Daily Kos

Who do I vote for in 2008??

Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:01:38 PM PDT

In 2004, I voted for Al Sharpton in the California Democratic primary.  At that point, it was a foregone conclusion that John Kerry would be the party's nominee but nothing excited me about him.  This may not sound like much, but when Sharpton faced a question in the debates about gay rights, he said something similar to "I don't care who you sleep with, I don't care about what you do in your bedroom, now let's stop messing around and get to the issues that matter to those two men or women when they go about their daily lives!"  

He was not sidestepping the question.  To the contrary, his remark (which I am sure I butchered) was meant to convey the notion that gay marriage was simply a wedge issue used by the Republicans to distract the voters from the majority of issues that the Democrats dominate.  I liked Sharpton's direct approach, his ability to rise above the noise, and I answered his call to "provide me with delegates at the convention" so that the other Democrats HAD to listen to his views.

But I digress . . .

I generally like each of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination this year.  This year, however, I'm limiting my vote to the three candidates who I believe actually have a chance at winning the nomination . . . and I think you know who they are.

The problem is that I like all three of these candidates nearly equally, and they don't differentiate themselves strongly enough on the issues that are the most important to me.  I like Barack Obama because of his unique background, his devotion to the law as a scholar and a legislator (disclosure:  lawyer here), his intelligence, his youthfulness, and his long opposition to the Iraq War.  I like Hillary Clinton because she is a trailblazer and I would love to see this country governed by a woman, she has had an extremely difficult personal life (publicly) and has remained successful and strident despite it, and I think she's pretty close to me on most domestic issues.  I like John Edwards because I think his domestic policies would be the most oriented toward aiding the middle class and poor (although I generally strongly distrust simplistic, populist economic policies), he has finally seen the light on Iraq, and I believe he has the best chance to win the general election.

The issues that matter most to me are, in the following order (I will pontificate on Iraq . . . on the other issues, I will simply say that I would like to support the candidate whose position is the most liberal):

  1.  Iraq.  I was in Italy with my brother and my best friend when the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003.  I will never forget the German students staying in our hostel with whom we watched the U.S. drop bombs on Iraq on an old 9 inch television in a crappy kitchen.  They asked "why is your country doing this?" and "do you agree with your president?"  It was difficult to try to explain that many Americans were against this war and this president's actions, even though I shared in their disgust at what we were watching.  As we traveled throughout Italy, we faced more and more questions about just what the hell the U.S. was doing, and we knew and agreed that it was clearly very wrong.  When I returned to the U.S., I was an outspoken critic of the U.S.'s actions in Iraq, and to my shock and dismay, most Americans carried on as if there was no war going on at all, as if there were no bombs being dropped on innocents in Baghdad.  The obliviousness of so many Americans was shocking when compared to the attitude of the Italian people, who were ardently and very vocally against this war.  Over the past 5 years, I have continued to speak out against this war.  Now, however, I believe that there is no easy answer to the problems facing Iraq.  We have broken this country, and it is our moral obligation to fix it, whether that means providing financial aid, assistance in providing security, or something else.  What I certainly do not believe we should do is immediately withdraw our troops and wash our hands of this mess.  I think we need a comprehensive plan, something akin to the Marshall Plan, to assist in Iraq's recovery.
  1.  Universal healthcare
  1.  Raising the minimum wage
  1.  Doing more to protect the environment (e.g., reducing pollution, required use of renewable energy, HUGE taxes on drivers of trucks and SUVs who do not have a documented, reasonable need for such vehicles, etc.)
  1.  Immigration reform (e.g., providing a sensible path to citizenship for the millions who have been living in the shadows for years, securing the border and easing restrictions on obtaining visas)
  1.  Gay rights (marital equality would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath)
  1.  Education reform

So who should I vote for, and why?

Tags: 2008 democratic primary, 2008 elections, primary, president (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 88 comments

  •  It's not just (6+ / 0-)

    a matter of ticking off a list and voting for who has the most check marks.

    Can you trust them?

    Do they inspire?

    Do they make you feel that dedication isn't just a word, but it's an ideal to be respected and held dear?

    It's a personal question.

    While people may be able to make me less opposed to certain candidates, no one can ever convince me to actively support one of them.

    Because their arguments of support are not my own. Only my feelings, thoughts and commitments are important.

    Who should you support?

    You tell us.

    I stand by my original analogy between the Joker and bin Laden and the Riddler and Hussein. -- Greasy Grant

    by TheBlaz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:04:25 PM PDT

    •  That's the problem (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Trix, dadanation, snout, trashablanca, TheBlaz

      I like them fairly equally.  If I had to vote tomorrow, it would be for either Obama or Edwards, but I would still have an extremely difficult time choosing one over the other.  Because I feel very strongly about Iraq, and because I have been against the war from its inception, I would probably pull the lever for Obama.  That said, if one of the three came out in support of extending marital rights to same-sex couples tomorrow, I would switch my vote to that candidate.

      •  Fair enough. (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Trix, snout, trashablanca, anthonyLA

        And I can understand the difficulties in choosing.

        We're simultaneously lucky and cursed in having such good candidates.

        I stand by my original analogy between the Joker and bin Laden and the Riddler and Hussein. -- Greasy Grant

        by TheBlaz on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:11:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So you're between O and E? Then vote Edwards. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        anthonyLA

        Heh, you asked...

        Edwards will fare better against the Republicans.

      •  Don't vote for Obama, please (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        DCDemocrat, anthonyLA

        What he did with Donnie McClurkin was inexcusable.  And not only was it wrong but it showed what a wimp Obama is, not the type who is strong enough to be president.  I don't see how any self respecting gay man could pull the lever for someone who will easily sell our rights down the river and would so easily demean and attack the gay community just to serve some narrow electoral purpose.    

        And as for ending the war, it shouldn't matter who on the Democratic side supported or opposed it at the beggining.  The fact is, we're there now and we have to figure out how to get ourselves out of this situation.  You want someone competent and experienced.

        That said, if one of the three came out in support of extending marital rights to same-sex couples tomorrow, I would switch my vote to that candidate.

        It's not going to happen.  But there are other important laws that need to be passed first before we even get to marriage.  

        Build the Wilshire Subway!

        by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:37:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  WhatTheBlaz said. (7+ / 0-)

      The sad reality about the debate we've see here at Dkos up to now is that it has been completely dishonest.

      The positions our candidates take are practically meaningless.  The less viable candidates take purer stands becausr that's how they can draw attention and support.  The more viable candidates hedge because hardcore profressive campaign promises will hurt in a general election.  The reality is, all of the Democratic candidates share basic values on these issues.  To the extent that real differences do exist, for the most part congress will nullify any differences once they take up these agenda items.

      Only in the case of foreign policy can a real differences be garnered - but I'll leave that to you to decide for yourself how.

      I'm supporting Obama.  Out of all the candidates I think he has the approach that will actually result in implementation of much of his agenda.  But that's my opinion and you certainly don't have to share it.

      'I speak, therefore I act' is the great American illusion of politics.

      by snout on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:15:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Weird. (0+ / 0-)

        I do not think that's why they "do" it (take stands) - they just... DO, and HAVE, due to principle.

        The less viable candidates take purer stands becausr that's how they can draw attention and support.

        What is "viable", anyway?

        And are the ones of "purer" stands REALLY drawing support?  Hmm.

        THAT's what's wrong with the US of A.

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Prognosticator

          You might notice that the more "courageous" stands are always taken by the candidates with the lower poll numbers/less money etc.

          This has gone on for decades.  Nader took more courageous stands than Gore.  Brown took more courageous stands than Clinton.  It is how marginal candidates get any base of support at all.

          Don't get me wrong - I'm not so cynical that I believe this is a bad thing.  We need these candidates to pull the debate to the left.  But let's not fool oursleves about this dynamic.  If any of the more "courageous" candidates were frontrunners - their campaigns would become more risk adverse too.

          'I speak, therefore I act' is the great American illusion of politics.

          by snout on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:16:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Outstanding comment. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:46:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I chose to support Senator Biden (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      blue jersey mom

      Not because I think he'll be the Democratic nominee, but with the goal of giving him as much influence as possible in writing the Democratic Platform in 2008.  The reason being, of course, to get his foreign policy input formalized in the Democratic strategy for next year.  And also he might get the VP nod.  Lastly, especially for the low-polling candidates support given early is much more significant than jumping on a bandwagon later.

      You can find a diary on that on my hope page if you think the line of thought is worth following.

  •  I haven't a clue Tony. Not a clue. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA

    For me the number one issue is energy and the environment, and really, I'm at a loss.

    In previous years, the President has been picked by the people of Iowa and New Hampshire - Heckuva job Iowa and New Hampshire - but I have just found out that my state has moved its primary up to an early enough date that my vote might actually count.

    I voted for Howard Dean - he was still on the ballot but no longer formally in the race - in the last New Jersey primary, but like you, the issue had already been decided by the time I voted.

    This year, I'll really have to look at the candidates.   I'm going to give Dodd a look.   I'd be an Edwards man I think, except for his position on energy.

    My wife is probably going to vote for Edwards, but I'm probably not going there.    I can count on one hand the number of times that my wife and I have voted differently, but this primary season it may happen.

  •  C'mon now, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Prognosticator

    posting a diary entitled "who do I vote for" at this late date = "hey, look at me!"

    You know who you like, who you don't, and why.  You don't need my advice.

    As my dear Mother always said, "Don't go borrow trouble."

    No more Republican rule.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:11:21 PM PDT

    •  I like them all (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dadanation, SoCalLiberal, cpresley

      I seriously have no clue and wanted to hear some debate (aside from the "(My candidate) just did slightly better than (your candidate) in X poll" that I've become accustomed to.  I want to hear about these candidates--from their supporters and their detractors--on the issues that matter to me.  

      •  Hillary is the one major candidate (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem, anthonyLA, cpresley

        who understands that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive (she said the same thing about security and human rights).

        What she is proposing makes sense.

        -A 50 billion Strategic Energy Investment fund.

        -Cap and Trade Policy for Pollution

        -Making all federal buildings environmentally sound

        -Creating an Energy Council to actually enforce laws and come up with policies to reduce greenhouse emissions and increase the amount of renewable energy.

        -Making 20% of all energy used renewable energy by 2020.  

        Now, where she lacks a plan is on infrastructure.  I think I know why, it's not particularly sexy.  I mean federal funds to build an underground rapid transit system in the metropolitan Los Angeles area (if designed and built correctly) could dramatically decrease carbon emissions but no one really is interested in that (except for me...hence my tag line).  We also could use a new center of R and D of green technologies.  We should put this in the rust belt and work to change the rust belt to the "green belt"....it would kill two birds with one stone.  

        Also again, strong on LGBT rights.

        -Supports Civil Unions
        -Will sign ENDA into law that includes LGBT people.
        -Will sign Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes bill into law.
        -Will end abstinence only education iniatives
        -Will end don't ask, don't tell
        -Supports including LGBT people in Fair Housing Laws.  
        -Like Bill, she will appoint openly gay people to positions in the White House and Executive Branch (just think Anthony, you could be the next Sean Maloney)

        Build the Wilshire Subway!

        by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:49:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Hillary is the one major candidate (0+ / 0-)

          who understands that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive..."

          Is she now?  And WTF does that mean, ANYway?  (Exactly...)  Gore himSELF has had trouble enough getting traction with such "ideas"...

          I don't even like the SOUND of "Strategic Energy Investment fund".

          It sounds like a crooked, capitulating scheme...

          •  OK. Maybe it's a (0+ / 0-)

            FINE governmental "initiative" that Clinton herself has come up with.

            Maybe it's NOT crooked, etc.  

            But it damn sure gives my gut pause, and one's "gut" is right, 99% of the time...

            "Strategic Energy Investment Fund" - what would it cover (my and your heating bill?), how much would it cost (US taxpayers) and who would profit?  Hmmph.

            It STILL sounds shady.  (Sorry, I was trying to be positive... I'll quit, now.  I'm obviously not good at it.)

            •  Again.... (0+ / 0-)

              But it damn sure gives my gut pause, and one's "gut" is right, 99% of the time...

              I'm trying to not argue with people here but that's simply a load of crap.  Gut instinct is not correct 99% of the time.  

              Build the Wilshire Subway!

              by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Just because you're an idiot (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            DCDemocrat

            Doesn't mean that this country shouldn't do something that would be great for it.  Or that Hillary is crooked.  

            Build the Wilshire Subway!

            by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And I don't think the date is terribly late! (3+ / 0-)

      I have until Feb 5 to decide . . . years in politics.

      •  Ok, then. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        anthonyLA, LaEscapee

        If you're really undecided (and I have no real reason not to believe you), then here goes:

        1.  Iraq:  Dennis Kucinich is your candidate.  He voted against the IWR in 2002, and in 2004, he ran on "If it was wrong to go in, it's wrong to stay in."  Hands down, absolutely correct.
        1.  Universal Healthcare: Again, Kucinich is the way to go.  He's the only one advocating Single-Payer National Healthcare. But, if you want to stick with viable candidates, John Edwards has the best plan of the Big Three.  Hillary liked it so much, she adopted it, nearly verbatim.  She opened his plan in Word, and did a global change of "Hillary Clinton" for "John Edwards".  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)
        1.  Raising the minimum wage:  Just about any Democrat will do.  This is how we roll.  It's a core value.  Although, and I'll admit I'm a partisan, I think John Edwards is the most dedicated to workers' issues.
        1.  The environment:  I have nothing to say.  I cannot offer a studied opinion on the candidates and their environmental programs.  I think all Democrats like and want to protect the environment, though.  (I'm from the Rust Belt, so forgive me for my ignorance on this issue. We still put jobs first, 'round here.)
        1. Immigration Reform:  From what I can determine, the Democrats are of a like mind on Immigration.  As long as you're law abiding, you don't get kicked out.  But, we'll do the perfunctory thing to appease the jingoistic masses, and make you learn English and pay a nominal fine for entering illegally.  We're not into splitting up families, especially hard-working ones.  Further, and unlike the GOP, who seem be consumed by their insatiable need of sub-minimum wage manual labor at their estates, we Democrats will finally enforce the borders, though. And we should.
        1.  Gay Rights:  All the leading Democratic candidates (save Kucinich) suck on gay rights.  But they all suck much, much, less than any Republican.  It is important, and we'll have our moment, but gay rights is not the hill I want to die on in this election.
        1.  Education Reform: Chris Dodd's your man.  There is no other.  He owns education.  In any Democratic administration, he's the Secretary of Education, and he must be listened to.

        So, who are you voting for?  :)  

        No more Republican rule.

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:58:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul ;) n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    HarveyMilk, anthonyLA, cjallen, LaEscapee
  •  Hey, your Diary is me, (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dadanation, anthonyLA

    particularly concerning the bullet point check list of issues. I have vacillated between Obama and Edwards. Am not anti Hilary, but believe of the three, she will be the most difficult to elect. Fully believe she can win, but would rather not have to work my ass off getting her into the WH. Today I am leaning Edwards as I see him shaking things up the most and resurrecting America's Middle Class. Finally, I hate to sound anti religious, am not in the least, but truly hope that with the 2008 election that the evangelicals will be put back under a rock for the next 50+ years. Religion and religious values belong in church, please keep them out of politics. America did just fine prior to little w, thank you, without focusing on religion, there is no reason we cannot return to sane behaviors.  

    •  You may get your wish (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      anthonyLA

      The wingnuts are having fits thinking they might actually end up with a true believer after all the fakes they have paraded through. I fully expect them to demonize the religous candidates before it's over. If they do it to the shuckster in favor of smit they are going to piss off some evangelicals.

      Let the games begin ;~)

  •  Our System Is Nearing Inability to Seriously (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    eugene, alyosha, Fishgrease, trashablanca

    address any of these concerns.

    So I'm trying to decide between someone who'd work for fundamental change of the system --none exists-- or at some major reform --certainly non-frontrunner-- or else personality, to be able to vote on an issue that's actually in play.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:28:17 PM PDT

    •  Fundamental change is my focus (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      anthonyLA, LaEscapee

      You can make as long a list of people's concerns as you like, health care, the environment, occupation of Iraq, funding education, homelessness, etc, but as long as it takes gobs of money to successfully run for office then the man with the money has the power and those issues don't concern wall street.

      John Edwards is in favor of Clean Money elections (as well as ending lobbyists gifts) which would go a long way toward changing the face of our representatives. When the representatives are free of the corruptive influence of big money, then the problems that face common people will start to be addressed.

      The system is rotten and John Edwards is the only one of the front runners publicly advocating fundamental change. My hope is that Obama feels the same and is hiding his true beliefs to make himself more electable. But I only know what I hear, so the choice is obvious to me.

      •  interesting (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        SoCalLiberal, LaEscapee

        I don't understand why advocating publicly funded elections would be such a negative.  It's a pittance in comparison to the overall budget.

        •  Yes, Clean Money saves money (0+ / 0-)

          In California, Assembly Bill 583 was recently passed by the lower house (the Assembly) and now goes on to the Senate. It is a Clean Money bill that proposes a modest trial program of running the Governor's office as Clean and a couple of other state offices. It was passed along party lines, Dems pro and Repugs against, which is interesting because Republican legislators in AZ like it now they have tried it. AB 583's fate in the CA Senate is uncertain, but it is a slam dunk that the Gropinator will veto it.

          There is a lot of resistance to Clean Money by incumbents. They don't like to give up power. Dick Durbin introduced a Clean Money bill in the Senate, but that hasn't gone anywhere. Wall St and K St despise Clean Money because it will severely limit their influence, thus they will fight tooth and nail to oppose Clean Money and they will use their paid monkeys in office to block it if they can.

          It is up to the people to force this issue from the ground up. Lobby your city to run Clean. Portland, OR does and LA, CA is trying to. At the same time, work on your state government. Eventually it will work its way up to the national scene.

          Without a fundamental change in the way representatives are elected, i.e., without big money, I have little hope in this 200 yr experiment in democracy.

  •  Use your vote strategically (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pHunbalanced, anthonyLA

    Although I'm a permanent absentee here in CA - meaning I get my ballot on January 8 - I plan to hang on to it until the day of the election, so as to be able to maximize the value of my vote. I'm basically going to wake up on Feb 5, see who has the best chance of beating Hillary, and vote for that person.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:38:58 PM PDT

    •  why are you so opposed to Hillary? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal
    •  I also will vote my PAV at the last minute (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      eugene

        Remember to take it to any polling place in your county on 2/5 before 8PM. You don't want to mail it the day before the election because they only count ballots received by Election Day. You also save $.41 and know that the elections people received it for sure. (I save $.82 because I carry my mom's ballot in too...)
         At this point I am an Edwardian, for some of the reasons listed by others abovethread, but if he fades I may go to Obama, or if it is already decided I might vote for Dennis K. whose views match up closest with mine. We'll see what happens!

      I'm not a Limousine Liberal; I am a Prius Progressive

      by Zack from the SFV on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:51:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Dodd (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Prognosticator, anthonyLA, bluehawaii

    comes to mind. But I'm about to go to bed, so I'm not exactly prepared to defend my recommendation.

    I myself do not have a candidate.

  •  My $.02 (4+ / 0-)

    There's a lot to inspire me about Obama, but I don't trust his "can't we all just get along" approach.  I think that's naive, given how we've seen the right operate over the last couple of decades.  I heard him speak a few weeks ago, and he reminded me a lot of Jack Kennedy, but I just don't think that's gonna work this time around.  That said, I'd love to see a black man, esp one as educated and inspiring as Obama win.

    I would love to see a woman president.  And I know former Republicans who are truly scared by the utter recklessness of the current regime, and who actually pine for the two-for-one expertise of Bill and Hill.  Despite what many people say, I believe she will win the November election and win big.  I don't care for her, because she doesn't inspire and she has convenient principles - she'd sell us out in a minute.  She's too beholden to "the money power", as Jefferson would've put it.

    I like Edwards a lot.  He has the guts to say what's going on, regarding the marginalization of the poor and middle class.  Because the Democratic establishment and the media are against him, he's very much an underdog candidate, and yet I'm voting for him because his gutsiness both inspires me and he "gets" what is going on and is will to articulate it.  He is the most truthful to me, and is the most willing to call a spade a spade, and not dance around the issues.

  •  Edwards w00t! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA

    Just kidding.

    I'm gonna vote for Obama, because I said I would and I'll keep my word. From now on, I vote only for atheists.

    Which means I'll probably never vote again after 2008.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:58:02 PM PDT

  •  since we are not even yet into the primary season (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, anthonyLA

    i hardly think that now is too late to begin to really look at the candidates and decide which one really does speak to you and gives you the most hope.

    like you, i have a series of wishes and expectations that i use to look at each of the candidates and start my process there.

    your check-list is a good one.

    ultimately, my choice in the primaries will be the candidate whose platform, policies and proposed actions best aim to restore the parts of "The "Great Society" that the republicans have been decimating since reagan and which best aim to complete the whole program that was initiated by LBJ.

    i have no ideas at this point which of the candidates is the most qualified or capable of doing such a thing -- this pre-primary jockeying has been a bit of a disappointment and an overall enervating experience.  i am pretty certain that the democratic candidate who wins the nomination will have a final platform going into the general election which will be an altered, improved, expanded and more fine-tuned a platform than what they began with. so hope springs eternal with me i suppose.

    and one other little note --> i also can't wait for primary season to finally get underway so that a modicum of decency and respectful engagement can once again be commonplace here.

    _______________

    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

    by dadanation on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:02:49 PM PDT

  •  Anthony if I may (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, anthonyLA

    Can I interest you in

    John Edwards Plan for One America (pdf warning 1.94mb)

    I personally feel that there are fundamental changes that are going to have to be made for us to right this ship. I think the first step is to indentify the problem.

    It's like the alcoholic if you don't admit there is a problem it will never be addressed. John Edwards doesn't claim to be able to fix the problems facing us, but asks for our help.

    I hope you would check out the plan, but ultimately it's a personal preference. Good luck, friend.

  •  Don't vote for a Bourbon Democrat (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux

    If you want someone who will stay true to the best traditions of the Democratic Party, from Jefferson and Jackson through Roosevelt and Truman and the Kennedys, it's John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich, but DK isn't on your list.  If you want a Bourbon Democrat like Grover Cleveland or Woodrow Wilson, vote for Clinton or Obama.

    •  Have never heard that term (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal, cjallen

      glad to add one to my lexicon, although I do love Bourbon (the beverage).  I like Kucinich but he obviously is not viable.

      •  I'd hesitate to throw Clinton into that category (0+ / 0-)

        so quickly if it weren't for her husband and her involvment with the DLC, the modern home of Bourbon Democrats.  Obama, through his advocacy of an individualist health care system, his support of free trade and investment agreements and the way he deals with business interests, he earns the name.

        Edwards is carving himself a position more in line with Jefferson, Jackson, and Roosevelt, populist Democrats who each made the Democratic Party what it was for the next generation.  And Democrats who each made the Democratic Party dominant for the next generation.

  •  All I can tell you is why I support my guy. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA, bmozaffari

    I'm a hard-core pragmatist. My decision on who I am going to vote for is based entirely on how likely I think they are to enact policies I wish to see enacted. Note, this is not attempt to enact, this is successfully enact. What politicians say they are going to do, and what they are actually capable of pulling off are two very different things.

    That's why my first choice is Obama. He is inspiring, comes off extremely honest and trustworthy, and I agree with most of his ideas. That he is inspiring and seems honest is important to me for two reasons: 1) These traits will help him win over voters in the general, and 2) these traits are not likely to inspire counter-voting. The second point here is key. Clinton, for example, is hated by large portions of the country, and if you don't believe me, you really need to go talk to some non-Democrats. The issue isn't even whether or not she can win, it's the people who will show up at the voting booths to vote against her...and subsequently  kill close down-ticket races. Obama, with his broad base of support from independents and non-nutjob GOPers, is, in my estimation, the most likely to bring a filibuster-proof (or very close) majority with him as he enters office.

    Further, I like his approach to achieving his political goals. Turning your enemies into allies, even temporarily, is the best method of sustained success in pursuing policy objectives. People who you work with, rather than against or around, are more likely to help you in the future, or at least are less likely to oppose you simply out of spite. Other people here claim to want a "fighter". I don't. I don't want there to be a fight at all, just  the victory. How we get there is far less important to me than that we get there. Other people see this as naive. I see it as a far more nuanced and subtle strategy than most politicians even bother attempting.

    Finally, Obama, through his bipartisan reaching out, has the potential to move the center of the country to the left, after decades of it moving in the other direction.

    That said, if Obama somehow is out of the race before it hits Cali, I'll happily vote for Edwards. I like Edwards, but I'm less confident of his ability to achieve what he professes.

  •  1- Obama, because... 2- It's a balancing act (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nick Blas, broui

    It's a balancing act for you too, but mostly the candidates. It's easy for Al Sharpton to give good answers, but the most appealing answer to you or me is not one that wins elections. As I have blogged before, I want a candidate who will move us in the right direction as fast and as far as possible. I believe HRC will not move us fast enough or far enough. I think Kucinich and similar candidates will contribute to the campaign dynamic, but will not move our country that much, because they won't get elected.

    Then I'm down to Obama and Edwards. I think Edwards has adopted a strict role as a populist, though I'm not implying that he's not sincere. A populist does more on the economic front, but less on social issues. To move ahead on social issues, you have to be willing to lead. You have to be proud of your ability to understand the issues and educate people on it. The majority of people will be social conservatives, not socially regressive like some Republicans are, but resistant to big changes. Obama will deliver much more on that than Edwards.

    My second argument, a strong one, may not be relevant to you. Like me, you live in LA and won't HAVE to vote till Feb 5. I honestly believe that Edwards cannot survive that long, as do most political pundits, though Edwards supporters from this site will shoot you (figuratively... I hope) as soon as you mention this. I think Edwards can, and I'm afraid he will play the role of a spoiler for Obama.

    Proud Sponsor of Hope '08
    My Political (and moral) Compass: -9.00, -8.72

    by bmozaffari on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:23:45 PM PDT

  •  Their message or their record? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA, Nick Blas

    I ask because the two are not necessarily the same. I wrote a diary that will help you analyze their records, if you wish to do so.

    Proud Sponsor of Hope '08
    My Political (and moral) Compass: -9.00, -8.72

    by bmozaffari on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:29:39 PM PDT

  •  Edwards, Obama, Clinton (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA

    I like them all to some degree and have had some difficulty deciding, but at this point, I'm settled on Edwards.

    For me, it's mostly about the campaign Edwards has run, particularly the economic message.  I could almost cast a protest vote for Kucinich just because he's so good on these issues, if there weren't a major cndidate who needed my vote there.

    Hillary, I've defended plenty of times against the idea that she wasn't electable. She's a very good campaigner,  very capable on policy details, and any of our candidates will eventually get attacked and smeared as she has been.  But I'm not happy with the campaign she's run so far.  Moreover, I'm afraid she's positioned herself where she really could lose if the Republicans actually nominate a Huckabee or McCain.   It's almost the only way Democrats could lose in 2008, is if they allow Republicans to position themselves as the outsiders and agents of change.  Hillary has positioned herself too much as a representative of the status quo, Washington establishment.  Bill Clinton was always the candidate of the "third way" on these issues, advocating deficit reduction instead of ambitious domestic spending,  advocating continued military buildup,  and even appointing a Republican, Alan Greenspan, to head the Fed.  With emerging populist sentiment nationwide even starting to impact the Republican primary, we simply can't afford in this election to have a Clinton style corporate Democrat triangulating on these issues, blurring the difference between the parties.

    Obama, I see real potential for.  I like the way he handles himself, I like the way he seems to be able to appeal to a very diverse electorate.  He seems the type of candidate who would be comfortable walking into any room, addressing any crowd, and politely defending his position.  This is one trait, charisma, which Bill Clinton had where Hilary falls a bit short on for me.  I think Obama has sometimes played it too safe, and been a bit too vague, and I'd like a clearer more focused message and more specifics about what he intends to do, but I like that he seems to have a genuinely progressive record and background.

    Edwards has run the best campaign for me so far.  He's been most clear on what really needs to change, and I like his emphasis on regaining our moral authority in international affairs, as well as his ambitious domestic agenda.  I like him best on both the policy details, and the focused overall campaign message.  I like that he's been clear about the need for fundamental change, and seems willing to fight the political battles it will require to get meaningful reform, rather than ineffective compromises.

  •  Vote for whoever you want... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA

    in the primary but a Democrat in November...please

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 03:57:28 AM PDT

  •  If you believe a GE win is in doubt. . . (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    anthonyLA

    and you really believe Edwards has a significantly better chance of winning the general election, I think you should vote for Edwards (notwithstanding the fact that he's my least favorite of the top three candidates).

    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

    by LarryInNYC on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:48:02 AM PDT

  •  Yea, verily (0+ / 0-)

    you are preaching to the choir!  

    You forgot one important issue, ending the disastrous War On Drugs.

    So, who do you vote for?

    Where do you think Bloomberg stands on these issues?

    Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. T. Roosevelt

    by jaf49 on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

Permalink | 88 comments