Obama, Kucinich, or Edwards?

[ludwigb]

It's time. I'm ready to get engaged in this primary process.

I just gotta decide on a candidate. All three of these guys appeal to me is varying ways.

Who should I support and why? Links are appreciated.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Personally I like Kucinich because he is closest to my stands, but Edwards is good

on labor and poverty issues, and Obama made a nice statement today about the RW hijacking faith.

Bet you wish your primary had ranked or approval voting. LOL

[TeamJordan23]

2. I would suggest wating until the fall; when we are gonna see the campaigns in full mode. nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Dennis Kucinch's health plan

is closest to the ideal Michael Moore envisions. He wants to have a sane country that understands the interdependence of all people. His plans for our country include campaign reform, campaign finance reform, overhauling the media, decriminalization of marijuana, helping the little guy instead of the corporations, and much, much more.

Check it out at:

http://kucinich.us/issues

[frazzled]

8. That is true ... but

the President doesn't get his way on all these things, unless, of course, he becomes a dictator (and we certainly don't want the presidency to continue in that direction, even if its ideas were to be ours next time).

So something one has to factor in alongside a candidate's stances on issues is their ability to bring all constituencies along together to achieve them. In the case of single-papyer, universal (nonprofit) healthcare, that would include not only a supermajority of both houses of Congress, but the American people and the medical establishment, including hospitals, doctors, and the always intractable insurers and pharmaceutical companies. It's a tall order. Leadership of immense quality would be necessary to carry that off in this country at this time.

I'm not sure Dennis Kucinich could do that (well, actually, I'm pretty sure he couldn't), even though I agree with him. That doesn't mean you can't support him in a primary. I certainly didn't support Bill Clinton in the '92 primaries, because he didn't reflect my views on a variety of positions, including the then-important issue of the death penalty. But he turned out to be a very persuasive president, who was able to govern pretty well during a period of extreme right-wing ascendancy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Oh geez, give me a break

the OP was about positions of candidates and where they stood on certain issues, and why you support your candidate. It wasn't about anything else. Besides, for all you say, remember that the election is still far off. What happens if we have a series of natural catastrophes that Bush and the GOP does nothing about? Or another Wall Street crash that brings on a Great Depression? Or global warming finally becomes so bad we can no longer ignore it? Or all at once? Kindly remember how the makeup of Congress changed dramatically in 1932. It could happen

[LWolf]

31. Of course, DK's plan, HR 676,

has already been written and introduced into Congress.

I'm sure John Conyers, the co-writer, will still be there to work for it if DK moves to the executive branch.

[Stop Cornyn]

20. This is my single biggest issue. Kucinich's plan is the best by far. Edwards's plan at least lays

the tracks for the ultimate transition to universal single-payer coverage.



Here is a really good discussion of why Edwards health care plan is the second best after Kucinich's:



In a crowded field, Edwards' health plan sets him apart by Rob Christensen

“What we have is a dysfunctional health-care system in the United States of America,” Edwards said at a recent Democratic presidential forum on health-care reform. “We need big, bold, dramatic change, not just small change.”



But what kind of plan is Edwards putting forward? Who would it help? Who would pay for it? And does it have any better chance of getting through Congress than the plan backed by the Clintons more than a decade ago?... Edwards is the only major candidate who has laid out a specific plan for making sure that everyone is insured. (Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed extending Medicare to cover everyone.)... The Edwards plan would require every American to have health insurance by 2012 - the last year of Edwards’ first term if he were elected. The plan would first make health care available to everyone and then require people to carry health insurance, just as motorists must have liability insurance.



The plan is a mix of public and private strategies. Employers would be required to either provide insurance to their employees through a company policy, or to help fund coverage for their workers by contributing to regional nonprofit government entities that Edwards calls health markets.... The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. Uninsured individuals could obtain coverage through a health market. So could employers seeking to provide group policies for their employees.... Health markets would offer traditional plans from private companies such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna and Cigna, as well as a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada’s single-payer system, in which insurance is publicly funded to control costs but doctors and hospitals remain private.



“The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer or whether they would rather have a government-run ... single-payer plan,” Edwards said. “We’ll find out over time where people go.” The mix of market and government initiatives makes Edwards’ plan much harder to attack than Clinton’s early 1990s plan, said Leif Wellington Haase of the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank. “In this plan, the changes happen much more gradually,” Haase said. “Each element has a market element that deflects the attack. I think it’s a very smart political document.”



Although Haase thinks the Edwards plan does not go far enough, conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system,” said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite.” Tanner contends that under Edwards’ parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. The single-payer system, Tanner argued, sounds good. But it would not be popular with citizens because it would ration treatment for expensive and long illnesses, and would discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new drugs. “Single-payer systems are good if you are not sick,” Tanner said. “They provide routine care at low cost. But they don’t provide intensive, expensive medicine for people with serious illnesses.”...



Edwards is the only candidate to put a price tag on his health reforms - $90 billion to $120 billion per year - which he proposes to pay for by repealing the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush on families with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year. “I do not believe you can have universal health care without finding a source of revenue,” Edwards said.

Read the whole article: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/38815/in-a-crowded-field-edwards-health-plan-sets-him-apart/

[wildhorses]

4. watch, look and listen -- thats my philosophy

:hi:

[glowing]

5. I'm waiting until the fall.. I want to see what happens over the

summer. But my 2 would be edwards or Kucinich.. Obama is coporate sell out.

[LordJFT]

6. go with obama

if you really care about beating the repukes. He has the highest favorability rating of all the candidates and matches up the best against them.

[glowing]

7. Sorry, I can't do that.

[venable]

18. simply wrong. Edwards polls better than any dem against the repubs.

why would you say Obama polls better. he simply doesn't. this isn't a matter of opinion. it's a matter of documented polls. do you not know this?

[fujiyama]

36. I'd say you are right

According to most polls out there Edwards outpolls all other Dems. He beats Romney in some polls with a whopping 60%! I personally like Obama just a bit more than Edwards and think either would be a fine candidate. But I'll admit most polls show Edwards with an advantage over all others in the general election.

[NYCGirl]

10. Really? And what corporations would those be? NT

[oldtime dfl_er]

11. I'm sorry to put this so bluntly but

Edwards is our best hope. We are still a racist nation, we are still a nation that won't elect a guy with a funny name and a wife taller than himself. Given the fact that the voting system is stacked against us, we really need someone who can win BIG. Close elections can be flipped, landslides are more difficult.

I HATE that I'm saying this. I hate it. I think Obama is fantastic, and as a woman I would love to see Hillary in the White House. But we are walking a line right now, that is so fine, that is so easy to yank out from under us, that the white semi-Southern male is our best hope. I just thank God he's a fine candidate with an amazing wife.

Flame me if you want. I hope you do. But I'm over 50 years old and if I ever want to see a Democrat in the White House again I have to set aside everything except the practical, the practicable, the possible. It's not about who I want to see in the White House - as I said, I would love a female or a black president. It's about an acceptable electable.

Sigh.


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/3076154

[zulchzulu]

12. The voters that wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black are...

...probably Republicans who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

Americans like people like Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan...Obama is seen in that category in my view.

[mruddy]

13. For me it's all about honesty

After being lied to by the past 3 presidents, I'm supporting the candidate I feel will be the most honest. Looking into the reasons "I feel" some current candidates are running for the presidency: Clinton is running for the power of the office; Obama is running because he was asked/told to; Edwards is running because he passionately believes he can create a better future; and Kucinich is running because the country's being run by a bunch of money grubbing thugs, is a mess, and he'd like to clean it out. I have to throw my support behind Edwards first and Kucinich second. They're the 2 who are the most honest. It's not in their "hearts" to lie or be bought like other candidates have been or will be.

[ludwigb]

16. Good Point

I detest being lied too, although I realize that politicians have to make compromises that will invariably be seen as betrayals. If Kucinich was elected president, I'm sure he would do something that violated his campaign stands and was seen as betrayal by his base at some point.

Still, integrity is a real variable, and it is possible to make judgements about whether people have it. An imperfect science to be sure, but a necessary one.

I also believe Edwards when he says he genuninely regrets his war vote (though I worry this will be exploited by the GOP if JE is the nominee). In general, I think he won both primary debates convincingly and that the 4 years out of the Senate have been productive for him--his voice is less contrived now. On the other hand I'm so impressed by his political abilities, I think he could convince a hard core xenophobic conservative that he was in his corner too... Sometimes it seems hard to avoid being mesmerized by Edwards and really think critically about him--I'm going to try my best to do this in the coming weeks.

I'm not convinced Obama is less than honest at this point. Sometimes I find his 'bringing people togehter' rhetoric phony and/or lazy, but there is nothing wrong with it per se, nor does it indicate dishonesty. I think he comes across as remarkably honest and fair-minded in his writings.

Anybody have any relevant links re. these candidates and the integrity issue?

[waiting for hope]

14. I think you need to ask yourself

if you want another corporatist backer in the White House - Personally, I like Kucinich, but he doesn't have a prayer and Obama has been showing his lack of experience lately and by September, that will show more and more. My choice is Edwards - he's genuine, and truly wants to do what is right, from helping people lift themselves out of poverty to ending the war. He has been the most outspoken about it and that will help out come primary time.

Also, take a look at their websites - after seeing what is there and the content, take a deeper look to Edwards.

[iamjoy]

15. Edwards Because

I am supporting John Edwards because...

I sort of fell in love with him in 2004 when I caught him (via C-SPAN) at a rally in Iowa and saw his "Two Americas" speech.

I watched him listen, really listen to a woman whose son was son in Iraq. I watched Dean interact with another woman whose son was in Iraq, Dean was angry right along with her. I like compassion better than anger, even though I realize anger can be put to good.

I read "Four Trials" and sensed his compassion for the people he helped.

I worked a high dollar event for him in July 2004. After the event he took the time to shake the hands of the hotel staff and campaign volunteers who'd worked the event.

He started out middle class and has amassed tremendous wealth. It's the American Dream. But you don't start out middle class and end up where he is unless you are very smart, very hard working and yes, lucky.

He can admit when he's wrong.

I believe John Edwards really cares about people (or is an Oscar caliber actor). Also, after 8 years of arrogance, after a divisive figure in charge, we need some one who has a little humility. Kucinich sometimes seems like he's angry or ranting. He may just be passionate, but it's how it comes across. I'm also not sure how realistic Kucinich is, or how much success he'd have getting his wonderful ideas implemented. I like Obama too, I like the way he speaks and much of what he says. It seems very general, broad and high level. Obama says common sense stuff that seems like it would be in everyone's heart (and mind), but doesn't awaken anything.

[w4rma]

17. Edwards, because unlike Obama, one of Edwards's top priorities is poverty.

Edwards, because unlike Kucinich, Edwards is a top tier candidate who can win both the primaries and the general election (polling ahead of all other Democratic candidates in the general election).

[Stop Cornyn]

19. I agree that those three stand heads and shoulders above the rest. Kucinich has the best plans. and

between Edwards and Obama, Edwards's plans are nearest Kucinich's.

But Obama has much to recommend him. For example, Obama has taken a very politically courageous stand against the death penalty. This is an issue Edwards does not emphasize.

[Clark2008]

21. Can't help you.

Edwards didn't do jack as a senator for all the issue he claims to be for or against now. Of all the Dem candidates, he is my least favorite. I don't find his judgment all that impressive.

Obama has name and color "issues" - because this country is stupid in those regards.

And, Kucinich has stature "issues."

I don't have a candidate yet, either, and don't see having one unless Gore or Clark gets in. I will probably vote for Kucinich if they don't simply for his health plan, but I don't see him winning.

:(

[snowbear]

23. Geez Clark, kinda petty isn't it?

Obama has name and color "issues" - because this country is stupid in those regards.

And, Kucinich has stature "issues."

So you think that despite of his incredible poll numbers --- despite of the record-breaking crowds he's drawing EVERYWHERE in the nation, despite of the fact that he's doing so well in even the red states ... that the "freeper-type-racist-crowd" are so powerful.. so plentiful.. that they will have the final say so in who is elected?

Welp - I think you're wrong.

I think that Senator Obama has just as good of a chance of winning as anyone in any of the parties.



And if a candidate's NAME kept them from winning votes --- we wouldn't have a "BUSH" in the Whitehouse...



Same goes for your comment about Congressman Kucinich's stature.

What about McCain then? He and Kucinich are the exact same height.
(links: http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBW5CES62F.html / http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/bio )

Or are you saying that McCain is okay because he's stockier?

Remember, General Clark isn't exactly a towering figure. He's probably an inch or so taller than McCain/Kucinich.. But who CARES !?!?!?

Man oh Man..

I wouldn't assume anything. The dirtbag racists or the idiots who won't vote because of the sound of a name or the height of someone are irrelevant when Americans come out in full force for change.

And after eight years of HELL, they will

[elizm]

28. You oppose Obama because you say...

...He has name and color issues. THOSE are the reasons you find to oppose his nomination?? Doesn't that just say that you TOO are part of the problem with the rest of the 'stupids in this country' you speak of??? Pretty shallow reasons to oppose a candidate.

[ileus]

22. Forget the losers, climb aboard the clinton train.

[madmunchie]

24. Why do we have to decide now??????? WAAAYYYY TOOOO EARLY!!!!!

Are you buying into the media push THAT MUCH? I'm not, I'm waiting for the fall when my candidate jumps into the race and sucks the air out of room for everybody else.

[TheFarseer]

25. Edwards because

he is the best on policy - he wants to stop outsourcing and create jobs in America with an alternative energy industry. He has the best vision for energy policy and articulates it very well. He seems sincere on stopping the war. He seems sincere on fixing health care. He is not a "Santa Claus" candidate but instead has pragmatic solutions to problems that sometimes call for a little sacrifice. Best of all, he is not a polarizing figure and I feel he can be competitive in all 50 states.

[Vidar]

26. Kucinich first, anyone but Hillary second.

[elizm]

27. Obama.....of course.

Listen to this recent speech at the Take Back America Conference. It's all you'll need to know...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=956538877666825429&hl=en

[Dawgs]

29. Support the one that is most electable; otherwise it's four more years of Bush.

All good, but Obama seems to be the most electable; Edwards second, and Kucinich third.

[LWolf]

30. Dennis Kucinich.

He's not influenced by corporations, he's the most consistent, and has the best record working for the issues that affect common people.

He has the best health care plan, the only single-payer, not-for-profit plan on the table, and he's already co-written it. It's already been introduced. HR 676. He's not using health care as campaign rhetoric.

He has the best record, hands down, on Iraq. Voted no on IWR and Patriot Act, and votes no on funding the mess. Has had working plans to end the mess and bring the troops home since they left.

He has the best record for labor; anti-NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO.

He has a strong environmental record, including opposing Monsanto control of food crops and strong support of sustainable farming and sustainable energy production.

He has the best outlook on Education. He has been advocating, for years, universal pre-school - college. The college/trade school piece hits the class gaps where they form; when young people graduate from high school and can't afford tuition or student loans for trade school or college.

He has the best stance on election issues. He was the first of the bunch, back in ''03/'04, to publicly come out against Diebold and electronic voting. He advocates public campaign financing. IRV.

He has a good stance on media reform, as well.

You can find it all at his website. One thing you'll notice, when you click on the "issues" link, is that he has a strong position and plan on just about every issue you can think of. He does not just gloss over the issue with vague, positive sounding sentiments.

Another thing you'll notice, if you check out his stance on issues and work in Congress, is that he doesn't just give inspiring speeches. His work actually supports what he says.

His website is a great place to start. If possible, I'd check out his schedule and see if you could meet him in person. You really "get" the energy, the passion, the integrity that he operates from when you get to chat with him.

http://kucinich.us/

[SergeyDovlatov]

32. Dennis. No other democrat will stop the Iraq war and abandon 14 permanent military bases in Iraq n/t

[Bullet1987]

33. If you want someone who is more electable...

Obama or Edwards. If you want someone based purely on common sense and policy, then Dennis Kucinich.

[Tejanocrat]

34. Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama in that order. Kucinich first because his health care plan, his Iraq

peace plan, and fair trade proposals are the best. http://kucinich.us/issues

Edwards next because his agenda is pretty much Kucinich's views brought into the mainstream (ie, watered down), and Edwards is electable in a way that Kucinich isn't. http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/

Obama third because he's inspiring and, while his agenda isn't exceptionally progressive or particularly detailed, the outline he offers is better than HRC's or Biden's or Richardson's. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[rucky]

35. If you're not in Iowa or New Hampshire

don't get too attached to anyone.

[fujiyama]

37. Kucinich is a good guy

and I agree with him on many issues (like single payer healthcare and he's been right about Iraq from the start).

But it's very obvious he wouldn't have a chance in the general election. And regardless, there is no way he will raise enough money in the primaries to face off against the big three (or four if you include Richardson).

Getting behind Kucinich might make you feel good, but ultimately won't get a Democrat elected to the WH.