of hate in some quarters waged against black and feminist leaders. Given the prejudice, the United States will only elect a black or woman as president if there is a fractured Republican opposition, a failed Republican President, and a level of uncertainty that beckons change. Right now, there is that convergence of events, and we have the chance to make history.

John Edwards is an awfully good candidate, but politically there is not a lot of difference on the issues between him, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The big difference is that we can make history and start to right the terrible wrong that prevented women and blacks from having any sort of equal opportunity to pursue the most important job in the United States. We have the opportunity to take an affirmative action by supporting either Obama or Clinton.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

1. Maybe, maybe not.

We'll see.

[brentspeak]

2. Uh, ok

:eyes: :eyes:

[Lorien]

3. I don't vote for anyone based upon their race or gender.

I'm a woman who has been discriminated against in the workplace for her entire career, therefore I don't believe in any type of discrimination, period. A candidate will earn my vote based upon his or her policies.

[chimpymustgo]

5. As a black woman, I'm voting for a better tomorrow, rather than history.

John Reid Edwards.

[flvegan]

4. Wait...so we should vote for one of the two based solely on one being black, one being female?

Serenity now!

[HughBeaumont]

17. COME on. Who WOULDN'T want to hop on that bandwagon??

:sarcasm:

[fenriswolf]

6. that is the most f'd up logic I have ever seen

[MGKrebs]

34. The OP basically said "all else being equal".

[patrice]

7. What is your response to the point that both C & O are candidates

who were selected for us by "the powers that be", largely through the DLC? It doesn't matter to you that, even though we are far from the people actually selecting their own candidates, we can at least make a statement about the necessity of freeing ourselves from the machine by supporting candidates who don't have the DLC goodhousekeeping seal of approval.

[Kucinich4America]

8. What about the Latino guy?

Funny how this media created hype of "Black man vs White woman" always leaves out the candidate who is more qualified than both of them combined.

Richardson's not my first choice either, but he's infinitely more "electable" than either of the two corporate media darlings.

[flyarm]

9. that is "NOT CLEAR" to me..i support Edwards! ..eom

[bobbolink]

10. "but politically there is not a lot of difference on the issues"

Pleeeeeez, back away from the voting booth until you have actually STUDIED the issues and the candidates.

:crazy:

[Onlooker]

16. I have studied the issues

There's not a lot of difference. Compare their issues pages. Sure, Edwards talks more about poverty, while Clinton talks more about women and children and Obama talks more about civil rights. Overall, if you look at their stands, it's hard to find significant disagreements. In my opinion, Obama is a little more liberal and Clinton is a little more conservative, but they're all quite close.

[bobbolink]

20. No difference between being bought and paid for by corporations, and FIGHTING corporations?

wow..... that's an interesting twist....

[Onlooker]

27. Edwards has done some good things ...

... and he's saying some good things, but it's not at all clear from his own web pages how his statements will translate into policy. Again, I like Edwards, but I also think we should make history by breaking from the white male protestant president tradition.

[AdHocSolver]

44. Then you haven't been paying close attention to what the candidates have been saying.

Clinton said in one of the debates that she would push through health care reform by the end of her SECOND term. By that time she would be a "toothless" lame duck president with no clout and another 40 million Americans will be without health insurance. Assuming she is not that politically dense, my understanding, from her own words, is don't expect any meaningful health care reform from Hillary.

Obama's main virtue seems to be his charisma. That doesn't give me much confidence in him winning the presidency or getting much accomplished after the hoopla dies down.

Edwards says the right things that show me that he understands what the problems are and what needs to be done to solve them. He has proven himself in taking on the corporations whose greed, callousness, and corruption have brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

Clinton would bring out a rabid anti-Hillary vote that could lose us not only the presidency, but could give the Congress back to the Republicans.

Obama doesn't have that kind of negativity, but his candidacy would probably produce a very close vote, which would give the Republicans the ability to rig the vote count as they did in 2000 and 2004. In other words, they could steal another election.

Edwards has appeal to both moderate Republicans and independents. His candidacy can ensure a large enough vote margin to make it very difficult for Republicans to steal this election. Moreover, Edwards could help Democrats keep majorities in Congress, or even gain some seats.

------

PS: The history a Clinton (or Obama) candidacy would make, in my estimation, would be an unbelievable Republican win in spite of that party's unpopularity and political disarray.

[bobbolink]

49. "When are we going to get the insurance industry and the drug companies out of our health care?"

And other, similar, statements.

In other words, as Edwards says, restore America to the people, instead of the corporations.

NOW... is it more important to have a woman who will keep pandering to the corporations, or a black man who wants to continue "negotiating" with that power, or have a white male in the Oval Office who is dedicated to restoring the true democracy of the people?????

As a woman, I can tell you that as much as I'd like to see my gender represented, a symbolic victory would give me NO satisfaction.

It's much more important to me to have someone in the seat of power who Speaks For ME! Not the corporations!!

[Jim Sagle]

26. DLC/RNC hogwash!

The overall difference is that Clinton and Obama are corporatists while Edwards is a populist. Your "choice" is a fraud.

[Onlooker]

28. Show me on his web page

Show me where he translates his populist rhetoric into markedly different policy ideas than Barack or Hillary.

[Jim Sagle]

36. Do it yourself. I ain't yer web valet.

:beer:

[Onlooker]

37. I looked

You're the one making claims, but apparently aren't prepared to back them up with anything but empty rhetoric. On his web page, his stands seem to be roughly the same as the other candidates.

[Jim Sagle]

40. Then vote for one of the other candidates.

[Onlooker]

41. What's ur point?

I guess ur just an Edwards groupie who can't defend him. What do you like? His looks?

[Jim Sagle]

42. You're just a fuckin' idiot.

[Onlooker]

45. No you are

That's why you haven't offered any substance. Just insults. Calm down.

[Jim Sagle]

48. You started with the insults. No one's going to buy your "holier than thou" hogwash.

[AdHocSolver]

46. Your time line is off. Edwards proposed his policies before Clinton or Obama. They copied him.

I have watched most of the debates and Edwards led on the issues, with Clinton and Obama only coming out with their versions after Edwards' policy statements got traction. Edwards has demonstrated leadership while Clinton and Obama have been watching the focus groups.

[FreakinDJ]

11. What makes you think either one of them can win ?

"There are deep-rooted prejudices that work against them."

Your words - not mine brother

[sellitman]

12. If either of them win I'm ok with it but....

John Edwards is speaking to me more than either of your two choices. I believe he will end the war and bring our troops home faster. I believe he will fight for the middle class and defend against the Corporate elite. I believe in voting for the best candidate whether or not he is a minority.

Best of all I think he will garner more independent voters and moderate Republican votes and provide us with what we need ....a winner.

[Cassandra]

23. I'm for Edwards, too.

I wish Obama or Clinton were saying what I need to hear because I would dearly love for my vote to go to a woman or an African-American (and will if either of them gets the nod) but my health insurance, which I'm grateful to have (I think), has just gone up from 17% to 20% of my gross income. I just think we'll get to a sane healthcare policy faster with Edwards.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Between Barack and a Hard place?

I pick door number three, Monty.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. The choice is clear: Dennis Kucinch

He's the only candidate walking his talk. He's the only candidate proposing universal single payer health care. He's the only candidate who understands that Strength Through Peace is the only way to go.

The US doesn't have to "set an example." Madame Bhutto was PM of Pakistan, Lady Thatcher was PM of Great Britain, etc. etc. Hugo Chavez, a Native, is President, as was Benito Juarez. Actually, if you look at the world stage, the US is far behind in putting women and minorities in positions of power.

[FreeState]

39. ditto :) n/t

[Colobo]

15. Great post.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Obama for me, please.

[onenote]

19. or Edwards. Or maybe a dark horse.

[loveangelc]

21. it would be a bigger deal for a black man than a white woman to be elected imo.

just because of the history...

[bobbolink]

50. Absolutely! Condoleeeza Rice has been such a shining example of both.

:crazy:

[Pierzin]

22. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!! how many ways to sunday can i tear this apart

My main beef here is the very idea that ANY thinking person would use race or gender as their main criteria for choosing a president! While it would help, I acknowledge that America is stuck on old protestant white males, it's akin to Repukes who choose their candidates based on whether the candidate is pro-life or what church he/she goes to. helloooo????

America has shown over and over again that it is not the trend setter, moral compass of the world! Look at Pakistan, look at the UK, look at Germany, Argentina, and a half dozen other countrys far more progressive than ours.
Pakistan! :spank: :spank: for Goodness sake, elected a woman prime minister.
Don't they have a gender bias there?

Wasn't it under Bill Clinton that the Repukes were able to push forward and continue their corporatist agenda? How is being first lady qualifing her again? I applaud her loudly for trying to bring the US into the 20th century of industrialized nations with universal health care. That was an amazing effort. She really weathered some storms on that one, but for the love of the goddess! I mean really, you can't be serious! She voted for the Iraq War! She has voted again and again to enable the Bushies. And she has not promised to get us out before 2013! 2013! FIVE MORE YEARS! just put yourself on the floor of the GOP convention next summer and chant FIVE MORE YEARS! FIVE MORE YEARS! FIVE MORE YEARS!!!! FIVE MORE YEARS!!!!!!

No, I am sorry. Hillary has not taken a strong enough progressive stand for this die hard liberal. To me she represents more of the same. And she won't take a stand, either! She can't even decide between diamonds or pearls for Gods sake, so how is she gonna have enough cahones to demand impeachment!!!???
Hillary is more of the same.

I have no problem with Obama. I thank God every day that he is out there saying how wrong the Iraq War was! Praise the Lord, and I am agnostic, but I mean it, Praise the Lord for Barack Obama!!! Good lord god, Jim McDermott and Dennis Kucinich are practically the only other ones that come to mind that voted against that madness.
I am surprized actually that he is doing as well as he is, considering this backwards country we live in! I never would have thought a black man running for president had a prayer in this xenophobic, racist, ass backwards country. I hope he woops Hillarys butt! I'll even go to church if it helps Obama or
Edwards!
I think either Edwards or Obama would be better for the US. Either one would be tougher on the major corporations IMO, who have gotten a free ride for the past, well ever since Reagan came along. They need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts so corporations pay more of their share, and I dont see Hillary advocating for that. Edwards and Obama, meanwhile are talking tougher and more progressive, and more open minded than Hillary, if you ask me.
Sorry that John Edward is a white male! ok? Are you happy? Flame away! muahahahaha!!!!

ANYBODY BUT HILLARY 2008 !!!!!!:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :headbang: :headbang: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Onlooker]

30. You're ignoring part of my point

If you look at the candidates issues pages, you'll see they are all quite similar. I would not vote for Condi Rice or Alan Keyes. But, given that Edwards, Obama, and Hillary all have similar stands, I think we can then consider other factors that might make them effective: speaking style, age, background, gender, race, etc. They will be able to build a nontraditional coalition and draw some of the disenfranchised to the election process.

[Deep13]

24. Frankly, I don't think Obama is up to the job.

What's he ever done?

[mtnsnake]

25. If one of them becomes President, I'll surely be happy for the reasons you mentioned

I would love to see a woman president and/or an African American president, and I sure as hell hope it's a Democrat when it happens.

[Carrieyazel]

29. Neither Clinton Nor Obama

Both do not have the necessary experience (no official executive experience), and neither have the political skills needed to survive as a President. Obama should go back to Illinois, run for Governor and then come back in 8-12 years. Hillary will never get it done.

[LWolf]

31. What's clear is that neither of them get my GE vote.

I made that choice before either of them announced a candidacy, and clearly stated so when the primary season kicked off.

I would be happy to have a black or a female president. I'm not electing anyone because they are black or female, though. If that is the goal, I'd like to reincarnate the woman in my sig line, and we can achieve both goals with one president. It is clear to me that she would be a better choice than either Clinton or Obama.

If race and gender are what counts, perhaps the republicans could run Condi, and kill both of those visions with one candidate.

Issues and record. That's what I'm clear about, and that is clearly how my vote will be decided.

[laureloak]

32. I don't want to vote for a black or a woman because

I want to vote for the BEST candidate, Edwards. And he happens to be neither.

[Andy823]

33. Well I do agree

There "are" differences between him and Clinton, or Obama. He will do what it takes to change things and give this country back to the people, Clinton and Obama will keep things pretty much the same, with corporate greed unchecked.

Don't know about you, but voting for someone simply because of race, or gender is a really stupid idea! I want my country back, not more of the same but with a dem in the Whitehouse!!!:mad:

[Catchawave]

35. Race and Gender aside.....

would you still clearly vote for them?

I'm throwing all my time and money at a better America....Edwards :D

[MethuenProgressive]

38. Vote in this DU poll between Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3897680
Currently: Biden 67, Kucinich 23, Edwards 14, Richardson 11, Dodd 10, Gravel 4

[depakid]

43. If that's the choice, we might as well pack it in and go home

Because barring an complete and utter meltdown on the right (and maybe even then) both of them would lose- Hillary taking state and local candidates and ballot measure right down with her,

[burrowowl]

47. DOG help us!

Which is less DLCer? or Repuke-lite?