I'm undecided and I have to vote on Tuesday.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

I was for Edwards, but he's out; as much as I want to fight that, the race is now between Obama and Clinton.

To the Obama people trying to convince me (including most of my family): I hear ya. He's got the ground game, he's got the youth vote, he's even got the intangible "hope" thing going for him. Even my registered Repub husband -- who hates Bush and wants to end the war and thinks all the R nominees are hacks -- would choose Obama. But he just hasn't won me over. I was drawn to him at first, back before he was even running I cheered for him to jump in, but since then he hasn't overly impressed me. I would characterize his campaign as "safe" and perhaps overly sanitized.

To the Clinton people: I agree that Hillary has the experience and the strength to fight back against those who hate her. I also think that the meme that she will galvanize Republicans to vote even for a nominee like McCain is unfounded. We hated Bush in 2004 as much as they hate Hillary now, but it wasn't enough. But I also think it may be time to end the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

I think their views are pretty close. To me, Edwards has the whole package, and I'm having a hard time getting behind either Obama or Clinton, as neither of them seem to have the combination of fighter/idealist/pragmastic that I saw in Edwards. I want a candidate who cares more about helping people than about party power.

Remember that we aren't just electing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in November, we are also getting everyone who comes along with them. Who will be in their cabinets? Who will run foreign policy? Bush is a hapless idiot, but he was far more dangerous because of who came into power with him in 2000. I want to know who both of these candidates will bring along with them to Washington, because they will make the biggest difference.

ps for Californians: Anyone know why Sam Farr, who represents the Central Coast (17th Dist.) hasn't endorsed? I love Sam Farr and would put some stock in his opinion.

[Yael]

1. It is a primary -- vote your heart

That is what I am doing. I can't get behind either of the remaining two as they stand today, but if they honor the pledge to pick up John's war on poverty -- that will be a different story. I am using my voice so that they hear me on this topic.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

4. You're right, and that's probably what I will do, but...

Just because one of the candidates "promises" to pick up where John left off on poverty, I won't be convinced they will do anything about it.

John promised to end poverty in this country, and my heart was (and is) completely with him on that movement. How the hell is HE not the candidate of "hope"?? Our priorities are so screwed up in this country.

[Yael]

10. I can't wait for spring

He has motivated me in a new direction. Rather than my pledged volunteer time working for the campaign, I am signing up with Habitat for Humanity.

I only hope that his message isn't lost in all of the glitz and glamor over the next 2 months. It deserves a prominent place on the Denver agenda -- with or without him there to talk about it.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

14. Hey, Yael, that's exactly what's I'm thinking...

I'm being pressured (by my familiy) to put my energy behind a campaign, but instead I think I am going to take that energy and work toward John's goal of ending poverty.

I already volunteer with ONE.org, and their work is mostly on global poverty issues, but I will do more research about how I can help locally, too, because I think we have to think both locally/nationally and globally.

I'm not convinced that his message will be given a prominent enough place on the party platform, sadly -- the candidates are going to stick with what got them there, and unfortunately, not enough people care about poverty issues in America.

But as I said to another poster regarding John dropping out, hope isn't lost, it's just not running for President anymore. We can still do a lot of good, in John's name and for the good of this country.

Thanks for your commitment to this issue. I run a company and a family and am very busy; if I could devote all of my time to poverty issues, I would. I'm hoping to retire in a few years (okay, probably more like 5-10) and do just that.

[lvx35]

2. Well, if you can see the strength of both, vote for both of them.

That's essentially what a vote for Hillary is, because there is no doubt she would choose him for VP, and he's still young and with more experience he could take the office himself. The opposite isn't true, he's much younger than Hillary and she's just an unlikely VP choice for him, it would feel weird. I like Obama alot but I'm not willing to throw Hillary's universal healthcare out the window at this point...

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. That's an interesting perspective...

And would be a killer ticket.

[Thrill]

3. You want to win in November?

Better vote for Obama then

[RevolutionStartsNow]

5. That was helpful. You sure about that?

Actually I think either of our candidates will win in November. At this point it's more about who will make a better president.

Not taking anything for granted, but I do think either Clinton or Obama can beat McCain, Huckabee or Romney. Easily.

[Thrill]

8. I think the only thing that can fire up

Republicans to get behind McCain is Hillary. And she doesn't attract Independents. I also think Candidates for Congress would much rather have Obama campaigning with them than Hillary.

[Hope And Change]

11. This could help a little..

From USA Today story on tightening polls:

"Obama had the highest favorable rating of the major candidates still in the race — 59% favorable to 32% unfavorable. McCain was close behind with 56% favorable, 32% unfavorable.

Clinton was even at 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. The favorability rating for her husband, Bill Clinton, dropped to 50% from 56% last fall. The former president was widely criticized by fellow Democrats in the past month for his role in the Nevada and South Carolina contests.

Romney was the only candidate with a net negative rating: 37% favorable, 39% unfavorable."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-03-candidatesspoll_N.htm

[rzemanfl]

7. Why do you "have" to vote? n/t

[RevolutionStartsNow]

9. I don't, of course.

What I meant was that my state's primary is on Tuesday. It's my chance to have a voice in who gets the nomination.

[Indenturedebtor]

12. Well I can tell you

I can tell you that HRC is far more in bed with Corporate Lobbyists and has said that she will welcome them into Her Government. Obama has refused to take Pac money.

Regardless of electability HRC has said a few times "What America needs is a CEO"... I dunno how you feel about corporations but I think that they're the biggest problem our nation faces. The further we can get from them the better. That's one of the main reasons I supported Edwards, and now Obama over HRC.

[JFKgirl]

13. Dont be duped by Clinton supporters. there will be no clint/obama ticket

I suggest you read this instead for an insight into the character of candidates:

From kos: Why I can't vote for Hillary: My deeply personal Clinton story
by Hudson
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:55:23 PM PST

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, there is no shortage of unfair and unprincipled reasons for disliking her -- and if you listen to AM talk radio for an hour, you'll probably hear them all.

I reject the sexism of those who still think a former First Lady has no place in policy debates, just as I reject the absurd theories of those who think she had a hand in the death of her close friend Vince Foster.

Having volunteered on Clinton's first senate campaign, I get mad when I hear Rush Limbaugh savage her as a liar and an opportunist. I'm also grateful to her for keeping Rudy Guiliani and Rick Lazio out of the Senate.

But you don't have to be a sexist or a conspiracy theorist to oppose Clinton's candidacy.

I don't dislike Hillary; I distrust her. And my reasons are both substantive, and based on direct personal experience.

When a major issue hit the area where I live, New York's Hudson Valley, Clinton was less than honest with her constituents, and all too eager to take credit where none was due.

Hudson's diary :: ::
For nearly 7 years, Hudson Valley communities were riven with controversy about a vast, coal-burning facility proposed by St. Lawrence Cement here in the Hudson Valley.

The company, a subsidiary of what was then the largest cement manufacturer in the world, had a horrendous track record of both environmental destruction and anti-competitive behavior, with millions of dollars of fines on the books.

The project would have burned some 500 million pounds of coal annually, with a 40-story smokestack, a 1,200-acre mine, and a huge barge facility on the Hudson, an American Heritage River. The controversy was covered everywhere from CNN to Swiss television, and every major Northeast newspapers (The New York Times, Hartford Courant, Boston Globe, et al.) opposed it editorially. The nearly seven-year battle was the subject of a PBS documentary, Two Square Miles.

Given the harsh health, scenic, noise, traffic, economic and other negative potential impacts of the project -- opponents naturally wanted to get the ear of Mrs. Clinton, and we tried everything.

She was approached at campaign whistlestops, at private dinners, and public fundraisers. Printed factsheets were pressed into staffers' hands, and handwritten letters beseeched our new Senator to help end this dangerous idea. But she refused to take any public stand.

Finally, as the leader of the grassroots opposition, I tried an old-fashioned political route. A friend identified a celebrity donor in nearby Dutchess County who was opposed to St. Lawrence's plans, and he called in a big favor. Driving to the capitol in his limo, we met with Hillary first in a chamber outside the Armed Services Committee, then took a long walk and tram ride under the Capitol to her offices. Hillary was both charming, and surprisingly well-informed on our issue.

At last, here was my big chance to make a full case for her involvement.

But when I launched into a carefully-prepared spiel, the Senator stopped me: "You don't need to do the presentation," she said. "The plant is a terrible idea. Just tell me how I can help." Delighted, I described the various Federal permitting processes in which she could intervene, and the benefits of her taking a public stand.

She called in her chief environmental policy advisor, and gave detailed instructions: Get a memo on her desk right away, listing the necessary action steps and the policy rationales for each, and she'd get right to work on it. Her performance was smart and convincing, and her celebrity backer and I practically floated down the Capitol steps on the way out.

The rest was silence. After promptly delivering the requested memo, I was never able to get her staff (let alone the Senator herself) to discuss the issue again, let alone take action to stop the plant.

About a year later, Clinton was cornered on the SLC issue by an interviewer from The National Trust for Historic Preservation, who finally got her to say that she thought the proposal was "not the right direction for the Hudson Valley." These remarks were published in Preservation Magazine, which Clinton apparently thought no one would read... because when we then alerted local media to her statement, Clinton's staff denied the remarks and claimed she still had not taken a position.

Only after nearly 14,000 residents and 40 groups wrote in opposition to the Republican administration of George Pataki did this terrible project get scrapped. The company spent $60 million, and yet the citizens managed to stave off the largest cement company in the world -- no thanks to Hillary.

But there was one more damning chapter in our Clinton saga.

After we won, the group I co-founded received an award at the Waldorf-Astoria from the Preservation League of New York. During the award ceremony, it was announced that there would be a video tribute from someone who couldn't attend, but who wanted to pay her respects. Up on a giant screen came Hillary Clinton, talking about how we'd all fought such a good fight together.

Those of us who had been in the trenches for years looked at each other in amazement. All the awful things people say about Hillary were horribly validated: She didn't deliver on her promises, and then she took credit for a victory achieved without her help.

Now, some friends say, "Come now -- all politicians are the same. They tell you what you want to hear, and then do the opposite. Get over it!" Others say, "Well, Hillary dropped the ball on that one, but I still trust her on health care, education, abortion, the economy, et cetera."

To these excuses I say: Other politicians from five states had the guts to take a stand on an issue affecting hundreds of thousands of downwind residents; why couldn't Clinton?

Why should we expect her to act differently the next time a major regional controversy hits? If she won't stand up for the health of our local children and the elderly, and won't expend any political capital to save a broad swath of her own adopted State as its Senator, why should we expect her to behave differently as President?

And why shouldn't I get behind another candidate who is just as strong on core Democratic issues, such as Barack Obama -- whose campaign overtly rejects this cynical brand of politics?

The whole experience brings to mind that phrase famously mangled by our current President: Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on Hillary.

And that's why Senator Clinton doesn't have my vote on Super Tuesday. She will almost certainly carry this State, but our votes can help ensure that at least a portion of New York's delegates to the Democratic convention are awarded to a more deserving candidate.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1/234527/0014/392/448115