I Can Understand Not Supporting Obama If His Oppenents Were Gore or Feingold

[THUNDER HANDS]

But Hillary Clinton and John Edwards?

Come on.

Does everyone here have collective amnesia on just how hawkish Clinton has been since she arrived in the senate and how hawkish Edwards was when he was there?

I mean, we're not talking about two anti-war doves here.

Do any Clinton supporters really believe that the moment she secures the nomination she won't take such a hard right turn in her rhetoric that half the DUers here will be typing "I can't believe Hillary is saying this, this isn't who I supported in the primaries?!?!"

Or that Edwards won't make just as much of a hard right turn and start talking like the centerist DLC democrat he was from 1998 to 2004?

There's a history here with these two. There are records to look at.

I'm not saying they're not to the left of the GOP field, certainly they are. Anyone who said differently would be a fool.


But it would also be just as foolish to suggest that Obama would be to the right of any of them. He has as liberal a voting record as anyone. More liberal than John Edwards and just as, if not moreso, than Hillary since both were in the senate together.

Hillary has swung hard to the left this primary, Edwards has done almost a 180 on his rhetoric.

Obama hasn't appeared to change at all. He's just being who he was when he came into the senate.

So you're not choosing between Al Gore, Russ Feingold and Barack Obama. You're choosing between the queen of triangulation, the centerist-turned-populist and the guy who was a liberal when he came into the senate and is just as liberal now.

But go ahead, bash away, I know it's coming.

[Clark2008]

1. Shhhhh.... Edwards fans will call you names....

At least HRC fans admit they're moderate, but Edwards' fans don't like anyone bringing up his record.

FWIW, I still don't have a candidate and I vote in two weeks.

[OneGrassRoot]

10. Overall, I see Edwards supporters "calling names" much less than others...

There are tons of threads with facts about all the candidates.

Magic Rat, I respect your position - and that you have interacted in a reasoned way from what I recall from last night's flurry of activity - but, for me, I'm focused on what their message is NOW.

None of us know what they're going to do once elected so, for me personally, as a first step in choosing a candidate for the primaries, I at least need to agree with what their message is now. The next step is educating myself then using my own judgment and the gut instinct so many despise to decide who I feel will actually DO what they say.

Again, no one knows what they're going to do, but I need to agree with what the candidate is saying NOW to get on board. Edwards' message is the one that resonates with me personally. I know many see him as a phony, flip-flopper (and I have never called those who trash him ignorant morons or any "name")...I trust him but, most important, I am inspired by his MESSAGE.

It's cool that Obama's resonates with you and others.
:hi:

[Marrah_G]

39. That is exactly how I feel

I'm glad people are taking the time to be involved and support a candidate- All of our Candidates have been terrific.

[Marrah_G]

37. This Edwards fan will not call names

I will say, however, that this is why we have Primaries- so we all have a voice and things are not decided by a magic rat.

[Perry Logan]

2. It's Obama's running mate, Reagan, that really bothers us.

[Azathoth]

4. Hillary's running mates, Newt and Rupert, bother us as well

The only difference is that Reagan is dead, while Newt and Rupert are both very much alive and capable of enjoying their relationship with Hillary.

[Perry Logan]

9. Don't change the subject.

Personally, I'm glad Hillary has Murdoch under control.

[Azathoth]

11. Hillary has Murdoch under control?

:rofl: :rofl: I underestimated you dude. You have quite the sense of humor. :rofl:

[rodeodance]

23. yeah-like Obama has Donny M. under control!!

[babylonsister]

45. Don't forget Grover. nt

[Azathoth]

3. Bingo

:thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

5. Obama = DLC

The "progressive" movement, since 1988, has dogged the DLC. The vitriol has gotten particularly shrill since 2000. The hate the DLC for welfare reform. They hate the DLC for stressing the free market. They hate the DLC for it's stance on private investment accounts to compliment social security. They hate the DLC for suggesting the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals. They hate the DLC for finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts. They hate the DLC for suggesting public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers. They hate the DLC for it's concept of public service, believing it to be a back door draft. They hate the DLC for wanting a strong military.

Yet here comes Barack Obama who...

... believes in welfare reform.
... believes in the free market.
... believes in private investment accounts to compliment social security.
... believes the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals.
... believes in finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts.
... believes in public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers.
... believes in public service.
... believes in a strong military.

So I can't for the life of me see the difference between the DLC and Barack Obama, policy wise. So where is the attraction for "progressives?" He's a good speaker? So is John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. If they want a good speaker who pushes DLC policies, they should love Bill and Hillary Clinton, but they hate them.

So where is the attraction? I contend the desire to elect the first African-American president trumps any policy concerns.

Not all 'DLC hating' progressives have fallen for him. Those are the ones I respect. At least they're honest and consistent.

[Clark2008]

7. John Edwards was the DLC poster boy when he was in the Senate.

Lest his supporters forget that.

[wyldwolf]

32. I haven't forgotten that, and my gripe with Edwards is this...

..back in the mid-late 90s, when Edwards was as DLC as they come, Bob Shrum referred to him as a future president. When that didn't work out for Edwards the first time around, he rejected the crowd he thought was putting him of the POTUS path and turned to the "progressive/netroots" crowd.

Which one is the real Edwards?

[Labors of Hercules]

60. Edwards was given a real opportunity to become POTUS...

and took it, but that is not the campaign he is running now. He is running from his roots now and definately is much happier and more authentic, (and consequently is a much more effective candidate).

While he hasn't said it outright, I think he hated what he had to do to function politically before because it was not in sync with what he really wanted to accomplish. Now it is reversed... what he really wants to accomplish is politically viable in the context of this campaign, and so he's much happier with the "flag he's able to wave"...

That's just my take on it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. funny, but that sounds

like the Clinton presidency right there.

And I don't ever think he said the party needs to move to the right away from the 60s.

[wyldwolf]

34. well, not in the "Greg Brady" word of exact words...

...but, yes, Obama (in 'Audacity') and in the 'Reagan interview' has spoken out against the excesses of the 60s. If he has issues with the policies of the 60s, the birth era of today's 'progressive' movement, and calls them excesses, what direction do you suppose he'd go? Left?

[SoxFan]

15. Let me take a shot at this

I'm a dirty, nasty DLCer who supports Obama. I tend to agree with your point that Obama is not really a member of the PDA crowd. Since I'm not a "progressive" in the DU sense of the word, I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but I'll give it a shot.

Obama's appeal is not limited to the particulars of his stands on the issues, although his early opposition to the war in Iraq is certainly a major factor. Instead, it's the tone of his campaign, the different approach to politics. Let me use my state as an example. In NH, Democratic politics has been dominated by the Jeanne Shaheen crowd for over a decade. While Jeanne was a decent governor, her political operation has become a pain. It's exclusive and cliquish, and it goes thermonuclear on anyone who dissents from the line. They launch vitriolic behind the scenes atacks on candidates who challenge Shaheeniacs in primaries. Many of us are tired of the top-heavy, political expediency uber alles approach. Substitute "Shaheen" with "Clinton" and you have the feelings of many of the people who prefer Obama to Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

25. "it's the tone of his campaign, the different approach to politics. "

Yet, in "Audacity," his tone is modeled after Clinton and 'the third way.'

But you're right. Sense I know you from your former screen name on DU, you're not the best person to represent the DLC hating crowd in their defense of Obama.

[rodeodance]

26. To clarify something--I have read that Obama got his name OFF of the member list--and

not sure if he ever was a member of the DLC.


PS: Although I think he fits the mold of the DLC (in my opine)--and I do not necessary say that in a negitive tone.


edited to add missed important word: OFF

[wyldwolf]

38. My take on that

Obama admitted to filling out the paper work for inclusion on the DLC's website. After 'The Black Commentator' called him out on it, Obama said he didn't know the application was for becoming a member.

I've always believed Obama did join the DLC. After all, his book is extremely complimentary of the Third Way and Bill Clinton. But, believing his ticket to political success was 'progressives,' he got spooked and revoked his membership.

But like you, I don't believe him being DLC or DLC-like is a bad thing. The hypocrisy of the DLC-haters who adore him is, though.

[rodeodance]

44. thanks, very informative --also, it seems

Hil gets bitterly dissed for being "cautious"---yet obama, who is cautious--in this case filling out a form (umm.. what did he think the form was for?---guess i can not go there since I do not know the details)--he gets by with it. oh well.

[SoxFan]

51. Some back story on this

Full disclosure: I was on the same DLC lists as Obama, so I know the back story.

Obama took his name off of a list buried deep in the catacombs of the DLC web site when this "Black Commentator" character started harassing Obama's staff endlessly. The campaign staff made a determination that it was easier to take his name off of a list that almost nobody knew existed than to listen to a whackball blogger scream 24/7. And yes, it was an obsure list. I was on it, and didn't realize the list was there until the "Black Commentator" kerfuffle erupted.

Obama did submit info for another section of the DLC web site, the 2003 "100 to Watch" list. This was a publication that profiled one hundred Democratic "rising stars", most in their 30s and 40s, who Al From, Will Marshall, and Ed Kilgore thought were worthy of attention. They asked us about ten questions, including such controversial things as where we had our first job and what we consider to be our guiding value in public life.

The "100 to Watch" list was not something you asked for; the DLC people reached out to those of us who were profiled. Most of us had no idea that it was in the works until the letter arrived in early 2003.

[rodeodance]

55. another informative post -Thank you. Yes, organizations have various

lists and forms asking for information. I can see how it gets used to say he was a member (usually in a negitive sense).

I will be careful not to say he was a member--actually I do not think I have made an issue of it---I just see it posted as a 'reason' not to vote for him .anyway,
thanks

[SoxFan]

66. "Member of the DLC"

I see this phrase thrown around, and it really amuses me.

very few people are "members" of the DLC. You can "join" the organization, but but what that means is that you are subscribing to Blueprint (the excellent policy magazine) and receive invites to various events.

Elected officials, however, don't have to join/subscribe. Democratic electeds who are interested in what the DLC has to say are given a complimentary subscription to Blueprint and are invited to participate in the National Conversation and other events.

A lot of people think that DLC events involve sitting around a room collecting suitcases of cash from Halliburton executives, but that's laughable. The events I've attended have included a panel discussion on promoting financial literacy in poverty-stricken communities, run by Delaware state treasurer Jack Markell and Kentucky state treasurer Jonathan Miller; a workshop on charter school management and policy development; a discussion on faith and politics moderated by Ed Kilgore; and a party at the Democratic national Convention where I had a beer with Mark Warner and saw Kevin Bacon's band play a set.

And no, we don't keep the metric system down and we didn't make Steve Guttenberg a star.

[rodeodance]

68. seems like worth-while events. Interesting understanding of the term

membership--rather loose.

[SoxFan]

84. I think you've got the basic idea

The DLC isn't a membership organization in the generally accepted sense of the term. It's geared towards bringing electeds and their staffers together to network, share ideas, and socialize informally.

I went to a DLC conference in Denver a few years back and bowled against a state senator from Buffalo at a new nightclub/bowling alley. We had a great time, even though I suck at ten pin bowling (I'd have kicked his ass if it had been candlepins). We didn't figure out how to have Kucinich supporters involuntarily committed, we never got around to our plan to frame Markos Moulitsas for the JFK assasination, and our suitcases of cash from Texas oil men never arrived. But other than that, it was fun.

[wyldwolf]

56. what was the "obscure" list?

To hear Ed Kilgore tell it, the list was the very prominent list of Senate New Democrats, andafter the Black Commentator's uproar, Obama believed there had been some miscommunication over what "New Democrat" meant. If memory serves, Obama said he believed he was being included on a list of new Democrats in the Senate, not a list of Senate New Democrats.

[SoxFan]

62. There were several lists

One was the 100 to Watch list. That was prominent. It was promoted on the front page of the web site, there was a presser in DC to announce its release, and press releases were sent to local media in the honorees home states.

The other list was the "New Democrat Directory", which was one of a billion links on the web site. The DLC itself seems to have let the thing lapse over the years, probably because the effort required to update the thing was a drain on an organization that, rumors to the contrary, is actually small and understaffed.

I'm not sure which list Ed is referring to, to be honest.

[wyldwolf]

67. The list Ed referred to was the Senate listing of "New Democrat Directory"

[babylonsister]

46. You can type that all day long and it still won't be true. nt

[wyldwolf]

49. yeah, you can deny it all day long. But you're used to living in denial. But just out of curiosity

...what point, specifically, would you challenge me on?

[babylonsister]

54. I find it funny that you're pointing out a relationship that doesn't exist

while ignoring this one:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/DLCDreamPlan.htm

DLC's "Saving the American Dream" Plan: Radical Help for the Middle Class
From Deborah White,

Aug 3 2006
Smart New Ideas Authored by Senator Hillary Clinton
In July 2006, the Democratic Leadership Council released its radical new initiative report, "Saving the American Dream: Bold Ideas for America's Future," which was chaired and authored by Senator Hillary Clinton, and co-chaired by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Senator Tom Carper of Delaware.


Oh, and then there's this:

Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[wyldwolf]

57. where, exactly, did I point out a relationship?

[babylonsister]

59. ...

Obama=DLC? Not so even if you'd like it to be, while Clinton is DLC-you forgot that little tidbit.

Whatever. Nice try.

[wyldwolf]

61. no, sorry. '=' means "like" or, "Obama is like the DLC"

And, based on his stated policy positions, he is. It is absolutely hysterical to watch Obamanation deny Obama's own words - from his book especially - to keep the fairy tale alive.

[rodeodance]

65. Thanks for Obama's words and his relationship to the DLC--or as he

says -his now official non-relationship.

[rodeodance]

52. very well stated. This post is a keeper.

[SoxFan]

86. Oh the irony

You just explained why I support Barack Obama.

[wyldwolf]

98. and, aside from the experience factor, why I'd have no problem supporting him in the GE

[pampango]

6. Speaking of Gore, I don't know if he will endorse any our candidates

prior to the GE, but if he were to endorse one of them soon, it would be entertaining to see supporters of the other candidates bash Gore. ;)

[rodeodance]

8. Your use of the term triangulation is demeaning--I see it as looking at all/many

angles to come to a conclusion. As Obama says, one of the first things he will do is get all to the table--including Phar and Insurance companies for his health care proposal--looking at all angles-negoiating.
Obama triangulates as much a Clinton--and it is not necessarily a bad thing.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. triangulation is a political term, not a problem-solving term

Its to be to the left of your opponent and to the right of your own party and square yourself in the center so you appease everyone without actually pleasing anyone.

[rodeodance]

14. its also used in research and physics--getting the broard view

[rodeodance]

16. If obama got all those various groups together including big Phar and Insurance

do you think he will end up pleasing everybody?

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. it remains to be seen

I don't know.

[rodeodance]

20. so, in the end--your use of the term-to demean anyone who you see 'triangulating'

does not fit-cause no one is pleased.

Triangulation-in politices is used for anyone who wants to get major players to the table--say the ME.

[BootinUp]

24. I guess for Magic Rat its not triangulating if you use the word hope

somewhere in there.

[rodeodance]

33. yes. if Hope refers to Obama.

[mopinko]

48. it has been given a bad name by those that use it for cover.

what it really means to the "third way" folks is more akin to the sports analogy of "the fake". to them it means to use language that appeals to the electorate, cut your deals behind closed doors, then come out of the room, and point to the tiny part of the thing that looks like what they promised said electorate. all the while actually playing hide the salami, as dean said.
that is not what obama does. lots of us would like someone who will go to washington with a rhetorical machine gun, and cut them all down. none of these candidates are gonna do that. but barack has the gift to include everyone, but to steer them to the right end. i trust him.

[LostinVA]

28. People keep on misusing that term on here lately -- it drives me crazy

Just like "strawman." Some posters think it means something it doesn';t.

[rodeodance]

31. Yes, many use it to dismiss people --and it effectively shuts down conversation.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. I desperately want to know how, or if, he'll vote on the "new, improved" Telco immunity bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4100640&mesg_id=4100640

I'm rooting for the Constitutional Law Professor to return to DC and speak up for our civil liberties!

MKJ

[rodeodance]

50. OH CRAP!! "Reid determined to bring FISA bill with retroactive immunity to the floor" -

[Egnever]

83. I asked Kerry about this when I saw him yesterday

He was painfully non committal. He said he is hoping for a balanced approach. Not what I was hoping to hear.
I specifically asked him about the immunity clause and he said he hadn't decided how he will vote on it yet that he is waiting to see the details of bill emerge.

[Bread and Circus]

19. K and R. The more I read this place the more I come to realize

1.) Hillary supporters will say anything and take any stance in order to retain a very high level of smugness.
2.) Obama is not perfect but is definitely as you described in the OP. He is also the most prescient of the 3.
3.) The biggest thing though is my own 180 on Edwards as he used to be my first choice. He talks the language I want to hear but I now firmly believed he's a bit of a pied piper. He sings the song people want to here. However, it does NOT match his record or what he did with his time as a lawyer. Feingold sealed my belief on this and Feingold just happens to be one of the best Senators we have, if not the best in terms of record, rhetoric, action, and honesty. He should be President, if anyone.

I'm fairly uneasily certain that Clinton will snatch the nomination one way or another and has no compunction about when she gets it rightfully or wrongfully.

I challenge any Edward's supporter to really look at his history and voting record and ask themselves if his current record is one of conviction or of convenience.

Even though I think the Hillary Clinton supporters will say anything around here, deep down I don't think they believe their own bullshit, that's why they protest so much much and so loudly. However, I feel the Edwards folks have truly drank the koolaid.

Further, at some point Edwards needs to consider that his run may become more of a vanity stunt than a true challenge for the nomination.

[rodeodance]

22. I made a few changes:

1.) Obama supporters will say anything and take any stance in order to retain a very high level of glitteryness.
2.) Hillary is not perfect but neither is Obama

[OneGrassRoot]

41. I do understand and genuinely respect your position....

I think the following post from Two Americas speaks for many of the informed Edwards supporters who are well aware of his history.


"Speaking for myself, and from what other Edwards supporters have told me, it is not Edwards that people are "over the moon" for, it is the promise and power implicit in his message and the potential that has for overhauling the entire political landscape.

Other candidates have much more "star appeal," and better resumes, more charisma, more talent and are better speakers.

There are, of course, some who are infatuated with Edwards, just as there always are with every candidate, but there is something different going on with the Edwards following.

I will support any Democrat who says what Edwards is saying. I strongly believe that if every Democrat were saying what Edwards is saying, that the right wingers would be totally routed for a generation or more. If every Democrat said what Edwards is saying - even if they were lying or failed to come through (as people insinuate about Edwards) - the revitalization and success of the Democratic party would be assured, because an aroused population would demand it and sooner or later the politicians would have to come through for us."

[Bread and Circus]

97. I think that's fair and gracious of you because my critique

was especially harsh. I take what your post said to heart.

[Marrah_G]

21. I have absolutely no issue with it- of the three Obama is my third choice

Not everyone sees things as you do.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. "hawkish" You have blinders on. Look at her record and look

at Obama's. They ARE THE SAME. Obama's actions indicate to me that he is not Presidential material.

[rodeodance]

36. i have always said--Obama and Clinton are very much alike. "hawkish" is another

rhetorical device used on the board especially to dismiss a candidate--and the poster and to shut down conversation.

[LostinVA]

29. Obama is as much a hawk as Clinton and Edwards

And Clinton is more progressive on social issues.

[LynneSin]

40. I swear some of these Obama fans didn't live through Reaganomics

or were probably too young to remember it. I mean, I was alive during Vietnam but I hardly remember anything except what I read in textbooks.

It's a shame these Obama fans close their ears to the real horror of what Reaganomics was. I don't give a fuck what Reagan did overseas (although I do give a fuck that he is the one that gave weapons to Saddam Hussein and helped build up the Afghani rebels that are now known as Al Qaeda, which includes bin Ladan).

I give a fuck about what this man did to our own people for 8 years.

[LostinVA]

42. Reaganomics sucked -- his social policies sucked more

I love my sissie! Even if she's endorsing Edwards!!!

:pals:

[LynneSin]

43. I just posted Reagan's foreign policy pic too

If Edwards drops out I probably would consider Hillary my 3rd choice.

I'm just so irked by both the HRC and BO folks here at DU that Edwards just came off as the sanest.

[LostinVA]

69. Are you irked at me?!

:kiss:

[LynneSin]

75. Irked only for not visiting me yet

and when I said HRC as my third choice, I guess what I mean was she would be the 3rd candidate I'd be supporting in the primaries since I've already done Biden and now Edwards.

[rodeodance]

47. the 'trickles' only trickles to the affluent--it is stuck in the upper box.

[LostinVA]

70. Exactly

[LostinVA]

30. Obama is as much a hawk as Clinton and Edwards

And Clinton is more progressive on social issues.

[OHdem10]

35. It is the way it was done and expressed by Obama

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. *cough*

[jonnyblitz]

58. Interesting.

:kick:

[rodeodance]

63. "you can be a Democat for one day" /Vote for Obama. ITS all about 'choice" the 'third way"

rhetoric.

You are free to choose.

[Beacool]

64. Funny, I can't see voting for the neophyte when you have a better choice

in Hillary and Edwards. Some of you Obama fans are way too amusing!!!

:rofl:

[NoBorders]

71. It's amazing how progressives have slammed the DLC and Dem

Establishment over the years, but somehow Clinton gets a pass, despite her more conservative voting record than Obama.

[rodeodance]

72. HA HA-CLINTON GETTING A PASS!! YOU HAVE got to be joking!--this thread

has addressed obama primarily---
She gets NO pass on the DU board---Posters constantly slam her for her DLC connections over and over--where have you been?

[NoBorders]

73. Whoah, settle down pardner

I don't see too many HRC supporters taking her to task about it.

[rodeodance]

74. NOR do I see Obama supports taking him to task--moving to the left if

that is what you mean.

Both camps will hit the other--when, for the most part there are only minor shades of differences in policy between them

On style--Obama is the king i will admit.

[NoBorders]

77. I agree

They're both pretty close politically, in reality.

I feel like I'm in carnival funhouse in here sometimes. Up is down, down is up...

[rodeodance]

76. Obama beats all in his Oratory style--it is very Seductive--like falling in Love

for the first time--gives a feel that all is well, skipping through the flowers. It it SWEET. Yes, he has that gift--and wish my candidate had that gift.

[Beacool]

79. Yeah, very seductive...........

Like a snake skin oil salesman!!!!!

:eyes:

[polichick]

80. Unfortunately, it's easy to fall in love with a psychopath too...

They're incredibly skillful at pulling people in.

[THUNDER HANDS]

85. you're not saying Obama is a psychopath, right?

I just want to be clear on that.

[polichick]

90. Lol - just pointing out that sometimes the person people think they're falling in love with...

...doesn't actually exist.

[redqueen]

89. In the GE, he will have to *debate* the republican contender.

Not out-speechify him.

[HeraldSquare212]

78. I think probability of war with Iran is high if Clinton is elected

The Reps pushed Bill around a lot, goading him into signing welfare reform and DOMA. They'll do exactly the same with Hillary, till she feels that politically she has no choice but to do something. I think this becomes even more likely if, like Bill, she loses Dem majorities in the midterm elections. It's not beyond the realm of the possible - many Dem reps will be first or second term reps, still vulnerable.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. Feingold can't decide between Clinton and Obama:

I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036

[polichick]

82. As a Dem activist for 30+ years...

I would rather vote for an indie than a faux Dem who throws liberals under the bus. For me the verdict on Obama is not in yet ~ but the red flags are clearly visible.

[redqueen]

87. We just disagree...

just as you can't understand why I'd support someone who's done a 180 since years ago... I can't understand why you'd support a neophyte who appears not to be ready for prime time and echoes DLC talking points.

Best of luck. :hi:

[THUNDER HANDS]

91. no, I understand why you like edwards

I like Edwards too.

I don't understand why anyone hates Obama though. Of all the candidates, he seems the least hateable to me.

[redqueen]

92. Oh, hate... sorry... no, I'm with you there.

I don't know why anyone would hate any of our candidates. :shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

88. On the progressive conversion of John Edwards:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2967

The above is a great piece, the gist of which is either the conversion is genuine, or John Edwards has bowed to progressive pressure in the way no other politician has done, and he deserves to be supported for that reason, to encourage other politicians to make the same switch.

Even if its fake, making it politically profitable for politicians to become progressives is something we need to support, because either way, we get will get progressive results.

[THUNDER HANDS]

93. that's a nice sentiment

but it's unknown whether or not Edwards is being progressive in whole, or just in this limited primary cycle.


He's going to need more than die-hard democrats to win.

[More Than A Feeling]

96. What's great about Edwards is that a lot of non "die-hard democrats"

hear what he says, hear the southern accent, and think "oh, he's a moderate, or a conservative." We are talking about people who don't exactly read candidate platforms for fun, ya know?

[polichick]

95. Well, I'd sure rather have a politician cave to progressive pressure...

...than pander to Reaganites!

[Drunken Irishman]

94. I'm not even sure you can put Gore's name on there...

I mean, wasn't he really close with the Phelps family? There are many stories of Fred Phelps showering his support on Gore, pictures of them together and well, Gore is perceived as being a great here on DU. Why is it ok to ignore that past, but we can't ignore a comment where Obama said the truth? It isn't like Obama was out there campaigning for Reagan on the streets of Chicago in the 1980s. Or even stated he agreed with any of Reagan's policies, either internationally or domestically.