As someone who has no particular fondness for either "front runner"...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

I see the constant flame wars between the supporters of the two candidates as an indication that both sides realize that their candidate is not up to the challenges facing this country.

I'd like to ask supporters of both candidates:

1. What aspects of the Republican agenda, starting with the Reagan Revolution, will your candidate undo? Or will your candidate be like Tony Blair, who didn't reverse a single thing that Margaret Thatcher instituted?

2. Will your candidate not only get out of Iraq but cut the military budget to match the U.S.'s actual defense needs, not the wish lists of military contractors and multinational corporations?

3. Which of your candidates is going to educate the American people instead of playing to their worst fears and idiocies?

4. Which of your candidates is going to be the first to stop the trash talking (both candidates have serious flaws) and outline specific plans for getting the country back on track?

I've been to both candidates' websites, so I don't want a sermon or a canned essay by a campaign staffer to tell me to vote for your candidate. My caucus is over, and I voted "uncommitted." I'm a non-participant till November.

I just want you flame warriors to sit back and think about THE ISSUES instead of all this middle school pettiness about who said what to whom.

[waiting for hope]

1. Amen and nicely stated.

[TooBigaTent]

2. Amen, Lydia. Until either of the two address these issues in a straighforward manner,

I am not sure if I am even willing to hold my nose for either one come November.

The important thing is not the contest between the two, but the consequences of what either of them actually do.

[Benhurst]

5. Amen!

:applause:

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. When NYers invited HRC, we knew we had a winner. If it takes more

time, we're patient. If you haven't made up your mind yet, that's your problem ... I began my support eight years ago.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. My time for input has passed

The choice will have been made for me by November.

I'm just asking the flame warriors to step back and think. Frankly, I think that neither candidate is really up to the massive demands of the task that lies ahead, not unless they indicate such by stopping the attack ads and focusing on the serious changes that they have to make to save this country from ruin.

[Benhurst]

18. Somewhere along the way, this process devolved into a battle of egos

between The Two Biggest Losers and their followers.

Neither of the "top runners" looks destined to achieve a majority and cross the agreed upon 2025 goal. Both have failed and have been voted against by more Democrats than have voted for them.

I wish there had been a provision for a national runoff, but it's too late now, and that is only one of the many flaws of a process which itself may have altered the nature of the contest to such an extent it's difficult to know how much ranking first or second really matters.

There has been little or no debate on matters facing this country, only discussions moderated by representatives of a hostile corporate media interested in maintaining the status quo. The absurdity, for instance, of having lackeys from General Electric, one the world's greatest merchants of death, grilling our candidates, boggles the mind.

And why isn't anyone talking about the election process itself? After two stolen presidential elections, nothing has changed. Why haven't our "leaders," including Clinton and Obama, been screaming for reform over the past three years?

No matter how the convention mess resolves itself, my recurring nightmare is we'll awake on November the 5th to the talking heads rationalizing the third stolen presidential election by pontificating, "when it came to making a choice, Americans proved unwilling to vote for an African American (or a woman, as the case may be) for president of the United States." And what, in God's name, are we going to be able to do about it?

[JimGinPA]

7. I'm Sorry - "When NYers invited HRC"...

C'mon. Really?

[AndyA]

8. If you haven't made up your mind yet, that's your problem

And it will be YOUR PROBLEM when another Republican gets the White House in 2009. Your attitude does nothing except fuel the issue.

Hillary isn't the ideal candidate. Neither is Barack. In fact, they are both far from it. And there are many who feel as the original poster does.

If enough Dems can't make up their minds and sit out voting in November, it will become your problem real fast when John McCain continues Bush's destruction.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. Who says we need an ideal candidate? I've done mine against

the machine ... if all you have is snark - talk to the hand.

[AndyA]

38. You'll be using your hand to slap yourself when McSame moves to

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Remember your foolishness when that happens. :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I was talking about the supporters in particular

As I said, I no longer have any input into the process, because I live in a Super Tuesday state.

I'd like the supporters to pressure their candidates into talking about the issues, cutting out the ego games, and remembering that they're in the same party.

[JuniperLea]

6. Well said!

I voted for Edwards, and I still feel he should have stuck it out. All this BS between the two camps would have surely pushed a lot more votes in his direction.

[havocmom]

11. Thinkin you have a point about how the current morass would create support for Edwards

People want to talk issues and look at possible solutions to very serious problems. The school-yard crap the campaign has degenerated into since Edwards bowed out 'for the good of the party he was probably told' has only HURT the party. Hasn't helped America much either.

More divisive circus acts does not get us closer to solving problems which are hitting critical mass. The circus is just a diversion and diversion only serves the protectors of the status quo.

[JuniperLea]

14. Indeed!

I think that HRC and BHO are so much alike that this "divisive circus act" you have so very aptly coined is the only way to drive a wedge between the two. It's all smoke and mirrors. If you look closely at both, they are far, far more alike than they are different.

Neither will get us out of this half-baked war. Neither have any intention of correcting our financial woes. The only thing either of them has going is that they are not McCain.

[havocmom]

21. Personally, I will vote DEM in GE, no matter who is the top of the ticket

and I do it because of the Supreme Court vacancies that will be coming up. THAT is what I am focusing on at this point. My horse is out of the race. I can only hope for a DEM President appointing the next Supreme Justices and having the good sense to make Edwards the AG that we might actually do some overdue house cleaning in OUR government.

[JuniperLea]

39. I'm with you on all that!

:toast:

[OneBlueSky]

9. 5. Will your candidate take steps to bring BushCo to justice for their crimes . . . n/t

.

[JuniperLea]

15. DING! DING! DING!

Now there is the $64 Billion dollar question!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. That's another one

We need a Truth Commission.

[merbex]

12. Timely post; last week showed Obama has a bunch of advisers

either not ready for prime time or in the case of Goolsbee could be working for Maragaret Thatcher when it comes to policy( just google his name and check out his page at Chicago School of Economics)

As for Hillary, jesus, if how she has run this campaign( Mark Penn, the inhouse fighting, the blowing through the contributions, the throw the kitchen sink strategy because her initial one was so off - again thanks to Mark Penn) is any indication about her administration..... she has a steep learning curve as well.

So, as someone who already voted for one of these 2 but without enthusiasm because my guy Edwards got out, I'm just watching ( and a little bit appalled) by what it coming.

I will say this: I would crawl over broken glass to vote for either one over McCain but really, to the supporters of both..... you aren't making it easy for me, and neither are the decisions or advisor choices that your candidates have made making me feel any better

[TomClash]

13. With Barack

1. The tax cuts for the Uber-rich begin to be rolled back in year one and the troops start to come home.

2. I think both candidates will move in that direction - Bill Clinton did. The country needs the cash.

3. Take a look at the campaign - pretty easy to answer which candidate won't play to fears and idiocies.

4. Both candidates have plans for almost every issue - look at their websites.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Then they need to talk about those things, not this personal stuff

Right now, they're like two housemates who are fighting about who didn't take out the garbage and who ran up the phone bill and who didn't clean up after their pets, while someone is pounding on their door and saying, "Hey, your house is on fire!" Even they can smell the smoke. But they're so caught up in their petty squabbles that they don't do anything about it.

[Celebration]

16. differences

You know, none of us are fortune tellers, and a lot has to do with what the legislative branch will go along with. We only have their record to go by, and their platforms.

To me, their are four main differences between Obama and Clinton, based on their records, and their platforms.

1. Open government is my biggest issue, and Clinton is refusing to release her tax returns before the Pennsylvania primary. That and other things lead me to believe that Obama will be better for open government.

2. The War Vote-- self explanatory

3. The Bankruptcy Vote--This is HUGE. Anyone that voted for that (Clinton) is economically ignorant. Obama voted against it. That is one of the biggest issues that played into our housing bubble, because rating companies used it as an excuse to give AAA ratings to almost all consumer debt that was bundled. Now look at the mess we are in!! That is beside the fact that in a way it is a return to a debtor's prison.

4. Obama is a supporter of the Tax Haven Abuse Act. We are losing 60 billion dollars to companies and hedge funds that are located in island nations. The mainstream media won't cover this issue, and there are people shaking in their boots that this will become an issue here, as it has in the EU. Clinton is not a supporter of this legislation.

5. As to trash talking, and playing to fears, just look at the last couple of weeks and make your own judgments.



For tax haven abuse, if you want more information, please see my post--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4970563&mesg_id=4970563

This is one of those emblematic issues that define the two candidates, and nobody is covering it.

[psychopomp]

17. 2 words

Open government.

If done right, it is revolutionary.

[frazzled]

19. Ah, the old "perfect is the enemy of the good" rises again

You stand above either of these candidates, because neither, in the course of politicking for a nomination, is saying what you, lydia leftcoast, wants to hear from them or give you the assurance that they will be the true and good fighters for all that is right. Because, of course, your ideas are correct, and there is no room to consider that joe blow in cleveland or granny goodchild in portland may not hold defense budget discussions as their top priority in trying to figure out how to vote next Tuesday. It must be your discussion, with fealty to your advanced agenda, point by point, and if the candidates aren't addressing each issue in the way you desire because they have a very broad public and a cutthroat national media to attend to, then screw 'em.

Believe me, a spokesperson for the revolutionary brigades, as much as we might like it, will not get nominated and will not win against John McCain. Reading a candidate's website proposals on issues is no indication of what proposals will ultimately be put forth (or more importantly get passed through Congress).

Take a leap of faith. Accept that there are better and worse choices. Accept that the world is not perfect and massive change does not come easily. Accept that politics is indeed a game: has been and always will be. Stay on the sidelines for the duration of the nomination battle-that is fine, as long as you vote for the Democrat next November. But don't tell the rest of us that the arduous investigation of issues, leadership, character, and general gut feeling we have been conducting these long many months is for nought--that we have not done our homework. We have. We've made our uncertain, imperfect choices. How insulting to tell us we have not been vigilant enough.

You ask us to look harder at the issues, yet you have looked and decided to stay outside. Why should we look then?

[Celebration]

20. give her a break

After all, I am correct on all issues too!

Don't we all feel that way?

;)


If we weren't passionate about our positions, we wouldn't be here.

I have tried to start substantive posts about the different positions of the candidates in GDP, and they just sink.

My mom loved the quotation "Everyone's crazy but thee and me, and sometimes I even worry about thee."

Heh heh. She laughed every time she said it.

[frazzled]

22. no, I'm not correct on all the issues

because I'm not a health economist, military strategist, or expert on recession and job growth or trade policy. I try the best I can, and I hope I'm simply pointed in the right direction. I know I'm not going to get everything I want (universal single-payer health care, for example). I just try to figure out how to get the ball get kicked farther down the field.

But I also understand that to get elected in this country, you have to do the political game. That it's not all about policy wonking each specific issue. That we always take a risk in electing a nominee. That some forces are beyond our control. That there are two sides to every coin. That there are competing interests in this country that have to be negotiated.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I'm "outside" because I live in a Super Tuesday state

and I went through the routine of supporting someone I wasn't that crazy about in 2004. Believe me, there are a lot of us who are furious with Kerry for conceding so fast when 10,000 people in the Twin Cities spent all Election Day door knocking in the cold.

I'm not talking about MY issues. I'm talking about the things that are EVERYONE's issues. They are issues that people outside the Beltway are actually worried about. They aren't Left or Right, they're Sensible.

If you can't see that the issues I mentioned are real issues, then perhaps you have a bad case of Conventional Wisdomitis.

[frazzled]

34. You can't have a dog and not have it in the fight

That is the problem I am addressing: one of these two candidates is going to be the nominee (just as Kerry, who definitely wasn't my first choice, became the nominee in 2004; I worked for him anyway, and was just as disappointed in his campaigning as you--he would, however, have made a very excellent president, and certainly an excrutiatingly far better president than Bush.)

Regarding the issues: we all agree that the candidates are not very far apart on those, and that where they appear to be it is generally a quetion of campaign rhetoric meant to draw distinctions for the political race--I fully expect the web site positions to be substantially altered should one of the candidates end up in the White House. That has been the case in every election I can recall, and I've been following them since 1972.

And no, I don't think these are everyone's issues. I spent 3 months canvassing door to door in New Hampshire in 2003-4. I came back to my elitist little left-wing town in Massachusetts (Chomsky lives there, fer chrissake), and at a meeting where everyone was asked to tell what their most important issue in the campaign was, I was struck by the disconnect between these answers (which were essentially my answers: foreign policy, constitutional assaults, etc.) and what senior citizens and working folk were telling me in response to the same question on their doorsteps, in the cold. It was then that I realized that not everyone is framing questions about the country, or making decisions about electoral races, in the same way I was. That we have people thinking in different ways and on different levels about the country--and none of these ways are more or less valid than others.

So, one of these candidates is going to be the nominee. What we are left with is: pick the goddamned candidate you think (and your reasoning won't be the same as everyone else's) will be

1. better (not perfect) on the issues
2. better (not perfect) at waging a campaign against the Republican candidate
3. better (not perfect) at achieving solultions the enormous problems the country will be facing
4. and yes, better (not perfect) at disengaging us from the ball-and-chain of Reaganist political philosophy we have been dragging around since the 1980s.

I made a decision (Obama), and I'm really not all that certain about it. But, with the hand we've been dealt, it was the best play I thought I could make at the time. If I get dealt another hand come November, I'll have to play with that. This is not about "conventional wisdom": it's about reality--and a little dose of humility, that I don't know everything.

[cali]

23. Sounds like you're not very well informed even if you have been to candidate websites

There are answers to many of the questions you pose. Oh, and your post isn't really about issues. It's simply a smug little diatribe about how superior you think you are. blech.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Well, frankly, I do feel superior to a bunch of junior high squabblers

and I'm not ashamed to say so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. The real problem, I think, is that we got the celebrity candidates

the media fluffed from the beginning -- the first woman and the first African-American. Because of their novelty they got all the publicity, and none of the others could get any traction. Obama won Iowa, Clinton lost! Actually, Clinton came in third; there was that other guy... what was his name...? Oh, yeah; Edwards... who came in second. He wasn't one of the two Interesting Candidates, though, so it was all ClintonObamaClintonObamaClintonObama. Same for the others. You want really solid foreign policy experience instead of feeble resume-padding and scary red phones? How about Joe Biden? Huh? Joe who?

So now we have these two, neither of whom is likely the best we could have chosen. I made a choice during my state's caucus based entirely on a cold-blooded calculation as to who I thought would have the best chance of winning the general election. Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope that the trash-talking will stop because the ridiculous process designed by the rocket scientists at the DNC to prevent the unwashed rabble from making the decision pretty much requires the candidates to try to destroy each other.

[dailykoff]

27. They are worlds apart on the issues, like night and day.

Hi Lydia, once you cut through the crap it's pretty easy to see which candidate has been telling the truth all along and which one is running a PR campaign worthy of Hill & Knowlton. Here are a couple of recycled posts I hope you'll find useful:
.......................
"Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War"

Senator Barack Obama (D-Il), then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago:



"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

"I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

"I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

from full speech at link: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm?rd=1

.......................
Compare Candidate's Votes:

Hillary:
- NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
- YES on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.
- YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take military action against Iran.
- YES on the Iraq War Resolution.
- Hillary refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.

Obama:
- YES on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
- NO on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.
- In response to the Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take military action against Iran Obama drafted legislation stating that Congress did not grant President Bush the authority to attack Iran, either through the Kyl-Lieberman amendment or any resolution previously adopted.
- Not then in the Senate but took a public stand against the Iraq War Resolution
- OBAMA signed the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.

McCain:
- NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
- YES on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.
- YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take military action against Iran.
- YES on the Iraq War Resolution.
- McCain refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.

link to original post by grassfed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4990975&mesg_id=4990975

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. So they need to talk about these things, not use scummy attack ads

The attacks allow the media to play their favorite election year game, "Horse Race," without any reference to anything of actual substance.

The corporate media are THE ENEMY. They will let the candidates destroy and discredit each other unless the candidates refuse to play their game of "Let's You Two Fight."

[dailykoff]

35. That's kind of like saying "the US and Iraq need to cut it out."

Obama has been running a clean campaign. The Clintons have been running a swiftboat campaign assisted by media stooges, just like in 2004. I don't know how you could miss that.

[redqueen]

30. The candidate will have to work with congress.

Kinda hard to map how that's gonna go beforehand.

[KoKo]

33. Thank you Lydia....you get to the heart of the election.

:thumbsup: I can't believe that both candidates aren't being forced to say what they feel about Bush's Shredding the Constitution and what they will do to undo what Bush/Cheney have done in flaunting Executive Secrecy and Privilege. It's the silent elephant in the room as they sling stones at each other.

[Armstead]

36. Questions 1 and 2 - Neither ........ questions 3 and 4 - Obama

Hi Lydia.

As you have probably figured out, I share your opinions in almost every way (except for the Kucinich candidacy, although I do agree with him on the issues).

But I do believe that between Clinton and Obama there is no comparison on many levels. I don;t like Obama's centrism and caution on the issues. However, I do believe that he is honestly trying to reshape politics, by generating enthusiasm and encouraging a belief that people can make a difference. He is not trash-talking or playing on fears.

That is Step One towards more substantial change.

Clinton is perpetuating the divisive dead-end politics that has alienated so many people from the political process.

Therefore I do see an important difference.

[Jillian]

37. I say Hillary in the first 2 questions, Obama in the third. Obama and Hillary split the 4th.

Hillary has better concrete plans, but Obama is a bit smoother when it comes to the trash talk.