can true believers please convince me? I was a Kucinich supporter.

[leftofthedial]

Then I reluctantly became an Edwards supporter.

Now I'm looking at the two remaining candidates. Both are preferable to ANY repuke, but I sincerely believe both of them put corporate interests ahead of anything remotely similar to a progressive agenda or even a populist middle-class-centered agenda.

Clinton is a skillful politician, but I think she continues to lie about her complicity in the invasion of Iraq and the perpetuation of the occupation. I also think she is completely in the pockets of corporations. I think she is a divisive candidate and would motivate strong wingnut opposition in the GE.

Obama, on the other hand, strikes me as less than sincere. Plus, his positions seem fairly ill defined, so I'm not quite sure what he would do if elected. He does, however, possess a formidable oratorical ability to inspire audiences, using high-minded and inclusive rhetoric. But he never really talks turkey about how he will accomplish his promised "change." I believe he might well be as great a unifier as, say, either of the lamented Kennedy brothers. But then again, he might just be all talk and no action. Maybe a few inspirational speeches is the best we can ask for in the inexorable spiral down into a corporate oligopoly.

So, I'm leaning slightly toward Obama because:

a. my most liberal friends seem to support him

and

b. even though I don't really expect him to deliver any meaningful change, he at least might rekindle some sense of unity in this country.


WITHOUT IDIOTIC FLAMES, can anyone convince me if I'm right or wrong?

[BuyingThyme]

1. Go for Obama. He's like a roulette wheel.

Clinton's more like a gun to your head. We already know how that ends.

Sorry for the long post.

[leftofthedial]

4. I do not see any substantive difference between them, policy-wise

I hate to vote based on oratory style, but I think Obama could at least make an occasional good speech while selling the poor and the middle class down the river.

[BuyingThyme]

14. I'm already tired of the way he speaks. He's quickly heading for a Kerryesque stereotype.

Clinton, however, was very impressive in the last debate. She made the oratory shift that Al Gore never managed to pull off. I'm surprised more people haven't picked up on that.

I don't really care anymore what they say or how they say it but to the extent that I'm entertained.

[leftofthedial]

66. American Presidential Idol!

a concept whose time has come.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

73. WATCH THIS, It is cool

http://townhall.hillaryclinton.com/

[rucky]

62. always bet on black

[riverwalker]

2. Cluster bombs

Hillary is no Princess Diana or Jody Williams. She gave no statements explaining her vote against legislation to protect civilians.
The ammendment: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
The roll call: Clinton NO, Obama YES


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4882:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

Hillary Clinton Voted to Continue Cluster Bombing Civilians
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/21/151841/41/822/425303

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-cluster-bomb
Hillary: Cluster Bombs Are Not Village-Friendly


Clinton, Obama, and Cluster Bombs

http://clearpathinternational.org/cpiblog/archives/000963.php

[leftofthedial]

7. there are a few little nuggets of difference in their voting records

but they've both skipped LOTS of votes on important issues.

Thanks for this one. I think Clinton is more of a hawk.

[cali]

17. you supported JE after supporting Kucinich

JE's voting record was worse than Clinton's and Obama's.

[leftofthedial]

21. but he was at least honest in admitting past mistakes

and it was reluctant, as I said

[MH1]

8. Thank you, I wasn't aware of that

Actually I think I remember being p.o.'d by Hillary's vote at the time, but I'd forgotten.

I'm sure some of her supporters will be along shortly to explain why cluster bombs are actually good, just like DOMA is now good.

[Coexist]

3. Obama's list of endorsers span the spectrum

of extremely liberal to moderate republican.

We all see something in him. Like we are witnessing the dawn of a new era in this country. We are nervous, but looking back makes us want to leap forward more.

I have embraced it, and I am really enjoying the ride.

[leftofthedial]

11. leap forward to what?

[Coexist]

19. the future, an new age of politics

where you don't have to hate your enemy with passion, where you can get behind a good idea, no matter which side came up with it, if it is good for the nation.

The nasty, tit-for-tat, I live only to beat you, even if you are doing the right thing because of the letter after your name and you must be crushed, 50+1 bullshit.

[leftofthedial]

32. if I heard any good ideas, I could go for that

but I'm not hearing good ideas from either candidate at this point.

a new age where we all agree to ignore the fact that we have lost our civil liberties and given control of our lives to a corporate oligopoly is not my idea of a leap forward.

[Coexist]

36. there is a great Q&A at boston.com that addresses a lot of that

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question9/

Question 9
Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

Barack Obama
Disagree strongly.


Question 10
Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
Barack Obama
First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.


there is more at the link

[Coexist]

43. this is good:

from The Nation:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/01/opinion/main3779911.shtml

Progressives' Best Hope? It's Obama

Had you told me a few years ago that the left of the Democratic Party would be split between Obama and Clinton, I'd have dismissed you as crazy: Barack Obama has been a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, a loyal and reliable ally in the State Senate of progressive groups. For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the U.S. Senate was a collective rallying cry. If you've read his first book, the truly beautiful, honest and intellectually sophisticated Dreams From My Father, you have an inkling of what young Chicago progressives felt about Obama. He is one of us, and now he's in the Senate. We thought we'd elected our own Paul Wellstone. (Full disclosure: my brother is an organizer on the Obama campaign.)

[leftofthedial]

60. I agree that Obama is marginally more progressive than Clinton

(at least rhetorically)

I guess that's the best we can get in Korporate Amurka

thanks for the input. I'll keep checking it out


but -sigh-

[MH1]

15. Not just the political spectrum, but leading lights in many important progressive fields

have endorsed Obama.

Such as, Bill McKibben (environment - relocalization) and Lawrence Lessig (open technology).

You don't get much more progressive than McKibben and Lessig, when you are talking about doers rather than politicians.

[leftofthedial]

24. Several major progressives in my world (the music industry) have been Obamists

since the beginning.

Endorsements are important, but in most areas, I do not see a progressive agenda.

[Coexist]

39. I think I know why, Obama is very vocal on this issue (music) and mentions it in stump speeches:

http://icallitoranges.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-on-arts.html

That's why he will reinvest in Arts Education. To remain competitive in the global economy, America needs to reinvigorate the kind of creativity and innovation that has made this country great. To do so, we must nourish our children's creative skills. In addition to giving our children the science and math skills they need to compete in the new global context, we should also encourage the ability to think creatively that comes from a meaningful arts education. Unfortunately, many school districts are cutting instructional time for art and music education.

Barack believes that the arts should be a central part of effective teaching and learning. The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts recently said, "The purpose of arts education is not to produce more artists, though that is a byproduct. The real purpose of arts education is to create complete human beings capable of leading successful and productive lives in a free society."

- Create an Artist Corps: Barack Obama supports the creation of an "Artists Corps" of young artiststrained to work in low-income schools and their communities. Studies in Chicago have demonstrated that test scores improved faster for students enrolled in low-income schools that link arts across the curriculum than scores for students in schools lacking such programs.


- Publicly Champion the Importance of Arts Education: As president, Barack Obama will use the bully pulpit and the example he will set in the White House to promote the importance of arts and arts education in America . Not only is arts education dispensable for success in a rapidly changing, high skill, information economy, but studies show that arts education raises test scores in other subject areas as well.



more at link

[leftofthedial]

57. another edge to Obama

Hillary does have Bill's sax/bush's "gold urinal" though . . .

I think Obama inspires "bleeding heart liberals," which includes many of my dearest music industry friends. I'm just not seeing clear evidence that he's really progressive though.

[MH1]

41. The process of government

is my most important issue area after foreign policy. The links I posted in my other post are all about process of government. Obama is VERY strong in that area. So, he has the endorsements of progressives who believe that increased citizen participation will force politicians into better policies.

What I've seen from Clinton has not made me comfortable that she would pursue strong open government and transparency policies. In contrast, Obama has made it a key part of his platform, and was insistent on discussing it at one of the debates.

Btw the reason other domestic policies aren't higher on my list is that I think their platforms are very similar in those areas, and in any case those policies will be hacked up beyond recognition in Congress, at least with the process the way it currently is. Obama is the only one who is talking about improving the process, as far as I can tell. I think we the people will have more influence (even if only marginally so at first) if some of Obama's open government measures are implemented. That's why I rank "process of government" above issues like health care and environmental policy.

On foreign policy I have some concerns about Clinton, some different concerns about Obama, but on the whole give them similar grades with slightly more confidence that Obama will take an approach I prefer. But both are so many light years better than the republicans on foreign policy, that it's hard to differentiate on that issue. That's why even though foreign policy is my #1 issue, for me that one comes down to "any Democrat".

That's the Cliff's Notes version of why I support Obama. :)

[leftofthedial]

58. personally, I think Clinton would actively OPPOSE real open government

another edge for Obama.

[MH1]

63. Well

I was trying not to bash. ;)

[leftofthedial]

70. I just don't think Obama really wants to change anything

Truth is, I just think he wants his slice and he'll tell us whatever he has to to get there.

Am I jaded? Or finally awake?

[MH1]

5. Some reasons I support Obama

Actually, Bill McKibben says it better than me:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/9431/41821

Then there's Lawrence Lessig's endorsement, and Obama's great technology plan that Lessig raves about, and there's Obama's ethics and government transparency plan.

Just for starters. I hope you find that information helpful. :) And I think if you really read the Lessig and obama.com links, you won't really think those positions are "ill-defined" at all. But I guess that's a matter of opinion.


(and yeah, I cribbed most of this from another post I just made.)

[leftofthedial]

16. thanks. I'll read tonight during work breaks

(Note for any of you who know me. No, I don't have a job, but I'm presenting a proposal for a web project tomorrow that might pay this month's rent. I'm working on the proposal tonight.)

[MH1]

20. You're welcome, and thanks for reading

That is all I ask. :)

[ozone_man]

34. Curious that McKibben doesn't mention Obama's environmental

positions. That would be something to base a decision on. Clinton and Obama are not so good on the environment. Obama is pronuclear and coal. I would be curious to see how Bill would rationalize that.

http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html

Only Edwards was against coal and nuclear.

I'm afraid there is not much to be happy with either Obama or Clinton, coming from a former Kucinich and Edwards supporter. They're both corporate candidates. Who do you like better probably. It will be just a popularity contest. I lean toward Obama, but I'll probably vote for Edwards.

[MH1]

53. Obama lifetime score: 96 (League of Conservation Voters)

http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/obama-page.html

Clinton has a lifetime score of 90 from LCV.

[leftofthedial]

56. given that Bill would probably rate about a 10 from LCV,

Hillary's 90 doesn't look too bad.

Still, edge to Obama. Thanks.

[no name no slogan]

6. SEND A MESSAGE: Vote Uncommitted

Neither one of the major candidates remaining has impressed me enough to vote for him/her in the primary.

Neither's health care plan impresed me.

Each one has voted for continued funding for the war.

Neither one supports impeachment.

Therefore, neither one has earned my vote.

[leftofthedial]

28. that's the boat I'm in

for tomorrow's caucuses, I do not plan to make a choice, unless something compelling changes my mind.

But I'm resigned to the inevitability of being faced with a choice between one of these two versus the soulless, corrupt vermin the repukes will be running.

[CONN]

68. I'm with you on this

[goldcanyonaz]

9. Clinton, she's a work horse. Can't avoid important issues, like Obama has once you're President.

[leftofthedial]

29. they both have skipped plenty of big votes

[goldcanyonaz]

31. Not true, his record is MUCH worse than hers is.

[leftofthedial]

40. well, she DID show up for the IWR

and the PATRIOT Act

and the bills refunding the illegal occupation

although she did skip PATRIOT reauthorization and PATRIOT 2

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

10. Go check both websites, Hillary and Obama hawks just going to try to convert you.

I am a Hillary pushing poster, but Id like you to go to her website and his....Decide on FACTS not emotion.

[leftofthedial]

30. there's the rub

if it's all just facts, I don't like either one of them.

I'll re-review their sites though.

[NC_Nurse]

12. Here's my post explaining why I decided on Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4366736&mesg_id=4366736

I'm just to lazy to retype it - I'm a terrible typist anyway...

[leftofthedial]

33. thanks.

I read that. :-)

[ErnestoG]

13. You've got some things right.

Add to that, he isn't tied into the Defense Industry like Clinton is. We really need to get away from this shit.

[neutron]

18. Oh Really? Take a look at THIS:

Today the foremost economist stated that HRC's healthplan was
magnificent, and Obama's was INCOMPETENT.

I will provide the link below.

Yesterday, the NYT front page article told how Obama FAILED to
pass a bill to PROTECT HIS DISTRICT from the local Nuclear Power
Plant leaks.

They were getting RADIOACTIVITY in their water.

NEXT, Obama TOOK several hundred thousand dollars from the
Nuke honchos for his Senate Campaign.

He had the NERVE to go BRAGGING around Iowa that his bill
passed when it DID NOT.

He finally got a bill passed - it protected the NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

Does that make you think at all?

Link 1:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1202274000&en=15e3ef55ea8cce37&ei=5087

Link 2:

http://thefeldmanblog.com/2008/02/03/barack-obama-lies-about-legislative-recordbacked-nuclear-industry-but-claims-he-didnt/

[leftofthedial]

38. clinton is clearly more of a hawk

obama is in bed with the nuclear industry and hedge funds

clinton is in bed with arms dealers and insurance companies

I see both of them as being corporatists, as I said. Name your poison: nuclear power or nuclear weapons . . . predatory financial thieves or an insurance company denying your care.

They both SUCK thoroughly in this context.

[MH1]

46. I'll take nuclear power over nuclear weapons any day

And I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power.

[sellitman]

22. We are from the same place and at the same place.

Yesterday I was leaning Obama....today it has shifted back to Clinton a bit.

Perhaps the best way to vote is to ask who can beat the Repuke in Sept?

We have to win this time out or we are screwed.

My Mom's take was interesting: She wants Hillary (no surprise) because the men have had their chance running things and she feels America is behind the rest of the world in not having had a Lady Leader. I'm not sure I agree but I can see why she would say that.

I'm still deciding.......

[leftofthedial]

42. of course, you could also go for Obama because the white people

have had their chance . . .

[sellitman]

51. I wonder

I wonder who pisses off the Righties more?

A Black man or a Woman?

Either way they will freak.

[leftofthedial]

64. they are ecstatic

comfortable in their self conviction that Amurka will never elect anyone except a rich white guy.

[BootinUp]

23. Watch the townhall with Hillary

tonight, if you want to see how she answers everyday folks questions

9pm Hallmark Channel or online at www.hillaryclinton.com

I think she is the real thing, and she stands up for what she believes. I could go into an explanation of the IWR as I do think she gets a bum rap on it, but I doubt you want to go there.

The IWR should not be a litmus test - Wes Clark 2003.

[leftofthedial]

45. thanks

I'll try to turn it on

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I followed the exact same path you did. Strong Kucinich supporter, leaning

Edwards when he droppoed out, settled for Obama because we might get lucky with him where-as we already know Hill is DLC heavy.

Obama seems to be able to actuqlly move and excite many who have been less than political. He has a shot at getting something done by moving people to put pressure on congress.

Plus Obama will have the best chance of beating McCain.

[Stephanie]

26. Vote for CHANGE!

A lifetime of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is too much for anybody to endure. And read this Obama speech and remember the day Sen. Clinton broke your heart with that cynical, self-serving vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4327360

[sellitman]

37. Taking points won't win my vote.

After bush either Obama or Clinton are change.

Welcome change.

[Stephanie]

48. Clinton's self-serving IWR vote is not a talking point

It is the moral test of our time. And she failed.

[cgrindley]

27. You could vote for Gravel... he might still be on the ballot somewhere (nt)

[leftofthedial]

49. hell, I could just write my own name in . . .

LOL

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. go for the non-hawk

[leftofthedial]

52. I don't think either of them is a non-hawk

Clinton is just a much bigger hawk.

Her dissembling over her IWR vote truly pisses me off though.

[tigereye]

44. I too, am torn

my feminist side says Hillary - I think she is more balanced and also concerned about more than only corporations and the middle class, despite many of the comments I see here. She's more moderate/right than I would like to see ( I really think she was much more liberal than her husband initially), but I think she could be highly competent, and has a very good grasp of issues, which would be a great pleasure given the inability to analyze complex information common to the current occupant of the White House. A friend of mine who lives in NYC (he is a pretty radical soul) feels that she has done a great job for the people in NY state.

I can see why folks are uncomfortable with some aspects of the "dynasty" concept of the Clintons, and she does have a lot of corporate support, but I suspect that Obama does as well. Unfortunately It seems that it is almost impossible to run for or attain the presidency without a large amount of money (sadly).

As for Obama, I am impressed by how many folks he has brought to the polls! He seems to inspire new voters in a way that Hillary does not. He reminds me that a new generation of culturally diverse voters and politicians have a great deal of power. I don't know that he has the level of experience or exposure to that level of experience that would be best for the complexity of the office. I actually would have preferred Richardson if I were picking only on the basis of experience. I like the concept of hope and how Obama seems to make folks feel excited about the prospect of change, a new perspective.


thanks for your openness in raising this question and good luck with your decision. We don't vote til April here, so I guess I have time to make up my mind!

[leftofthedial]

54. great and thoughtful response

I'm slightly leaning to Obama, but I'm just not enthusiastic at all.

[tigereye]

55. thanks - I think there are lot of complex issues here

and it's good to take some time to think 'em through...


:hi:

[leftofthedial]

59. it is a frustrating time

to be a real liberal in America

[FlyingSquirrel]

47. Go to both their websites

Then make your decision on what you read there - if you've been reading DU you'll probably have all the negativity you need to refute stuff you read on their websites on your own and come up with a general idea who would be better.

(Not that there's that much difference)

I'd make your biggest single issue be which one is most likely to be elected in Nov. over a Repug ticket

[leftofthedial]

61. I've been to both websites

I was hoping for something more . . . substantial


they are within whiskers of one another on nearly every first- and second-tier issue. Neither really proposes to change much of anything. It's all either VERY minor tweaking to the status quo or is so vague as to be meaningless.

[FlyingSquirrel]

72. If it's substantial you want..

Just throw aside everything then and vote on which one has a better shot at beating the Repug nominee. That's likely to be McCain.

Most recent Rasmussen tracking poll: McCain 47%, Clinton 39%; McCain 44%, Obama 44%

Clinton has high negatives among Republicans and Independents that she has not been able to overcome. The slime machine has a head start on her.

[Zorra]

50. Maybe this will help!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4390102

It helped me; now I'm definitely voting for Kucinich in the primary.

[cooolandrew]

65. Barack has passed the largest ethics reorms in congress history drawn up by himself, this define him

He has drawn up stricter and more tranparent rules for campaign donations. He's very practical and does these moves incrementally, so as not to upset too many people. In 2004 Kerry was blamed for being too detailed, Barack has taken this on and is keeping the message simple but consistent. The fundamental fact is detailed messages switch people off , not with great people on DU of course, but most of the general population who watch little news and no cspan.

[mondo joe]

67. I don't seek to convince you. I support Clinton. I encourage you to vote as you see fit.

:-)

[ZombieHorde]

69. I am a DK fan.

Clinton and Obama seem similar to me. I would be pleased with either of them, but not as pleased as I would be with Kucinich.

I lean towards Obama only because I believe that he has a better chance of winning the GE. A dear friend of mine is a Republican and he told me that he liked Obama. He seems to excite a lot of people.

My independent friends told me that they would never vote for Clinton. I was going to ask them why, but then I remembered that they don't follow politics at all.

If Clinton was the one exciting people outside the liberal core the most (in my view), I would gladly lean towards her.

Both Clinton and Obama are way better then any republican.

[kurth]

71. Do whatever you want. Think for yourself.

It's a free country.