Debate: Should Edwards supporters prefer Obama or Clinton?

John Edwards recently suspended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, saying "It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path" and reminding us all that "We must do better if we want to live up to the promise of this country we love so much." He ran a strong campaign that influenced the positions of both Obama and Clinton. Naturally his supporters are disappointed. Many of them vote this upcoming Tuesday and are now trying to decide whether Obama or Clinton deserves their vote.

I know that discussion of this topic is often heated and so I was hoping to try a different format to allow everyone to help lay out a logical case for why Edwards supporters should (or should not) consider Obama, and also why Edwards supporters should (or should not) consider Clinton. I've set up a debate at the neutral third-party site cruxlux, which has a format specifically tailored to structured point-counterpoint debate and incorporates user feedback on arguments. I've created a skeleton framework for the debate and now you can add arguments, comment, give points, or engage in conversation on any aspect of the topic of interest to you. Everyone is invited to participate -- Edwards, Obama, or Clinton supporters, or none-of-the-aboves -- and hopefully the end result will be a constructive examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic candidates from the perspective of an Edwards supporter.

Come explore the pros and cons of Obama and Clinton as Edwards might judge them.

Click here to join the debate at cruxlux

Essays written for this debate:
** Some reasons for Edwards supporters to prefer Obama

We are also linking all essays written today on this topic here, so if you write something on your blog please comment below and it will be added to the list. Comments at the original post are encouraged, of course, but please feel free to incorporate that discussion into the large-scale cruxlux debate as well.

Our last debate discussed the pros and cons of the Electoral College.

•  Doubly recommended -

  the format (generally) gives the debate some shape instead of floods of comment threads.  It's worth checking out, especially when supporters of various arguments are pulling out the links and stats.  

  by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:09:42 PM PDT

•  Please let me know if you have a diary

  exploring the pros/cons of either Obama, or Clinton, or both, as an Edwards supporter might see them, and if you would like me to link that diary with the list of essays.

  If you haven't seen cruxlux before I think you'll enjoy it, the system is very intuitive, you can expand or collapse subthreads, make quick comments, give support instantly to points you find convincing. It's centered around short and sweet debate, with longer questions for the conversation or else essays.

  by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

•  No brainer

    Obama is the only alternative, the only one who comes close to Edwards in terms of change, optimism and CLEANING HOUSE.

    Vote Obama, show the Clintons that the Lee Atwater tactics are best left on the sidelines.

  by usmeagle69 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM PDT

  •  That's my personal opinion as well, but

    I suppose it might be possible to make a case for Clinton ;-)

    Hillary is a strong candidate, and her experience shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

    by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM PDT

    •  I'm sure some folks

       will make a case for Clinton. But for me, the argument of Clinton's experience is silly. The only experience she has is being attacked by Republicans. Whoop-de-doo.

       Honestly, the silliest thing I've heard all primary season was the bold declaration from the Clintonites that her time as First Lady should be counted as experience for being President. If I could laugh in cyberspace, I'd still be going.

      by usmeagle69 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:16:16 PM PDT

      •  Well she did have one policy experience

        as First Lady: the health care initiative. And what a rousing success that was! [/snark]

        by Jim in Chicago on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM PDT

        •  I know

            that's exactly what we need more of. More of Hillary's health care debacles. Rousing success stories all around!!!

          by usmeagle69 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM PDT

  •  You'd be surprised.

    There are plenty of reasons Edwards voters might find a better draw in Clinton:

    - Edwards' voting record was closer to Clinton's than Obama's.  If we're looking at policies supported, Edwards supporters will find a closer fit with Clinton.
    - Edwards' big issue is class and poverty: though Obama has been winning some union endorsements, Clinton has far more union endorsements both in number and scope.

    So no, it's not so clear cut as all that.  Come by the cruxlux site and throw in your two cents!

    by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM PDT

    •  Clinton's union endorcements

      are very mysterious given her apathy to them while working at walmart. She also takes more money from corporate pacs, than anyone.  She will also get rid of Howard Dean, who in my opinion was responsible for our progressive victory in 96.

      by bucadibeppo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM PDT

      •  This could be because

        unions tend to be party hardliners (rather than supporting more change-oriented candidates) and/or they think she has a better shot at winning.  Obama has been picking up some endorsements recently, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

        by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:31:16 PM PDT

•  Reason #57 to vote for Hillary

  Obama says, "I'd be a bad 'chief operating officer' as president."

  But that's kind of the job description. Here's something the Big Dog said yesterday along those lines:

  by jmknapp on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM PDT

  •  Don't have audio at work, sorry, but I'll check

    it out later.

    #57, huh, I had no idea there were so many =P

    by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM PDT

  •  CEO vs. COO

    A chief executive officer (CEO) or chief executive is the highest-ranking corporate officer, administrator, corporate administrator, executive, or executive officer in charge of total management of a corporation, company, organization, or agency.

    A Chief Operating Officer or Chief Operations Officer (COO) is a corporate officer responsible for managing the day-to-day activities of the corporation. The COO is one of the highest ranking members of an organization, monitoring the daily operations of the company and reporting to the Board of Directors. The COO is usually an executive or senior vice president.

    He wouldn't make a good VP. :p

    by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

•  NO brainer

  Edwards' stance on the environment was big part of our support for him as well as his progressive agenda. We vote for Obama in order to create a deadlocked convention. That convention will turn to Al Gore, who was really our first choice, anyway.

  by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM PDT

  •  Hmm, that one is new to me, but I'll take

    the support now and worry about what happens at the convention later. I'm guessing Gore wouldn't want to step in, he's been extremely successful at raising awareness of climate change in his current role.

    by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:19:22 PM PDT

  •  Gore's not going to step in.

    He has too much respect for the Democratic process. No one has voted for him in the primaries; it wouldn't be right for him to swoop into the convention and suddenly become the nominee.

    by haruki on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM PDT

    •  You don't get it. Primaries irrelevant then

      If there is no nominee as the convention starts, and Obama and Clinton can't workout their own compromise, only one of two things can happen:

      Either the delgates of one of those candidates turn on their candidate to vote for the other one, or an alternative is proopsed that is acceptable to delegates in both camps.

      Since John Edwards didn't do so well in the primaries in the each of the last 2 elections, it's really unlikely that the convention would turn towards him. This is where your "No one has voted for him in the primaries" argument falls apart. Edwards got s few votes, but very few, outside of Iowa. Most people consciously rejected him to vote for someone else.

      In contrast, no one has rejected Gore. The last time Democrats had a chance to vote for him, they gave him the nomination, and then they voted for him in record numbers in the general election. If the convention is so split that they can't choose between Clinton and Obama, and neither candidate gives in to the other, I'd say it's 98% certain that they would turn to Gore.

      by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM PDT

  •  be still my heart!

    they can force him?

    by dotcommodity on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM PDT

    •  "Force him"?

      No, they can't force him. It's called a draft. He doesn't have to agree to it. I just assume he would. He never issued the Shermanesque statement. The "I am not a candidate. I will not run. If drafted, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve." Seems a clear signal that he had no intention of jumping into the primaries, but he'd have to consider it, if there was a deadlocked convention.

      by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM PDT

    •  Corrected Sherman quote....

      "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."

      Gore was repeatedly asked if he would issue a Shermanesque denial, and pointedly did not do so...

      by FischFry on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM PDT

•  Neither

  Here are a couple of articles that show why:

  http://prorev.com/...

  http://www.alternet.org/...

  The Democratic Party has sold its soul.

  As Mr. Smith says:

  Yet when John Edwards tried to build a campaign around these issues he was subjected not only to the opposition of the establishment and its media but a notable tone of ridicule whose subtext was: why would anyone want to bother with such things? Especially a guy as rich as Edwards?

  And when he pulled out of the race, Edwards was treated to more of the same, especially from such faux hip websites as Gawker, Radar and Fark:

  Radar: The pretty-boy presidential candidate scored just 14 percent of the vote in yesterday's Florida primaries. . .

  Fark: John Edwards announces he will drop out of race today to spend more time with his hair.

  Gawker: John Edwards will end his 49th run for president Wednesday after failing to capitalize on his angry hobo-under-the-bridge message.

  These sites, like much of elite America, are led by spoiled offspring of generations who had to struggle with just the sort of issues Edwards was trying to raise, but from which they now consider themselves immune by their education, status and cleverness.

  by citizen53 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM PDT

  •  This is part of the right-wing framing of our

    candidates that is so damaging to the party as a whole when we adopt it during primary season.

    The "limousine liberal" or just "hypocrite" smear is absolutely standard conservative propaganda and should not be utilized by those interested in advancing progressive causes.

    Edwards isn't the only candidate to fall victim to right-wing attacks launched from the left this cycle, of course, but that's another subject.  

    by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM PDT

    •  Don't think so...

      These views come from the progressive side of the spectrum, not the right wing.

      The attacks on Edwards came, just as often, from those described above, the elites who think they are simply better people.

      As Smith says, many have never had to struggle for anything much, and they could really care about those besides themselves.

      More from Smith:

      Class has always been the forbidden fruit of American political debate. A civil rights activist, Julius Hobson, with whom I worked once put it this way:

      "The struggle isn't whether you like a nigger or a nigger likes a cracker or whitey is a pig or any of that stuff. I've called people whitey and pig and the FBI never said a word. All I have to do is put on a dashiki, get a wig, go out there on Fourteenth Street, and yell, 'Whitey is a pig and I'm going to take care of him' -- the FBI will stand there and laugh at me. But the moment I start to discuss the way goods and services are distributed and I start talking about the nature of the political system and show that it's a corollary of the economic system, that's when the FBI comes in for harassment."

      And the Washington DC of today proves Hobson's point: a black city run by black politicians that is one of the most class-divided places you'll find in America but about which hardly anyone ever talks.

      So along comes a wealthy southern white male lawyer and tries to change things back to the way Democrats used to do it. And what happens? Yes, those with power move to keep him in the background. Yes, from the start the establishment media gave him as little coverage as possible.

      But more significant was the reaction of average members of the liberal - really post-liberal - establishment. Ridicule and disgust combined with a stunning disinterest in Edwards' issues that told much about the Democratic Party today.

      by citizen53 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

•  Edwards has said that unless and until

  we end the stranglehold of corporate lobbyists in Washington, nothing positive will be accomplished.

  Hillary takes more $$$ from corporate lobbyists than anyone and says they just represent "ordinary Americans."

  Obama does not take $ from Washington lobbyists, just like Edwards.

  If you believe in cleaning up Washington, Obama is now the only game in town. If you want more of the same corrupt, big money driven politics, Hillary's your candidate.

  by Jim in Chicago on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM PDT

  •  Well, the lobbyist issue

    requires a little parsing.  Obama gets plenty of money from local lobbyists and the lobbyist partners.  That's an improvement from outright sleeping with the lobby, but let's not reduce this to clean/dirty hands.

    by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:25:48 PM PDT

    •  I didn't reduce it to that

      I just wrote that between the 2 candidates left in the race, it's not even close. Also, Obama has demonstrated an interest in openness and ethical reform in the legislation he has proposed AND PASSED in both the Illinois and U.S. Senates. Transparency is the LAST thing Hillary wants.

      BTW, for all her "experience" has Hillary ever passed a bill of her own? I honestly can't think of one. (Howard Dean once said that Washington is the only place he knows where sitting on a committee qualifies as "experience.")

      by Jim in Chicago on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:55:44 PM PDT

      •  Actually, you DID reduce it to that:

        If you believe in cleaning up Washington, Obama is now the only game in town. If you want more of the same corrupt, big money driven politics, Hillary's your candidate.

        Do I think we have a better shot at avoiding undue lobbying influence under Obama?  Sure.  But I don't like this absolutism, especially since you imply that Clinton's supporters must not be interested in reform.  I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they have a different philosophy to it.  

        Candidate debate encourages hyperbole, which is one of the reasons I like the form that brendanm98 is pushing here: it forces people to be concrete and specific rather, and it deflates this kind of exaggeration.

        by pico on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:29:54 PM PDT

    •  Also, Obama only stopped taking Washington

      lobbyist money after Edwards called him out on it.

      by ichibon on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM PDT

•  neither

  They're political twins, for crissakes.

  by formernadervoter on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM PDT

  •  Not quite twins, politically. It's just that

    neither Clinton (D-DLC) nor Obama (D-Kumbaya) is willing to do what's needed to return government to the people.

    "You can’t wait for big companies and interest groups to give away their power, you have to take it from them."  John Edwards

    The COM has decided who we may "safely" vote for. We get vanilla or French vanilla. No safeword needed.

    by Jacques on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM PDT

  •  no, Clinton is for no nuke power till waste solve

    Obama is for nuke power, and she says she "doubts coal can be clean"

    I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove one way or another.

    by dotcommodity on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:52:40 PM PDT

    •  I personally like that Obama is for nuclear power

      but I get that a lot of liberals disagree. I understand it's a negative to a lot of Edwards supporters.

      I think Obama understands the pros and cons:

      As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. ...as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration... keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants.

      by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:14:21 PM PDT

      •  yeah, I think thats why its more old broads like

        me that like Hillary. We tend to be stuck in our ways when it comes to opposing nuke power. I know France seems to be doing fine, but then they don't have the level of corruption and lack of oversight we have over here in this banana republic.

        Lets hope either of our Dems gets in and changes that!

        by dotcommodity on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:25:48 PM PDT

•  Edwards supporters "shouldn't"

  Necessarily support either one.

  The reasons that they resonated with Edwards' message  are as varied as the people themselves.
  Their reasons for preferring Edwards should be the deciding factor in where they choose to place their support, not any external assumptions that others might put upon them.

  We have two fine candidates still in the running, and the country will be fortunate in either one, just as it would have been with Edwrads himself.

  If it were me having to make that choice, I would look at which of the remaining two were more closely in line with what I considered important in the Edwards position, and which has the best chance of making those ideas into reality.

  I don't envy them that choice, because of the necessity of such a choice itself... either one will be lacking what Edwards would have brought to the table... that is why they were supporting Edwards in the first place.

  It's a tough call... but a necessary and important one, for the progressive movement, and for the country.

  I support Hillary, for a lot of reasons.
  But that doesn't mean that any of them should feel the same way. Obama is a fine choice too, but I wouldn't try to convince them to fall that way either.

  To those of you who face that choice, I wish you well... It could have just as easily been the rest of us in that position.

  Let your conscience be your guide, and wisdom your companion... but from where I sit, there is no wrong decision.

  Peace be with you... Soon we will all realize (once again) that we are on the same side, after all.

  by Niniane on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM PDT

  •  I vote Feb 5

    I'll be voting for Edwards.

    by Timbuk3 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM PDT

    •  And that is a valid choice as well.

      I was hoping that Edwards would stay in, amass some delegates, and be a force at the convention... but I'm guessing he's smarter than I am... or something.

      His call.

      Maybe he's going to take Libby out in NC... that would sure help our chances there!

      by Niniane on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM PDT

      •  If I understood what he said correctly

        He'd like the American people to choose a candidate. QUICKLY.

        He thinks, and I agree with him, that McCain will be the Greedy Oil Party nominee. This part is me talking, not john, but I think that whoever wins this primary will be the strongest to beat McCain.

        Since I can't see a dime's worth of difference between them, I'm going to with-hold judgement. Let the people decide the nominee, who I'll vote for in November (because I can't stand the thought of McCain appointing our next SCOTUS judge.)

        Mote, I'm not saying there ISN'T a dime's worth of difference between them. I'm sure there is. Just not on anything I care about.

        So here's hoping that we'll know after February 5th. That's what really matters. Stop the sniping between the two so we can get behind a candidate.

        And before anybody flames me for saying "stop the sniping", please read a few more comments in this diary. Maybe the candidates are vicious to each other, but their supporters/followers do nothing but run down the other candidate.

        by Timbuk3 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:41:13 PM PDT

        •  Typo correction

          Maybe the candidates aren't vicious to each other, but their supporters/followers do nothing but run down the other candidate.

          by Timbuk3 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM PDT

        •  "Stop the Sniping"

          I would have to agree with that.

          Romney has a big media buy out today... and his target is not McCain, but Hillary Clinton.

          Why do they seem so much smarter than us?

          by Niniane on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM PDT

          •  That's the question

            Why do they seem so much smarter than us?

            I wish I knew.

            I used to think it was because they were on the outside, looking in, and there's something about being pissed off that brings people together.

            Maybe we're just not "pissed off" about the "right" things?

            Or maybe we don't have a chance to vote for anyone who's pissed off about what we are?

            For me, it's the latter.

            by Timbuk3 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:48:01 PM PDT

  •  I wasn't sure what word to use

    it's hard to convey what the diary is about in a short title, but no offense was intended.

    I think there's a strong case either way, that's why I thought this would be a good debate. Seems useful to me to find out why people feel the way they do about the candidates, if we can do it constructively and without the negativity that often goes with candidate diaries.

    Thanks for the thoughtful post.

    by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM PDT

•  I really have no preference.

  Since Edwards is on the ballot next week, I don't have to choose.

  I think no matter who is nominated, if that person wins, we'll end up about the same place.  I'll vote for the nominee in November.  

  by TomP on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM PDT

  •  Do you meant that you're voting for Edwards? n/t

    by hannahlk on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM PDT

    •  Yes. Next Tuesday.

      When I get pissed at a jerk who supports Obama (I seem to meet many, probably becuase I wwas so well known as an Edwards supporter) (and most )Obama supporters are just fine), I threaten to vote for Clinton just to try to teach him or her that being nasty actually has the opposite effect of what is intended.  (No one gets browbeat or insulted into voting for someone else's candiate, especially not on line, and when people are jerks, one way to punish them is to vote against their candidate).  But I think I'll just vote Edwards.

      On issues, Obama and Clinton spilt on a few, but I think we end up about the same place with either, which I know is heresy.  Both are good symbols for diversity in their own ways.

      I started last January choosing between Obama and Clinton.  Since then, Clinton moved left on many domestic policies, and she was okay to start with on many.  Obama moved to the right, or I learend more.  Universal health care is a big issue for me.  She also is better on the environment.  On foreign policy, I see Obama as slightly better, but only slightly.  Both are decent people, notwithstanding the attempts around here to demonize Clinton.  The same ones demonizing Clinton tried to do that to Edwards.  In my view, these demonizers are nasty folks who are completely opposite from Obama.  I don't have to name them.  I think it's an on-line phenomena.  Something on Daily Kos curdles Obama's hope into hate and age for these few.  But it's them and not Obama.  And it's just a few people really.  The vast majority of Obama supporters, even on Dlkos, are good and decent people.  

      I read Obama's books last year.  He's a good person.  But Clinton is a good person also.

      Either one will be far superior to McCain.  

      by TomP on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM PDT

      •  Yours was the first declaration

        of an intention to still vote for Edwards that I had seen here, although now I've seen several others.

        I was honestly surprised, as I am at the positive reaction these declarations are receiving on this site (please don't be offended, hear me out), when I and other passionate Gore supporters have been lectured for months on how it is our duty as good Democrats to get being one of the candidates in the race. And these were responses to our simply being active in a movement to get him to join the race, not to declarations we were going to vote for him regardless.

        I'm really not trying to deride your decision, as I understand totally how you feel. A person who responded to this same question from me yesterday said Obama and Hillary hadn't "moved him" yet. Well, join the club!! That's EXACTLY the predicament I've been in (and many others) this entire primary prseason. The only person I could ever get excited about was Gore. Yet any expression of hope that he would run would be met with all kind of snarky comments like, "Just one problem with Gore--he's not a candidate!" (Gee, really?!) We were kindly told we were living in a dreamworld, wanting a "savior," not a candidate, and that we were doing a disservice to the Democrat cause by not getting behind someone who was actually running, even if we weren't in love with our choice.

        So, should I vote for an "actual candidate" that I think is the best of the choices available, as I've been sternly told is my duty over and over and over here (and which I had just made up my mind to do, after a long, tortured journey that's been kind of like a bad relationship) or stick to MY principles and write in the name of the one person I truly believe has the will and courage necessary to save the planet? If I wrote a diary to such effect, would I win praise and admiration for my passion and beliefs?

        by hannahlk on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:23:12 AM PDT

•  It's electability, stupid.

  (I'm not calling anybody here stupid. It just fit the phrase.)

  Look, it's obviously true that any guess about general election viability is speculative. You're predicting a future event, and you could be wrong. I think the New England Patriots would have a better chance of beating the New York Giants than would the Detroit Lions, but I can't be sure.

  That said, the available data here is not very ambiguous. Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings. In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. The difference between plus 4 and plus 27 is enormous--a Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots-size gap.

  On top of that, independents who vote in the primaries and caucuses have shown a very strong preference for Obama over Clinton. That is the closest available approximation of a swing voter. (Some Clinton supporters have pointed to her strength among lower-income Democrats in the primary, but a low-income Democratic primary voter is not the same thing as a working class swing voter.)

  In 2000, Clinton ran five points behind Al Gore in the state of New York, and it's not like Gore was the most popular politician who ever lived. That's who she is--a figure who is disliked by pretty much everybody who isn't a sure-fire Democrat, and even some people who are. You can imagine Obama running a horrible general election campaign and becoming less popular. No doubt his favorable ratings would drop a bit in the face of Republican attacks, as would hers. But for him to become as unpopular as Clinton already is--without months of nation-wide attack ads--is a worst-case scenario.

  All the above and more, here. Including pointing out that to Dems, it's perfectly obvious that McCain is the strongest November candidate for Repubs. Repubs feel the same way about Obama.

  by HeyMikey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM PDT

•  Edwards invalidates his whole campaign if...

  ...he throws his support behind Clinton.

  1. Edwards has been talking about change, change, and more change. (And God bless him for it.) Clinton is not the candidate of change. She has strong ties to the corporate establishment, to the organizations that wanted NAFTA, to the existing power structure that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with our country, and by extension, the world. Clinton is the candidate who had a fund raiser hosted by Rupert Murdoch, Mr. FOX himself.

  2. Edwards' big issue is poverty. Obama comes from a modest background and has been a long time community organizer in a tough part of Chicago. That's Poverty Immersion 101. Just paid off his college loans. Clinton comes from privilege and has been a corporate lawyer. She sat on the board of WalMart, the company famous for exploiting the poor and opressing laber. Obama clearly looks better on this issue.

  3. Edwards has railed against lobbyists. Clinton loves lobbyists, says "they're people too!". Obama shares Edwards disregard for lobbyists.

  For all the reasons above, Edwards' supporters should continue to pursue solutions to the issues that drove his campaign. Which is why they should switch their support to Obama.

  by Tusconian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for your concern, but another big

    Edwards issue and just as important, is corporate/lobbyist control of our political process, and on that, both remaining candidates are heavily funded by those same people that Edwards was fighting against. So you see, its not as simple to pick the lessor of the two evils as you think.

    by ichibon on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM PDT

    •  Please explain how Obama is...

      ...corporate funded to anything near the extent Clinton is? Ms. WalMart Board vs. Mr. Southside Organizer? Ms. Murdoch Fundraiser vs. Mr. The Hell With FOX?

      And lobbysists--what shit y'all talkin'? Clinton embraces lobbyists. Obama rejects them. She wants them in the political process. He wants them out.

      This isn't lesser of two evils. This is evil (Clinton) vs. good (Obama).

      And besides you jive ass ichibon, I mentioned both corporate hegemony and lobbyists in my reasons, then you say I didn't.

      A great big WTF???

      by Tusconian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:59:15 PM PDT

•  While all the other candiates were voting for War

  Obama was speaking out against it..

  Hundreds of peopled attended a downtown rally Wednesday in opposition to a possible war with Iraq.
  October 2002
  Many in the crowd at Dearborn and Adams streets during the lunch hour carried signs stating, "War is not an option," "Don't get Bushwhacked," and "We are a nation of great minds. Think outside the bomb."

  Obama told the crowd: "I don't oppose all wars. But I do oppose a dumb war."

  Obama said if the United States declared war on Iraq, it would "fan the flames" in the Middle East and push more people to join al-Qaida.

  "The consequences of war are dire. The costs immeasurable," Obama said. "We should not go down that hellish path blindly."

  He spoke up when it wasn't popular to do so and he could have just as easily nodded his head and got in line like the majority in both Parties..  He didn't "trust" the President as some others did and just went with his conviction that it was wrong.  You can be sure the heads of the Republicans in his district were exploding seeing their Rep. on TV protesting the war while they were re-naming french fries.. Support for the war was high and you were taking a big risk for speaking out against it as a State Representative  Only wish more people could have had his courage and we might have spared so much pain.. He was right when it mattered and never has to apologize.. That's my case for Obama..

  by ebbinflo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM PDT

  •  And the rest of the story is:

    After Obama was elected to the senate, he never voted against funding that war that he was so against, even though he had numerous occasions to vote to de-fund and stop the war. Kind of like a Hypocrite, isn't it?

    by ichibon on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM PDT

    •  Separate issues

      One can be against the war in Iraq and also against simply cutting funding.

      Obama has done what he could to support phased withdrawal with timelines on Iraq:

      Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.

      "The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close," Obama said in his speech. "It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back."

      by brendanm98 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:21:25 PM PDT

      •  And yet he continues to help fund the war.

        He offers legislation that he knows doesn't have a chance of passing, just so he can say he is trying to stop the war, when the simplest remedy is to cut off the  money to fight this war. This doesn't show me he is very serious about ending the occupation.

        by ichibon on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:40:55 AM PDT

•  Depends

  on the politics of your state.

  If it is not going to be a close call for one of the candidates, and Edwards is still printed on the Ballot, I would be inclined to make a statement by picking Edwards.

  If Clinton and Obama are in a tight horse race, you're going to have to decide based on who you think best represents your views and holds policies that align the closest to what you felt drew you to Edwards and which one you think has the best chance of winning in November.

  by arielle on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:27:12 PM PDT

•  John Edwards

  ran on fighting influence peddling in DC and fighting for the working man and unions.

  HRC had more earmarks than anyone in the senate (2.2billion) from 02-06..and recieved at least 270k in campaign contributions from just the 2007 military contractors who rec'd 141 million from HRC earmarks..
  The Walmart Tapes indicate that while on the board at Walmart she did not speak up once for unions or against Walmart union-busting strategy. Mark Penn is a notorious union buster and her campaign strategist.
  Bill Clinton used his influence with a outlaw dictator to grease a uranium deal that netted him 131 million in foundation contributions from the guy that sold that uranium company for 3.1 billion 2 years after giving the dictator 450 million for his countrys uranium rights.

  Obama had 2 earmarks to her over 500 earmarks. His were to the Shedd acquarium and a disabled childrens center.

  Which of these two sounds more like John Edwards?

  by Hawkjt on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:25:47 PM PDT