Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

A brief introduction/disclaimer: a popular topic on MyDD recently has been the increase in the number of 'hit diaries' dealing with the presidential race and the lack of diaries focus on the issues of substance. While I don't think this is a hit diary, it is certainly focused on the race rather than the issues. The issues are important, but it is also important for us to analyze why we obsess over the campaign minutiae, and why often discussion of the campaign turns nasty.

When I first started reading political blogs, I was eager for any information about Republican mess-ups and offensive conservative talking points. I relished in the liberal blogs' righteous indignation about these outrages. And there were many, from the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina to the Bill O'Reilly phone-sex scandal. However, as time went on, the blogs' attention turned towards the 2008 Democratic nomination, and with this attention came a swell of support for various candidates. You're all aware of this, of course. I point this out not to rehash fairly obvious recent history, but to emphasize the shift in focus in the liberal (and probably conservative, I don't know) blogosphere.

One of the most interesting aspects of this shift was how the swell of support was distributed among the candidates. It's no surprise that Hillary Clinton hasn't received a large amount of support, and the less well-known candidates have had a bit of a hard time. The most significant feature, then, at least on the Internet, of the booming interest in the 2008 race is the distinction between the supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards.

On the surface, there are not many differences between your average Obama supporter and your Edwards supporter. Both are probably concerned about the state of the country, confident in the left's ability to make positive changes, and wussy bleeding hearts (kidding). Both should, in all likelihood, support the same candidate. However, these have become the largest and most hostile opposing camps in the liberal blogosphere.

As an Obama supporter, I can only speak for one side of this fight. I support Obama because, after reading both of his books and listening to his speeches, I think that he is a unique political figure and has the potential to change the country for the better unlike any politician in a long time. I also think his positions, which often thoughtfully set aside idealogy and focus on what will help the most, will be the most beneficial to the country. I like John Edwards, but have some qualms about his sincerity.

But concerning the snippy-comment war going on between the two rival camps: I believe that for the Obama side, part of this frustration stems from the perception offered by some in the blogosphere that Edwards is the only candidate a true liberal or progressive could even think of supporting. At least, this is how I often feel. I feel like as an Obama supporter, I am sometimes looked down upon as a sap, fallen prey to Obama's charisma and star power and the corporate media (or, as it is so cloyingly referenced in the blogs, the MSM). I get a sense that SOME Edwards supporter have a holier-than-thou attitude, a sense that not only are their principles more pure than those of other candidate's supporters, but that because of this purity the mainstream is out to get them. Personally, I don't think I could stomach another remark about how the media is "afraid" of John Edwards.

However, I understand that this is just one man's opinion. I'm interested to hear what my fellow Obama supporters think, and also what you Edwards folks feel like on your side of the divide. I only request that we keep it civil...

Tags: 2008 Race, Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Democratic Candidates, John Edwards, Presidential Campaign (all tags)

Comments

208 Comments

Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

"I have questions about his sincerity... but let's keep it civil"

Are you for real?

by philgoblue 2007-07-06 12:52PM | 0 recs
I question all of the candidates sincerity

But then again their sincerity is not all that important to me.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I question all of the candidates sincerity

Well they ARE politicians after all...

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-06 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

This is what I'm talking about. I said "I like John Edwards" - not good enough for you? I said "qualms" about his sincerity - a lot of people have qualms.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 01:13PM | 0 recs
I understand...I have qualms

about Obama's sincerity too. And I for Hillary, I don't waste my time wondering.

by cosbo 2007-07-06 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Uprating you... the 1 was BS.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-06 03:27PM | 0 recs
Phil, they

have to say he's insincere; it's either that or admit that Edwards is the more progressive candidate.

Not a pleasant choice to make, I'm sure. It's either smear a good Democrat or make an admission that could hurt your own candidate.

by david mizner 2007-07-06 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

David, remind me the last time that the "most progressive" candidate won the nomination.  

[Which is not to say that it's true -- Obama is more focused on the structural reforms that our democracy needs to enact progressive reforms than Edwards is, certainly.]

by Adam B 2007-07-06 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

That's exactly what makes Edwards so unusual, he's both the most progressive and the most electable. You can stop looking for precedents. Unless you want to look at the GOP, where Reagan is JRE's mirror image.

JRE is confident that he can run to the Left and still remain electable; Obama, unsure of his electability, has to keep reassuring the guardians of coventional wisdom that he's not too far to the left. They should consider themselves reassured.

By the way, Adam, I remember you saying something like, wake me up when Edwards does something that hedge fund managers oppose?

You awake yet....?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601070&sid=ab8kmXLpE7nA&refer=p olitics

by david mizner 2007-07-06 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

The question before Congress right now isn't about whether to raise the capital gains rate; it's about how to characterize "carried interest".  I don't think he's actually answering the question that's up for debate -- not that I completely understand it.

Maybe Obama states things that aren't "too far to the left," like supporting merit pay for teachers, because that's what he sincerely believes.  You know, as in, not pandering to the left.

Re electability, if Edwards were that electable, he would have been elected VP in 2004.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

But Obama will pander to AFL-CIO members in Trenton, NJ, about WAL-MART's corporate practices and culture.  And he will engage in such demagoguery even if he did nothing when Daley vetoed the Big Box Ordinance, which would have forced WAL-MART to change its practices.  

And if we truly wanted to be honest about this debate, we would discuss Michelle Obama's ties to WAL-MART, ties she severed after her husband pandered to AFL-CIO members in Trenton, NJ.

Here is a nice summary that considers all the events discussed in this comment.  But the PANDERING in which Obama will engage is of particular focus:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/05/23 michelle-obama-cuts-a-wal-mart-link

Obama panders, as he is insincere; Edwards discusses policy.  Let us maintain the distinction, please.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Quit spamming sites with this Wal-Mart nonsense.  Mrs. Obama was on the board of a company that was a Wal-Mart supplier, and your fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc argument doesn't become more true just by repeating it incessantly.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

You are repeating yourself, Adam.  And by the way, I am not in a court of law; I am on a blog, and I am asking if a potential conflict of interest existed.  

But more importantly and more relevant to this thread and to my interests and this moment, how can one say Edwards panders when Obama pandered to the AFL-CIO in Trenton, NJ, on the very topic about which he did nothing when WAL-MART could have been forced to pay a living wage in the city Obama calls home?  

That is the question I want answered now.  Obama pandered, and Obama has assumed two diametrically opposed positions on WAL-MART in the course of one year.  What else will he say and do to get elected?

This "new politics" seems to accomodate any action.  I guess it is one of those empty slogans with an overly capacious definition.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

You assume your own conclusion by calling it "pandering" without any evidence.

You take your inability to find an Obama comment on the Big Box Ordinance as evidence that he took a contrary view.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

I cited evidence of pandering: he will use WAL-MART as a device to rally support amongst union workers in a state Clinton dominates, but he did nothing to support the Big Box Ordinance in Chicago.  That is evidence, and it reveals he panders.

Silence is complicity, and this silence occurred after Daley already smacked Obama down in 2005 for speaking out against corruption in City Hall.  

A knowledge of Chicago politics and history helps.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Yeah but you also neglect to mention that Obama has done NOTHING to shutdown or derail the Federal Investigation into Daley's illegal activities.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

No, instead he endorsed Daley after Daley smacked him down in 2005.  But I am happy to see that someone knows how to pull Obama's strings.  They call it machine politics for a reason.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Walmart and some

Obama did not enter the Chicago dust-up with Walmart. The council voted an ordinance that did not have the support of many in the community who are hurting for jobs even at Walmart wages. Excellent council member who represent their community well opposed the ordinance in favor of building the stores and working with Walmart in other ways. It wasn't clear that the ordinance was even legal and was facing court challenges because it created a wage requirement based on the size of the building. Excellent council members voted for the ordinance, it passed but the mayor vetoed it.  Both sides of the question had merit, and Obama chose for whatever reason not to enter the fray.

Now this person knows soooo much about this he/she believes they know Obama's motives for not entering the argument publically even though I think it is perfect cool for a candidate to pick and choose when and how to weigh in on something. If he spoke to his Alderperson one way or the other, I don't know, and I would be surprised if this person knows either. But I do know that many people who believe sincerely as I do that Walmart should be paying a living wage, may not have been supporting this particular ordinance because of the negative impact on jobs and because it was probably not going to hold up in court. That's why I don't think it is inconsistant for Obama to handle this exactly the way he did.

Now back to this diary, I am an Obama supporter, but I respect all our candidates. I am excited about my own candidate, and I expect others to be excited about theirs. I try not to stir it up too much with Edwards people because I think he is a good person, and I saw him and Elizabeth during the Kerry campaign and I thought he was really good on the stump.I do see some real downsides to Hillary as the nominee, but I could work through my dissappointment and support John if Obama doesn't get it.

It does get a little snippy aound here sometimes, but I think that is the nature of blogging, though I am new at this and this is really the first time I become this engaged.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-06 05:50PM | 0 recs
it would have been inappropriate...

and chicagoans know it.  obama knew better...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: it would have been inappropriate...

and you base that on what evidence?  and if so many people were opposed to the ordinance, why did every alderman who opposed it receive spirited challenges during the municipal elections.  since obama moved, his new alderwoman's vote in favor of it is somewhat moot.  but his former alderwoman opposed it.  and many in hyde park found that vote incomprehensible.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 05:56PM | 0 recs
i didn't realize i was being subtle...

it would have been inappropriate for obama, durbin, rush, davis, schakowsky, etc to speak out on the big box ordinance.  we have elected representatives to do that.  and elected officials are very protective of their turf.  demanding that obama speak out on a local variation is not only stupid, it asks barack to be stupid, as well.

thankfully, he was smarter than that.  btw, i worked a couple of those campaigns against people who voted against the big box ordinance (and not as a volunteer).  that's why i think you're way off base about big box and obama.  when he had the opportunity to speak about wal-mart, he did so.  when it was appropriate...

by bored now 2007-07-06 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: i didn't realize i was being subtle...

i disagree.  and i lived in chicago when that happened too.  he uses wal-mart as a campaign issue in trenton, nj, but when it comes to being an engaged citizen in the city in which he lives, he dropped the ball.  it says a lot about his personal politics that he said nothing.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i didn't realize i was being subtle...

Just for the record, does the name 'Low Blow' Joe Novak mean anything to you?  I would be interested to hear from a Chicagoan's perspective more about the controversies he has created in the past and the opposition research campaign he is now, apparently, waging.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 09:18PM | 0 recs
Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?
Yes - Obama's "new politics" includes his supporters creating and circulating smackdown videos of the most electable and Progressive candidate - while maintaining their belief that Obama will change the world.
<sigh>
by annefrank 2007-07-06 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

Define "smackdown video." Actually, don't. I couldn't stand another rant about the "corporate media."

And sorry we believe in Obama. As Lily Tomlin once said, "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

Blind belief in a political figure is a symptom of fascism, by the way.  I guess your little machine is broken.  

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

Wooooo-eeee! That condescending about blew me over!

Not blind belief, tt-oh-sev. Is it so hard for you to believe that people could support Obama because we like his policies the best? Or that we think he would be the best president?

Thanks for the history lesson, though. Guess I better watch myself before I get excited about politics ever again.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

I see we are dealing with a low information voter.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

Why do you suggest that?  I have been reading this person's posts for some time now with interest.  I guess I must be stupid too, is that it?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do Obama supporters hate Progressives?

I would love to know what you think you are talking about when you use the word fascism.  Especially having observed your interpretation of classical Socratic dialogue.  It is a much misused word, you know, even accepting that popular usage does transmute words irrevocably.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 10:02PM | 0 recs
Give It a Rest

I have seen your attempt to push this old and  misleading story about Michelle Obama convincingly rebutted several times and conclude that you are not actually interested in seeking truth at all, isn't that ironic?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

I am citing it in relation to the charge that Edwards engages in what that poster calls "pandering."  Obama, according to the actions discussed in the article I cite, is the panderer.   Let us discuss this predilection for pandering.  Let us discuss what this means about Obama's integrity and about the strategies his campaign will deploy.  What will Obama say and do to win an election?  What will he say and do to try to make inroads in Clinton Country?

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

Frankly I don't agree that either Edwards or Obama is pandering.  They are both presenting progressive platforms which, incidentally, seem to have much in common on a lot of issues.  Edwards is using economic equality as the theme for his campaign and Obama is using renewal of the democratic process as his, but that doesn't mean that there positions on specific issues are mutually exclusive.  Quite the contrary.

And from a tactical point of view there is much that recommends their co-operation, not least of which denying Hillary the nomination.  Personally I see her as the major threat to the fulfilment of either of their platforms.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

Edwards is sincere when he speaks about wage issues and poverty.  Obama just made outrageous statements about his ostensible opposition to WAL-MART in order to make inroads with the AFL-CIO in a state Clinton dominates.  The latter is pandering, while the former is sincerity.  Obama pandered, as Obama failed to do anything about WAL-MART and the living wage in Chicago when the City Council considered the Big Box Ordinance.  

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

That's it?  The Big Box ordinance?  Is that the only issue which you use to evaluate two national candidacies for the presidency?  Why is this such a compelling issue?

Personally I believe the legislation was flawed and there are better ways to bring Wal-Mart to heel.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

The majority of City Councilmen disagree with you, as do many labor organizations.  And the objections you raised in a different comment seemed inapt, given that the Chicago City Council handle municipal affairs, not national affairs.  Sometimes a basic understanding of government helps one understand the political process.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Give It a Rest

Exactly, the ordinance even sounded silly to me. "if you have a business that is waaay this big and shaped like a box, you have to pay your employees $10.00 an hour...." And this person keeps harping on why Obama didn't come out swinging over that. Get the unions in there and raise wages the old fashion way.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-06 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

You didn't read the article very carefully, did you? The issue at hand is a unjust quirk in the law that allows hedge fund income to be taxed as capital gains. Edwards opposes it. So does Bob Rubin, in fact, so maybe his acolytes, Hillary and Obama, will follow Edwards's lead (again).

The only issue of signifigance on which Obama is to the left of Edwards is the death penalty (an issue, I've noticed, Obama never discusses anymore.)

On all the other issues--trade, health care, poverty, taxes, climate change--Edwards has the more progressive positions. On foreign affairs, I'll call it a draw, although Obama seems much more eager than Edwards to expand the size of the military.

Who is more progressive, Obama or Edwards? There no longer can be any (intelligent) argument. It's a settled question.

by david mizner 2007-07-06 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Strictly speaking, it's not taxed "as capital gains"; it's "carried interest", to which for now the capital gains rate applies.  Also, for now, "Edwards .. said he would announce within 10 days his position" on the House bill; he has not yet so determined or led.

Obama's to Edwards' left on government reform issues, and is much more aggressive on the need to change Washington.  On health care, the difference between Obama's incentives and Edwards' mandates isn't an ideological one -- it's a policy disagreement about what will actually work to ensure more people.  

And it's nice of you to regards as a "draw" the issue on which Obama has led and Edwards has been slower on the uptake.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Who the fuck cares how far to the left someone is. How about who will win....and it is looking like ass for both us Edwards people and Obama people. Especially when our candidates keep getting smeared  by hit pieces while Hillary sits off to the side playing it safe on every issue and getting a free ride from the press and the "vast right wing conspiracy". They are just sitting on their hands until she gets the nomination.

by rbrianj 2007-07-07 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

You're actually making the claim that Obama's health care plan is as progressive as Edwards's? Edwards would spend 90-120 billion and over everyone; Obama would spend 50-60 and leave 15 million Americans uninsured.

The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070528&a mp;s=cohn053107

As for the goo-goo issues, there'll generally what a candidate embraces what he/she lacks the stomach to change the balance of power but embracing policies opposed by corporate interests. I don't think Big Pharma is really sweating over Obama's gift ban proposal, but it's sure as hell not pleased about Edwards's plan to make generic drugs more available.

In any case, Obama is very late to the dance on government reform. Edwards has never taken a penny from PAC or federal lobbyists. When he first got to DC, Obama raked in the dough from federal lobbyists. His change of heart on this seemed to be inspired by his need to have an issue to run on, cause he sure as hell doesn't have any others.

by david mizner 2007-07-07 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Edwards' plan will leave millions uninsured as well -- those who can't afford the mandates or just choose to be uninsured.  And Obama's plan on increasing the use of generic drugs is v. aggressive,

It was very easy for Edwards to be pious about his campaign financing when he could self-finance his Senate race, never intended to run for reelection, and knew that he could bring in a nation's worth of maxed-out plaintiff's attorney checks for his 2004 presidential bid.  [Frankly, I think the "no PAC money" thing is just window-dressing no matter who does it, but that's me.]

by Adam B 2007-07-07 04:59AM | 0 recs
That's just a lie

"Edwards' plan will leave millions uninsured as well."

It's amusing to see Obama supporters keep making claims like this, without any proof. All the research and experts are on our side, and I suspect that you know this. This is a settled question among people who study this stuff for a living. A mandate can get you universal coverage; Obama's plan would leave 15 million uninsured--read the article I linked to.

What's more, on funding, Obama would leave Bush's tax cuts for the rich in place for the first 2 years of his presidency. Edwards would roll them back immediately. That's to say, Edwards could move on health care in Year One; Obama would have to wait till 2011.

And why is Edwards planning to spend almost twice as much to reform the system? Two possibilities, his plan is more ambitious; he's being more honest about the cost.

by david mizner 2007-07-07 05:13AM | 0 recs
Proof?

Look at Massachusetts, which has mandates now.  Two-thirds of those uninsured before the mandates remain uninsured now.

Moreover, legislatively it's going to be much easier to wait for the tax cuts to lapse than to get sixty votes for ending them prematurely.  That's a fact.

by Adam B 2007-07-07 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

There is nothing in modern Democratic politics scarier than someone certain they know who is and is not "electable" this far out from an election.

by Jay R 2007-07-06 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

Nothing scarier. That's funny.

by david mizner 2007-07-07 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

I'm serious.  Can you think of anything in the last two Congressional cycles that has done more to fracture Democratic unity than the incessant and usually ill-informed debates over whether this candidate or that one is more "electable"?

We don't know the dynamics of the race yet.  We can't.  Just like DCCC couldn't know that Shea-Porter and McNerney would be sitting in Congress now--all they knew when they decided that neither was the more "electable" candidate were a few metrics that ended up not mattering too much come Election Day.

After the '06 Primaries, a number of our top pickup prospects were ruined because one side was hell-bent on believing some of the nominees were corporatist, Republican-lite shills unworthy of being members (much less nominees) of this party, and the other side was hell-bent on believing that no peacenik Lib-Lab was capable of winning in seat X.  So Kissell got $31 total from DCCC, McNerney had to wait until late summer for party support, Shea-Porter never got a dime, Duckworth had to spend as much time convincing Democrats that she was worth voting for as convincing Republicans they could vote for her without destroying America...all stemming from people becoming convinced a year before the election that they knew which candidate was more or less 'electable' than the others.

So I say again: there is nothing scarier in Democratic politics than people who think they know who is 'electable' this far out from an election.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

I did not know structural reforms were entirely rhetorical.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:31PM | 0 recs
edwards more progressive?

voting for an immoral war is now progressive?  iraq is the big issue and edwards was wrong.

i guess bush is a progressive, too, in your book...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards more progressive?

Why would Obama support a pro-IraK war candidate - rather than an anti-IraK war candidate?  Did that have anything to do with his "new politics"?  It would appear so - since Obama has engaged in the Hillary and Lieberman version of bipartiCONship since he entered the Senate and began appeasing the Centri$ts and DC elite$ who abhor Progressive values.

by annefrank 2007-07-07 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: edwards more progressive?

i'm not feeding into your conspiracy theory bullshit.  obama himself said that his goal in his first two years was to not make any waves.  supporting an incumbent, someone he knew and presumably worked with.  it makes sense from a very human point of view.  i'm not sure obama has argued that he was a pure ideologue, which obviously annoys you.

the difference, though, between obama and edwards is that obama had the foresight, the moral insight and the backbone to speak out against the war when democrats like john edwards were trying to convince the nation that it was the right thing to do.  even if edwards had doubts, he didn't have the backbone to stand up for what was right.  who cares if he's "righter" on the issues?  i have no confidence that he would stick to his current positions even if he was ever elected.  slimming obama doesn't change that.

obama was right.  edwards was wrong.  'nuff said...

by bored now 2007-07-07 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Phil, they

No. You don't seem to understand. I supported John Edwards in 2003. While I acknowledged then that he was not 100 perfect, based on all the other candidates, I BELIEVED HIM. He may not have been totally in line with my ideology, but I BELIEVED HE WAS SINCERE.

Now, I see him as a Fake Preacher who is saying anything and everything to get an offering and more people added to the congregation. Edwards has formed a slit in his tongue and I don't believe him. It's not what he says. It's the motive. I do not believe in his conversions of convenience at all. I don't buy it. I simply don't believe him. He could tell me he to my face that he will give 5 Million Dollars in Reparations to every Black Family who was effected by Slavery and I still would not believe him.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 06:28PM | 0 recs
Obama is not a threat

>>>>Edwards has formed a slit in his tongue and I don't believe him.

Well- the corporate media and corporatists believe him.
Candidates making Progressive statements like Edwards KNOWS they'll be the object of much wrath from the media and corporatists who seek to maintain control over our nation.
However, candidates playing it safe with typical motivational speeches about "hope" - are not a threat to the corporatists - as evidenced by Obama's corporate largesse.

by annefrank 2007-07-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not a threat

Right. You are the authority. Must listen to your excellent non biased interpretations and analysis.....

NOT!

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-07 09:05AM | 0 recs
What a joke.

You decry hit diaries, but say, "I like John Edwards, but have some qualms about his sincerity."

Typical Obama supporter.  Not about issues, just personal attacks.  Where does Obama stand?  Oh yeah, always underneath his halo. No issues.  He will "transform" things.  Water into wine.

I feel like I have entered a church.

Give me a break.

by littafi 2007-07-06 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke.

Yeah, it's real typical of hit diaries to say you like someone. Good point. Folks, I'm real sorry I put that sentence in there. It was just a throwaway, and it's distracting people from the diary. I'll revise: "I like Edwards, but - there's nothing wrong with him." Better?

Also, regarding your comments about Obama - there's no way to convey and eye roll through typing, but if there was, that's what I would do.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke.

"Typical Obama supporter"?  

So does that mean the "typical Edwards supporter" like yourself is reliant on absurd generalizations about any Democrat who backs a different primary candidate?  TMKF's statement was about a candidate, yours was about a group of millions of Democrats, most of whom are progressive/liberal and support the same political movement that you do.

Seriously, why the hell do so many on all sides seem so intent on taking a crack and making a canyon?  I don't have a pony in this race yet, so I'm simply viewing this as a Democrat who wants a Democrat in the White House ASAP.  

The main difference--in fact the ONLY difference of any real consequence--between the "typical Obama supporter" and the "typical Edwards supporter," is that one supports Obama, and one supports Edwards.  Anyone who tries to make a case otherwise is categorically full of shit and a hindrance to a 2008 Democratic victory.

by Jay R 2007-07-06 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke.
Why are you attempting to project Edwards' Progressive values onto Obama?
Obama is NOT a Progressive! no matter how many times Obama and his supporters attempt to claim it.
by annefrank 2007-07-07 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke.
because you say so.  now if we could only agree with what being a progressive means.  because it's such a defined ideological doctrine that people agree and understand what it means...
</snark>
by bored now 2007-07-07 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke.

Anne, you're the kind of "progressive" who's going to be responsible for killing this movement.  You sit here and lob shots at anyone and everyone who doesn't step in line perfectly with your preconceptions about what a candidate needs to look like and say to count as progressive, and as a result you divide our movement and alienate anyone you could potentially make common cause with.  If I had to guess, I'd say you're one of those jerks who goes to DEC meetings and complains about each and every thing the leadership does because you're upset that you still sit at the kiddie table.

And if you're going to continue to be an arrogant and obnoxious waste of time, please change your user name to something not so offensive.  Your self-defeating attitude and sheer tonnage of idiotic and insulting posts make clear that the only thing you and Anne Frank have in common is that you're both literate.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Looks like the Machine got out-Foxed on Edwards sincerity!

by annefrank 2007-07-06 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I'm not even sure what to say to you anymore. Is there anything I can say that will persuade you that not all Obama supporters are evil, unreasonable corporatists (or, as you might say, corporati$t$)?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Now you're doing the Fox News thing again! making false assertions about my previous comments.

Remember the diarist last week who posted "Why I can't support Edwards"? (may not be the exact title)
The basis for all his opinions about Edwards stemmed from his vote for the war - while ignoring his current Progressive policies. But he made a case for Obama based on his opposition to the war - while completely unaware that Obama had voted to FUND the war until the "job is completed" - and voted against timetables.
Obama's image has been shaped with inspirational speeches and Obama Girl videos while the media casts him as "phenomenal" and ignoring controversial issues surrounding him.
Once supporters are hooked on a candidate via image and begin donating their hard earned dollars and investing ownership by defending their candidate and smacking down the opposition, facts about a candidate's positions and actions that appear to conflict with their opinion of the candidate, become secondary to their candidate "winning."

by annefrank 2007-07-07 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

No, that seemed like a pretty spot-on assessment of how you comment here.  I can't even remember the last time you offered anything remotely close to a good political analysis.  Shit, just read the stupid-ass assertions you made in the comment immediately above this: it's a BAD thing that a candidate has managed to create a Democratic donor pool of over 250,000 voters?

The case that was made against Edwards (and a rather weak one at that, mostly because the diarist wasn't trying to make a case against Edwards but rather to explain why he himself wasn't supporting him) was that he now supports policies that he opposed less than four years ago.  Like it or not, that's true.  The good news for you is that it's true about just about every candidate now running.  The bad news is that you're practicing the same sort of infallabile self-delusion about your candidate that you accuse others of practicing with theirs.  It's rather sad, and really fucking obvious to just about everyone but you, because you do it so often as to make it impossible to miss.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Thank you...I don't have enough energy to continue defending myself against this particular commenter. S/he is relentlessly ignorant, rude, and false.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-07 10:17AM | 0 recs
Why is it a divide?

You have two very intelligent and very ambitious men who want the top spot in American politics.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is also nothing wrong with hardball politics and clashes along the way.  

As cynical as I am, I think I see politics as a more noble endeavor than many here do.  

I think the fight, as long as it is a clean one (granted what is clean when it comes to politics is a bit murky), is good for the candidates and for the party.  The winner will take on the fight of their lives in 2008 and the other side takes no prisoners (the loser may seriously end up in GITMO -- just kidding).

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-06 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Hey as a Hillary Clinton supporter my opinion is any unnecessary , hit attack on any candidate is totally unneccessary.Liberals are overwhelming choosing Hillary in the Polls so why are Edwards and obama attacking each other on who will be the liberal champ.beats me.

by bebe 2007-07-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I take your point, any dissent between Edwards and Obama supporters actually suits Hillary just fine.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:35PM | 0 recs
Thanks for a great post

this was a very thoughtful diary.

Both Obama and Edwards supporters sometimes strain to find flaws in rivals in an attempt to bring them down. It happens.

I think diaries like this are very helpful because it explains why you support Obama and only briefly alludes to why you do not support Edwards. You question Edwards' sincerety and to combat this Edwards supporters should try and convince you otherwise. At least when people question Obama on issues, that's what I try and do.

by dpg220 2007-07-06 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for a great post

I think questioning Edwards sincerity is a valid and good thing to do, mostly based on his ambiguous record. He says he's against the war, but in 2003 he was railing for the war. He even co-sponsored the Iraq War bill.

He says he's for the poor, but he voted for the bankruptcy bill, which was clearly an attack on the poor.

It's hard to believe that John Edwards actually means what he says when what he says does a 180 every 4 years.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-06 01:12PM | 0 recs
What bull.

Obama is so weak that you have to attack Edwards.  

by littafi 2007-07-06 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: What bull.

not at all.  edwards isn't even a consideration except when his desperate supporters lash out at obama.  the fact that anne frank can't say anything that doesn't condemn obama is all the proof we need of who's the weak candidate.

like i said, at least you understand how dan quayle's supporters felt...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:39PM | 0 recs
Obama said he was against

the war, but voted for funding every time until May.  Is he sincere?

by littafi 2007-07-06 02:08PM | 0 recs
Obama voted to fund the war!

>>>Obama said he was against the war, but voted for funding every time until May.  Is he sincere?

Shhh....most Obama supporters don't know.

by annefrank 2007-07-06 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted to fund the war!

De-funding is a bad idea.  Check out the history of the McGovern-Hatfield bill, it won Nixon the election.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted to fund the war!

Yep, because we're ignorant. We don't know.

See the diary above, "holier than thou"...this is what I'm talking about (for a very few Edwards supporters, not all by any means).

And yes, defunding is a bad idea. We have to leave Iraq much more carefully than we went in.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted to fund the war!

That is exactly why Edwards proposes reducing troop levels to 100,000 and implementing a phased withdrawal of the rest over the next year. Thanks for helping me remember another reason I support Edwards!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama voted to fund the war!

sure they do.  edwards inexperience in foreign affairs doesn't mean we don't know what obama stands for...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama said he was against

ABSOLUTELY!  he had the courage to be against the war before mainstream democrats thought it was cool (to be against the war).  he may not believe in defunding; i know i don't...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for a great post

Edwards did not vote for the current Bankruptcy Bill of 2005. He spoke out against that. 2001 was a long time ago!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for a great post

He didn't vote for it because, unlike Joe Lieberman in 2000, Edwards declined to defend his seat while running for VP, and thus handed it over to a right-wing Republican.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 08:08PM | 0 recs
conventional wisdom said...

he couldn't win the seat, that he'd beat a weak incumbent and had become a weak incumbent himself.  so it was an easy decision to make...

by bored now 2007-07-07 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: conventional wisdom said...

Polls have shown he would've won that seat. I don't have the link, but I saw a poll that said he would've won 52-47!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-07 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: conventional wisdom said...

i've seen that said here.  but this was the cw at the time that he made the decision, not afterward...

by bored now 2007-07-07 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: conventional wisdom said...

Well the plain and simple fact of the matter is I can't say he would've won, but you sure as hell can't say he would've lost either. Neither one of us can know for sure.

by RDemocrat 2007-07-07 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: conventional wisdom said...

that's just silly.  we should be able to agree on what is historical fact.  this was said (edwards won't win) at the time he decided not to run.  democrats thought they had a viable alternative, who wound up losing.  i don't know if conventional wisdom effected edwards thinking (people in the senate think he never cared about the senate, so it probably didn't), but i can certainly say that it was conventional wisdom at the time.

by bored now 2007-07-08 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for a great post

He voted for it. I don't care what he said in 2005 when he was safely out of Washington DC. Everything he did when he was actually in Washington DC was wrong. He voted for the war. He voted for bankruptcy reform. He told us all that we needed to support the President because Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. How backwards can you get? Edwards makes all the wrong moves when it counts.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-09 05:31PM | 0 recs
Why is Pope so low on facts?
Edwards didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill!
Hey - if you'd do a little less pole watching and more research, perhaps...
by annefrank 2007-07-06 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Pope so low on facts?

"Pole watching?"

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Pope so low on facts?

Hey don't ask me, that one got me too!! If it came from annefrank is was cool though!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Pope so low on facts?

poll watching.  i thought it was clever...

by bored now 2007-07-06 06:33PM | 0 recs
Its the nature of politics.

Both camps are looking to expand their followers and sometimes the only way to do that is to point out the negatives of the other side.  Ugly thing about the primaries because everyone are democrats at heart.

I think some scrutiny from both sides is helpful and often produces some interesting discussions.  However, we all have the tendency to ram certain issues to the grave (i.e. John Edwards war vote and Obama's coal stance), myself included.

I am trying to stay out of the flame wars but I have such strong support for Obama that I will not back down when my candidate is unjustly attacked and that means attacking the supporters candidate.  However, I think that the flames wars are becoming less useful by the day because most of the candidates are on the same side of the issues.  It is just a matter who you like best and I am under the impression that most strong supporters are not going to change camps until the primaries are over (i.e. lovingj and bluediamond for Obama; philgoblue and david mizner for Edwards; to name a few).

by lovingj 2007-07-06 01:32PM | 0 recs
LOL. I do not

believe you stay away from flame wars.

by littafi 2007-07-06 02:09PM | 0 recs
Exactly!
I expect Obama supporters to continue pole dancing right through the primaries and spreading the meme that Obama opposed the war - while omitting the fact he voted to FUND it!
Those tactics are clearly Rovian - whatever it takes to win!
by annefrank 2007-07-06 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

What is it with you and pole dancing, anyway?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

LOL - it's a reference to Obama Girl.

by annefrank 2007-07-07 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

Yeah, I assumed it was that. I was just confused because you say it EVER SINGLE TIME and there's nothing like it in the video. It's like me taking the Edwards "I Feel Pretty" video and constantly taking about Edwards' "choreographed musical numbers."

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-07 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

let me know when you get tired of pushing this meme. it's going no where

by rapcetera 2007-07-06 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

Speaking out against the war and proposing a March '08 withdrawal date but not voting to immediately defund = Rovian.

Co-sponsoring the legislation that made the war possible in the first case and blowing the single biggest judgement call of a career, then trying to run as more opposed to the war than those who knew it was wrong all along = Not Rovian.

Got it.

(Little tip: if there isn't an attempt to disenfranchise voters or violate civil rights involved, it probably ain't "Rovian.")

by Jay R 2007-07-06 11:02PM | 0 recs
Obama on &quot;civil rights&quot;

Just one month into his term, the former civil rights lawyer defied the Democrats and voted for the class-action "reform" bill. Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers. A few weeks later, though he voted against the credit-card-industry-written bankruptcy bill, Obama also voted against an amendment that would have capped credit-card interest rates at a whopping 30 percent (he defends his vote by claiming the amendment was poorly written).

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0609 -21.htm

by annefrank 2007-07-07 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on &quot;civil rights&quot;

Anne, for the last time, if you're going to try and base an impression about a Presidential candidate on their legislative votes, then you need to find someone who didn't vote as a down-the-line centrist during his term in the Senate.  You're accusing Obama of voting for something non-progressive while excusing Edwards for his six years of the same sort of votes, including the 2001 version of the bankruptcy bill and, of course, co-sponsoring the Iraq War authorization.  Your double standard is so big that it's visible from space.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
sincerity

May 2007: Obama tell union members in New Jersey he would not shop at WAL-MART.  He even says they need to change their corporate culture.

Autumn 2006: Obama is silent when Big Box Ordinance in Chicago is vetoed by Daley.  The Big Box Ordinance would require WAL-MART to pay a living wage.  Obama made not statements about the ordinance.

Winter 2007: Obama endorses the man whose only veto in City Hall fo 17 years was on an ordinance to force WAL-MART to pay a living wage.

I do not see sincerity here.  I see hypocrisy and pandering.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

I read a thoughtful comment yesterday to one of your posts on the Big Box ordinance which seemed to convincingly refute your argument, what is your point?  Should we promote legislation which targets particular corporations or rather seek to legislate for improved wages and working conditions under all circumstances?

My impression of the Big Box ordinance is that it was a single issue bill which would result in criticism and legal challenges which would be hard to defend against.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

It was not a single issue bill.  It targeted corporations of a certain size with a certain number of employees in a particular city.  Since it is on the city level, it will be limited to that city.  But local legislation serves as a precedent for county, state and federal law.  To denigrate local law and local government to such an extent contradicts your support of obama.  Is he not the community organizer?  Is he not the state senator who is running on his status of state senator, not US Senator?  or is local government and local action only a campaign slogan?

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:45PM | 0 recs
Cut It Out

I am completely over you troll-rating any poster who disagrees with you, especially me.  That is not how it works and you are abusing your privileges here, as anyone will tell you.  I said nothing which justifies that response from you.  You are lowering the quality of discourse and attempting to intimidate others.

Is that the kind of truth you are seeking, that you can disrupt the exchange of ideas and no-one can stop you?  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Cut It Out

Highlighting a contradiction in one campaign's actions and rhetoric will not enact a grand debasement of political discourse.  And discourse, by the way, is comprised of the collective utterances and statements within a given field of life, not the utterances of an individual at a particular time and place.  And even though Benveniste's definition of discourse is one that includes the speech act of the individual, it is only applicable to acts that employ the present tense.  This misuse of the word discourse is somewhat annoying, if I may be honest.  And frankly, highlighting contradiction will elevate broader political discourse, for it may force those who are engaged in the process to actually analyze the various statements and actions they witness, not selectively consume those that cohere with their limited presuppositions.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 04:46PM | 0 recs
Still No Excuse for Troll-rating

Yeah, sure.  That's no excuse for troll rating me for disagreeing with you.  Remove the troll rating and then we'll discuss it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

dick durbin didn't speak out, nor any of the congressional delegation.  your double standards betray your hatred for obama, and you're not fooling anyone.

the hypocrisy you see is in the mirror...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

i do not believe any of the other members of illinois's chicago delegation told union members in Trenton, NJ, that they are opposed to WAL-MART's corporate culture.

i am correct, and obama is a hypocrite and a panderer when he says he opposes an corporation he essentially welcomed into his city without labor protection laws.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

you are the hypocrite because you have double standards one this.  obama does not.  he doesn't interfere in the local affairs of chicago or the statewide affairs from springfield.  he concerns himself with the national affairs of a us senator, which is what we elected him to do.  the people who are involved in the big box fight simply do not feel like you do about obama...

by bored now 2007-07-06 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: sincerity

bullshit

giannoulias endorsement?>

stroger endorsement?

endorsements of south side aldermen?

duckworth endorsement?

he is very involved in local politics, and the newspapers have reported it.  here is just one citation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-obama_endorse_12jun12,0,484394.s tory

and his statements about city hall in 2005?  

now you are lying.  how pitiful.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:19PM | 0 recs
i'll try to remember your ignorance...

i guess i assume too much for you.

just as presidents are protective of their prerogatives, local and state officials are protective of their's.  you want obama to cross over the line.  he's smarter than that.

alexi is a good guy and was an early supporter of barack's senate bid.  he's doing a terrific job (i campaign with him and deb shore).  the point, though, of barack's endorsements of candidates, which are eagerly sought, mostly because he appears in tv commercials with those people he's endorsed.

had you been familiar with chicago politics, you would have known that endorsements are treated as supremely important here, and that people like barack are deluged with demands for them.  mostly, he's been very loyal to those people who supported his own bid in 2004 (like dorothy tilman) but has come through when the machine asked for his help (stroger and duckworth).  unlike you, he understands the game, which is why he knew it would be inappropriate for him to get involved in the big box fight while completely appropriate to make endorsements all the way down to the aldermanic level.

ask for help next time you are confused about chicago politics.  there's no harm in that...

by bored now 2007-07-06 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

nice try at spin

he is engaged in local politics, and his endorsements were for local corrupt machine politicians.  those are the facts.  in chicago he engages in sleaze politics, and then he plays the role of the reformer on the national stage.  low information voters will not notice, but others do.

you seem to know a lot of people in chicago.  perhaps you are an operative.  i know a lot of people too in chicago.  and you, my friend, are full of shit.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

i don't need no stickin' spin.  just truth.  i thought you wanted the truth?  don't tell me you can't handle it!

i didn't say obama wasn't engaged in local politics.  he is, after all, a local politician.  i said he didn't interfere in state and local governance.  there's a difference, an important line that you seem to not understand.

alexi was not a local corrupt machine pol, in fact he withstood one of the greatest assaults by a machine pol we've seen.  you are just wrong.  you are blinded by your sheer hatred for obama (what is it?  because he's black?  good-looking?  too eloquent?  gets things done?  too smart?  effects real change?).

you may know people in chicago, but you don't know chicago politics.  it's not just that you don't understand the players or even the process.  you don't understand the rules of the game, and you're a hypocrite for expecting more of obama than you expect of other politicians.  your hatred just bleeds through everything.

but let's be real: your real hypocrisy is over your feigned concern for big box.  had you actually been interested in enacting big box legislation in chicago you wouldn't be shitting all over people who can make that happen, or at least the people who've devoted their lives to making that happen.  that's what you've done (and i'm not talking about myself -- i don't live in chicago).  your criticism of obama offends and alienates the people who you'd think you'd want to support -- IF YOU REALLY CARED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.  we both know you don't, that you couldn't care less, you just wanted a stick to bash obama with, big box advocates be damned...

by bored now 2007-07-07 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

spin spin spin

ad hominem

by truthteller2007 2007-07-07 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

Actually, most of us high-info voters know but don't care, because we understand that politics is not a business where purity wins elections and that no national political figure of any stripe has spotless hands.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

You really can't help this guy, he is beyond help. But that was another excellent explanation of our politics. He said he once lived here, but the trees live here too.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-06 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

heh.  thanks...

by bored now 2007-07-07 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: i'll try to remember your ignorance...

And Joe Novak, too.  Any thoughts on him?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-07 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

The sooner Edwards and Obama supporters pitch tents near each other the better for all concerned.  The ideological differences between both camps are negligible compared to the distance they are from Hillary and her status quo army.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I don't think that's gonna happen. I'm don't say that I mistrust Edwards because I'm an Obama supporter. I'm an Obama supporter because I can't trust John Edwards. I don't want anything to do John Edwards. He's the very image of the slippery two-faced politician.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-06 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Consider the fact that Edwards is positioned to keep Hillary at bay in Iowa, a very important state, while Obama has the resource to stretch her thin elsewhere.  There is a synergy which is already working.  Consider their collegial performance at the last debate which made them both look good and made Hillary appear isolated and shrill.  This can have a beneficial impact on both campaigns.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 02:04PM | 0 recs
A Good Point

I agree with Shaun.  I am confident that there are two very large groups out there in the blogosphere.  The first group (tens of thousands of people) has the following preference for President in 2008:  1) Edwards,  2) Obama.  The second group (also tens of thousands of people) has this preference for President in 2008:  1) Obama, 2) Edwards.  And both of these groups are adamantly opposed to Hillary Clinton.

But...if you haven't noticed, the status quo, the beltway insiders, the powers that be in the corporate and political world are putting all their money and might behind Hillary Clinton.  She is the only one of the three being funded by corporations and PAC's.  Does that tell you anything?  Do you think it will be easy to prevent her from becoming the nominee?  Has it ever been easy fighting and defeating corporate power?  (Hint-no)  And do you think that preventing her from becoming the nominee is best accomplished by endless flame wars between Obama and Edwards supporters?

Are there any other strategies available?  

by Demo37 2007-07-06 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Good Point

Thanks.  I believe the inescapable logic of their common cause has been tacitly accepted by the respective campaign strategists for some time and supporters are just catching on.  I wouldn't expect any kind of formal acknowledgement of this either, that would be counter-productive, but I can see ways in which these campaigns can be mutually supportive and still retain their individual stamp and integrity.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: A Good Point

I'm here for honest debate about the issues and the candidate, not to try and project what kind of political impact my ideas will have on the world at large.

If you make every comment trying to triangulate how it will affect the Cable TV news shows, I think you have a very inflated opinion of how many people read your comments or your diary.

I believe that if we openly and honestly talk about the issues and the candidates, that's how we can have the most beneficial results.

I will state my ideas proudly because I believe they are right. If anyone can change my mind, then have at me. But I have read everything I could get my hands on. Based on extensive study, I believe that John Edwards is a liar and a two-faced politician who will say anything at any time if he thinks it will make him popular. I believe that Hillary Clinton is the very heart of darkness. Obama is the only one of the three frontrunners who both has the right rhetoric and the right record.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Unfortunately Edwards supporters see it vice-versa!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Just saying that there is another opinion somewhere is meaningless.

Edwards supporters believe the opposite based on what?

Obama says he's for the poor. Obama voted against bankrupcy reform.

Edwards says he's for the poor, but he voted for bankrupcy reform.

Obama has been saying he's against the war since 2002, when it was very politically risky for him to do so.

Edwards said he's the leader on being anti-war, when he co-sponsored the war authorization bill, and hit the talk shows to convince the nation that Hussein was a terrorist threat.

Come on. Edwards is as two-faced as they come.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-09 05:37PM | 0 recs
Obama is 2 faced as they come!
Gee - basing an election on his opposition to the war - and most of his supporters don't even know he voted to fund it and voted against timetables.
That's quite slippery, Pope! and very DECEPTIVE!
by annefrank 2007-07-06 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is 2 faced as they come!

I actually do know he voted for funding - and I agree with him. I also know he opposed the war in 2002. I also know John Edwards encouraged Democrats to support the war. But you won't see me insulting Edwards supporters' intelligence by claiming that I'm the only one who knows this.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is 2 faced as they come!

Yes, we all know Obama voted for funding. He was concerned that a vote against funding would put the troops at risk, and he may very well be right about that.

On the other hand, Obama never would have been put in that difficult position had Hillary Clinton and John Edwards started the war to begin with, while Obama was urging them not to.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-09 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

if edwards is forced out of the race, then i go to hillary.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Well, that's no surprise.  With your introduction to myDD as the poster of a scurrilous hit diary on Senator Obama I'm thinking you need to work on your credibility as an interlocutor.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 02:08PM | 0 recs
*sigh*

And this is the difference between the MyDD of today and the MyDD of, say, four months ago.

by Silent sound 2007-07-06 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Oh come on, you are already for Hillary.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-06 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

When Edwards is forced out, Hillary will go DOWN. Which explains why Hillary supporters are here trying to launch flame wars between Obama and Edwards supporters so they don't unite against Hillary.

How fricken stupid do you think we are?

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Edwards is really more in line with Hillary than Obama I suspect.He has done a complete 360 .Sometimes I don't recognize the Edwards of today.

by bebe 2007-07-06 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Well, he had the courage to call the GWOT a bumper sticker.  Hillary is using the right-wing frame on the GWOT to bolster her support.  That's a big difference.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I thought Obama was more in line with Hillary the way they followed each other around there for a while!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

¿Que?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Then you're probably not aware that poverty has increased significantly!

by annefrank 2007-07-06 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Yeah - nobody knows this! You should do us a favor and open up your font of secret knowledge. Make us all as enlightened as yourself.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Wait.  What?  How does that have anything to do with anything?

by notapipe 2007-07-06 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

You ever see the movie "Last Action Hero"?  

Ah, nevermind...I think you mean a "180"

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

The diary is mistitled, as there is not much thought in this diary.  I do see rehashed and revisited talking points, however.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Thanks, truthteller. Thanks for making me feel good about myself.

By the way, ironic name.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:39PM | 0 recs
If I may...

I am still trying to get involved here at MyDD as the majority my commenting, etc. has been done at Kos.

I am a 27 year old single teacher. The issues that matter most to me as an individual are health care and education while I see any Democratic victory as a step toward de-escalation in Iraq. On Health Care, Senator Edwards has in my opinion (I am one person, don't strike me down for having one) the only true UHC plan and Sens. Obama and Clinton are behind on this issue as I see it. As for education, I watched the video of all three from the NEA conference. Senator Edwards sent his children through the public school system which I love dearly and is clearly pro-union and pro-teacher. Senator Clinton was very impressive too on these matters (For the record Dodd is a noted education star and went to my alma mater, but I am not considering him as a serious contender). Senator Obama's speech at the NEA forum drew cheers from many, but lacked in many areas. At times I didn't feel like he knew what he was even talking about, especially in the department of merit-based pay.

The make or break for me is on the issue of economic inequality. Sens Edwards and Obama are noted advocates for the less fortunate. Only one candidate is making it a central theme though in this election. And when push comes to shove it is another reason why I support Senator Edwards now and did also in 2004.

The flame wars between the two camps are ridiculous and I have took part in my fair share on Kos. Those who call Edwards phony and insincere need to meet him. Or better yet if you aren't interested, read Four Trials. You will see that the "ambulance chaser" credo is completely inappropriate for him. For Senator Obama it comes down to questions raised on experience and concrete views on specific issues for the future (not his views expressed in A. of Hope). Heck as a teacher I don't even fully understand the WalMart stuff so I don't care to pretend like I do. I see frequently though chances for Obama to just knock things out of the park and take control of this race and he never seizes those opportunities (the Howard debate for one). It just tires me to have the same fights over and over. Edwards authorized and cosponsored the AUMF. Obama voted to continually fund it when he got to Capitol Hill. Blah Blah Blah. Every day, every night.

Bottom line, I know who I want my President to be and I don't need people to tell me why I am an asshole for supporting him and why Sens. Obama and Clinton are in a two-person race. They are all worthy adversaries as are extraordinarily intelligent folks like Dennis Kucinich and Joseph Biden. I don't know why I wrote this much, but I see Edwards and Obama as two completely different candidates. I do not see them as the same nor do I think the two sides should unite together. I will vote for BHO in 11/08 if need be, but until then he is not in my top two. Sorry if this was a big ol' mess.

by Ocean Stater 2007-07-06 03:05PM | 0 recs
Hey Daily kos is not my favourite

by bebe 2007-07-06 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

Your post is thoughtful and sure, Obama and Edwards are different candidates.  However they seem to be both promoting progressive positions where Hillary seems more like the status quo candidate.  What makes you think their positions are irreconcilable or that their supporters are more estranged then, say, Hillary supporters with either of them?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

Shaun, I will honestly admit that I do not know. I started typing and just kept going. I think it's fairly obvious that the large percentage (fair or unfair) is anti-Hillary. You do bring up a good point and I think their are many more irreconcilable differences between the Clinton supporters and (enter any candidate here)'s supporters. It just seems like there is so much animosity built up already that 6 months from now if JE or BHO takes Iowa or Nevada or both that it's going to be a tough one to swallow for either side and it's going to be very tough to jump right on board with the opponent.

by Ocean Stater 2007-07-06 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

IF Edwards loses, I jump on Hillary's ship.  

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 03:24PM | 0 recs
Help me figure you out.

IF Edwards loses, I jump on Hillary's ship.  

Why?  And when did you come to this position?  Were you, at any time in the past, a Hillary supporter?  Or is this because of a hatred for Obama you've built up over the course of a number of flame wars?  If the three options were Obama, Hillary and Richardson, would you still choose Hillary?

by notapipe 2007-07-06 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

Well, fair enough, but it is exactly that six months of animosity which needs to be ameliorated.  I am suggesting that the ideological differences between them do not preclude a common acknowledgement that the ideological divide between them is more superficial than real.  I would gladly support an Edwards nomination if Obama faltered, for example.  

In a situation where Edwards won Iowa, say, and Obama SC, for example, Hillary's win in NH and NV would be contained headed into the major primary races in NY and CA.  This kind of synergy keeps both campaigns in the fight and might even change the race altogether.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

I thought it summed things up nicely!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...
Appreciate your commentary - and as a teacher, agree with you on the merit-based pay. Wish it could work, but with so much politics in education, it's difficult.
Obama is not expected to win the nomination, just raise a lot of money to distract from Edwards and attract more voters to the Democratic Party.
by annefrank 2007-07-06 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If I may...

Look, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but anyone who thinks that someone runs for any federal office to simply "distract" voters from another candidate clearly doesn't have the first clue about what an incredible pain in the ass campaigning above the local level is.  The amount of calls to make, hands to shake, and asses to kiss is staggering.

I also think you're making a serious mistake to say Obama's just here to raise a ton of money--nobody imagined when he started that he'd be the top-raising candidate from both parties.  The fact that anyone is outpacing Hillary Clinton in fundraising is pretty damn amazing, and shouldn't be written off so quickly (not to mention getting over a quarter million individual donors in a single quarter).  That's not insignificant from any candidate, no matter how dead-set you are against their candidacy.

by Jay R 2007-07-06 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Hey blame it on Hillary supporters.

by bebe 2007-07-06 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I have questions about Obama's sincerity too. I also have questions about him leading a Progressive re-birth in this country. I like the guy just fine personally though!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards
If Obama supporters wanted a Progressive rebirth in our country - they'd be supporting Edwards.  Instead - they're creating and circulating smackdown videos of the most electable Progressive. In fact, it's doubtful many of them even understand Progressive values or that Progressive candidates, and especially a millionaire Progressive candidate, is very rare.
Instead - they're focused on a man and his "hope."
by annefrank 2007-07-06 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

If you made any sort of distinction between the Obama supporters who are creating and circulating smackdown videos and those who merely see him as the more likely champion of the same progressive ideals of which you speak there may be more opportunity to have a fruitful dialogue on how those ideals can be promoted no matter which candidate gains the nomination.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

>>>>If you made any sort of distinction between the Obama supporters who are creating and circulating smackdown videos and those who merely see him as the more likely champion of the same progressive ideals of which you speak there may be more opportunity to have a fruitful dialogue on how those ideals can be promoted no matter which candidate gains the nomination.

There is no difference on this site. The same Obama supporters posting videos mocking Edwards are the same supporters who cling to Obama for "hope."
Obama is a 2 year senator who has delivered inspiring and motivational speeches with broad themes addressing national issues - but has released few policy statements and solutions, missed at least 2 big union events and an Iowa biggie.
These things matter to voters who study the candidates' positions - not their pole dancing videos.  And it just magnifies his lack of knowledge of the issues and perpetuates the meme that he's not in it to win - but distract.
It's not that I don't agree with Obama on some issues - it's that He. Won't. Win.

by annefrank 2007-07-06 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Really?  I get it that you are adamant, and you really believe in the progressive values which Edwards brings to this campaign.  That's great.  Why wouldn't we want to promote those values by whatever means possible.  I must admit I find your way of presenting your arguments a bit terse, to say the least, but I surely admire your dedication.  These ideals outlive candidacies and administrations, why can't promoting progressive politics be common ground for all of us?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

>>>Why wouldn't we want to promote those (Progressive) values by whatever means possible.

Well- first of all, it's important to understand Progressive values. Just because someone is called a Progressive, doesn't make it so. We see evidence of this on Sunday talk shows where "Democratic" consultants repeatedly maintain a center/right position - never venturing far from Washington's approved Democratic centri$t position. Therefore the public isn't exposed to any solutions considered "leftwing."

There's a difference in "Progressive" candidates advocating for the environment while sponsoring bills that rape the environment and benefit the coal indu$try.
There's a difference in a candidate opposing the war when he couldn't vote against it, then voting to fund the war when he could vote.

Being pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights, pro-education - are values commonly held by Democrats.
But there are trickier issues - like Obama opposing the Feingold bill in 2005 to censure Bush. Why did he vote against it?  Why did Obama vote against Kerry's redeployment bill last year? Why did Obama support warmonger Lieberman?  Why did Obama call Paul Wellstone a "gadfly"?

If you think Obama is a Progressive - please read these articles by Progressive writers.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0609 -21.htm - June 2006

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0 207.html - Feb. 2007

by annefrank 2007-07-07 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

of course, the environmental groups feel differently about it than you do -- and your feeble attempts to impose your solution on how democrats should vote on iraq doesn't change that it's not a good idea.  but at least you know how dan quayle's supporters feel!

by bored now 2007-07-07 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Again - Obama supporters are not a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. We are actually informed about policy and politics. This is the "holier than thou" attitude that I speak of. So get off your high horse. Is it impossible for you to accept that some people like Obama for many of the same reasons you like Edwards?

Incidentally, what is it with you and the fact that Edwards is a "millionaire." You seem to admire that. I don't think it really matters.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Please list the Progressive millionaire candidates for Prez in U.S. history.

by annefrank 2007-07-06 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Uh...what? Again, why does it matter that he's a millionaire? And why won't you ever answer any of my questions about your irrational hatred of Obama? I'm honestly concerned.

Though to do you the favor of actually answering your question, Theodore Roosevelt was considered the original Progressive, and he came from an extremely rich family. Woodrow Wilson was also in the Progressive tradition, and was wealthy. Now that I think about it, every Progressive who's run for president has been a millionaire - because you have to be a millionaire to run for president.

I don't think being a millionaire and advocating for the poor is one bit more honorable than being middle class and advocating for the poor, or being poor and advocating for the poor.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

none?  what do i win???

(actually, by historic terms, it's probably been more common to have a progressive presidential candidate who was a millionaire than one who wasn't, comparatively speaking...)

by bored now 2007-07-06 06:52PM | 0 recs
You want a list?

John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Ralph Nader
Edward Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Want more?

by Adam B 2007-07-06 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

1. FDR

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Are you serious? Are you fucking serious?

The portrait of JFK on my wall just told me to tell you that you're an idiot.  I think he might be being a bit harsh, but you know how those blue bloods can be.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

annefrank: your comments are condescending, patronizing and insulting.

by howieinseattle 2007-07-06 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

About time somebody said it in plain terms.

That's how we do in Seattle!

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

This is the kind of comment that makes me want to throw my computer out the window. And then blow up the offices of every major internet provider.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Congratulations, truthteller and annefrank. Your posts are so Rovian in style, so full of misleading charges, so lacking in good will and intellectual honesty, so totally illiberal, so insulting, that you've almost convinced me that I could not support Edwards if he were the nominee. I must keep reminding myself that politicians are not responsible for their supporters.

by skeptica 2007-07-06 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Right. I get this feeling myself sometimes, but it's not Edwards' fault.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I agree with the sentiment expressed in this Diary. The very response to this post by Edwards supporters confirms everything you stated.

Thank you.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Thanks very much, I'm also a fan of your diaries. Though we should again stress that most Edwards supporters are not like the few I've been having to fight with in these comments.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Mmmm. I don't know about that.

;p

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Well of course you do!! You even support Ann Coulter against Edwards!! LOL!!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-06 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

LOL, indeed. You are hilarious. I am Laughing Out Loud. Ann Coulter. Good one.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

you should read what the other poster whom you are agreeing with has said in the past. if you truly care about being sensible the first step is to realize that not everyone in any of the various camps are on teh same page with that. there are edwards, obama and hrc supporters who are more than willing to sling mud with the best of the GOP. If you find that funny, I question whether you mean what you say because civil people (and i;'ve met several obama people on here I am starting to like) don't endorse such behavior.

by bruh21 2007-07-06 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

He was being sarcastic. I think.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I was. Thought that was obvious.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I was talking to BlueDiamond!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-07 07:11AM | 0 recs
My take

I think the first half the diary (Edwards and Obama supporters aren't so different) is well put. The second half is fine too but it changes the tone to praise Obama and critique Edwards which sort of undermines the initial call for civility and unity.

Anyway, I'm tired or reading about these tiny policy differences and whose wife was on what board and what stock someone owned. I don't care. They are all wealthy with connections to corporate America. They also all have progressive records and would likely choose even more progressive platforms if the political climate allowed and if they felt they could push such policies through Congress.

Whatever they propose now and what they manage to get through Congress if elected may be very different, but I know both Edwards and Obama are fine progressives per Washington standards so I trust they will do right by the country, though their styles would likely differ (Edwards seems currently more aggressive, Obama more diplomatic) and it's impossible to know which style would produce the better results.

So why do I support Obama over Edwards? Because:

1. I think both would be good general election candidates, but Obama has a better chance to beat Hillary in the Dem primary in my assessment.

2. I trust Obama's judgment on policy more. His well-reasoned opposition to the Iraq war is the best example of why, but more generally I often (though of course not always) like his reasoning when he answers questions.

I did read Edwards' Senate speech on his vote to let the President use military force against Iraq and was unimpressed by what he said - there was nothing there to convince me that he understood the depth of the issue.

3. I'm hoping that an Obama victory would send an anti-(dumb)war message to the pro-war Democratic establishment the way a Howard Dean victory would have done in 2004, though obviously the Iraq devisions are blurrier now than back then.

Now I realize that Edwards has been more aggressive on certain progressive issues, which is why I assume so many here like him and that's a good reason to do so. I'm just personally not convinced that he would maintain such an approach if elected in light of his past Senate record, nor am I convinced that such an approach would produce the superior results relative to Obama's style and strengths.

by End game 2007-07-06 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: My take

Nice post. And fair. Though while you're right that the second half of the diary takes a more pro-Obama stance, that's because I'm pro-Obama and I don't think there's anything wrong with statements of support or critiques of other candidates, as long as they're based in reality and not off-the-deep-end crazy or biased. I also agree with your three points about Obama.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: My take

there are no citations in your diary.  nothing is based on reality in your posting.  in fact, it is your highly subjective assessment of the current state of political affairs.  because there is nothing in the diary worth discussing, as it is full of your impressions, i do not see how it can sustain a discussion.  and that the comments veer into so many directions is a testament to the vagueness of this diary, which in my opinion is based not on reality but on a series of amorphous, subjective impulses.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: My take

Reality, now there's an interesting topic.  I would be interested to hear more from you about reality.  This isn't World of Warcraft, you know.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 11:32PM | 0 recs
This is wrong

>>>>but I know both Edwards and Obama are fine progressives per Washington standards

No. Edwards has NEVER accepted PAC donations and does not accept donations from Washington lobbyists!!
Obama HAS accepted PAC donations and IS accepting donations from Washington lobbyists through the back door.

Per senate race - most PAC donations are from bu$inesses.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/a llsummary.asp?CID=N00009638

by annefrank 2007-07-06 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: This is wrong

Edwards self-financed his Senate race; Obama didn't have that kind of money.

by Adam B 2007-07-06 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: This is wrong

still doesn't...

by bored now 2007-07-07 04:48AM | 0 recs
There has been a spate

of random diaries wherein Obama supporters discuss their support of Obama.  Never do these diaries contain citations, and the tone is always one of naivete, as if we are to believe all of these new posters, and there is one everyday, just emerged into the political process.  there are so many, they constitute a genre in themselves.  i think it is coordinated, and i wish it would stop, because it contributes nothing to an analysis of the candidates.  in fact, it is just a bunch of sycophantic bilge with no analytic foundation.  let us discuss policy and position, not mindless responses, even if those mindless responses are coordinated.

by truthteller2007 2007-07-06 06:05PM | 0 recs
Those are bad rules

But it's awfully hard to discuss policy and position when position papers are that not the whole of what is attractive about Obama.  When one of the considerations that inclines certain people towards Obama is admiration for his reasoning in opposing the AUMF originally (cite) (especially in contrast to the other frontrunners (cite, cite)), your demand that we discuss only "policy and position" excludes that consideration.

And it's not an unimportant one.  One thing that is absolutely clear is that there will be situations which the next President will face for which no one in this primary has even considered putting together a position paper on. (See: All of American History.)  It is not enough to select our President on the basis of a checklist of positions.  We need to be sure that the next President not only will be opposed to the particular dumb wars we're involved in now, but will be opposed to future dumb wars as well.  Imagine, if you will, a liberal counterpart to George W. Bush, just as stupid and uninquisitive, but he had your positions coming into office, and ask yourself if you would want that to be your president.  And if you would rather a good policy sheet than an effective president, then you should really give the third and fourth tier candidates another chance.  But if you're at all reasonable, you'll see that character issues of a certain sort are important.

by notapipe 2007-07-06 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: There has been a spate

Well, there has been an endless procession of thoughtful, annotated and enlightening diaries on this site regarding all of the candidacies over the past six months, at least.  You might have missed them if you weren't paying attention, but I doubt it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Sorry I mistakenly wandered into Church of Obama.

cough, cough....

by areyouready 2007-07-06 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Satan just pulled up outside. He's waiting for you.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

I find it interesting how some liberals can act appalled at the tactics of right-wingers and simultaneously use them. Right-wing pundits like O'Reilly constantly use this tactic of ignoring the issue or the question or the topic at hand and instead taking potshots. So many comments on this diary have done this. I think I wrote a fairly decent diary, I'm pretty proud of it, I at least think it merits discussion. I am honestly surprised at how many people ignore the content of the diary and just line up in their already-held positions to take hits. No wonder Fox News has so many viewers.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 06:48PM | 0 recs
Are you sure you're not a Fox News viewer?

>>>I like John Edwards, but have some qualms about his sincerity.

Or perhaps, you've just been heavily influenced by Obama supporters' smackdown videos of the most electable progressive candidate.
Also at the beginning of your diary you claim there is little difference in the 2 progressive candidates. Holy Moly!! Seems like you're hoping and projecting - because Obama is clearly a Centri$t.

by annefrank 2007-07-06 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you sure you're not a Fox News viewer?

You've done it this time, annefrank. It's all there! "Smackdown videos"...superfluous dollar signs...you've outdone yourself. And all the while ignoring my points and criticizing me for saying "I like Edwards but...." You won't rest until I say "I like Edwards but nothing. He's flawless."

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

To be honest, I think it's a little presumptous for you, as a partisan(Obama) supporter to tell other partisan supporters how noble your intention was.

It's just laughable. No, unlike you, I don't believe Obama walk on water, and I have no delusion about the candidate I fall in love with either. I guess that's perhaps the difference between church and a real world.

Frankly, I scanned a couple of your comments, and found they were rather amusing and hypocritical.

by areyouready 2007-07-06 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Of course I'm partisan (though, technically, we're all in the same party). The point of this diary was for me to project many feelings partisans like me have about the blogosphere, and in particular about Obama and Edwards. And I don't think Obama walks on water. You just can't get it through your head that enthusiasm is a GOOD thing.

But hey, at least you said I was amusing. Thanks a million.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-06 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

Fear not.  Light a candle, drop a coin and back out slowly... you'll be fine.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughts on Obama vs. Edwards

And don't touch the water in the basin--it might boil over.

by Jay R 2007-07-07 11:12AM | 0 recs
Edwards and Obama Supporters

I think the tension between the hard core partisan Obama supporters and the hard core Edwards supporters can be summed up in the lyrics in this video.

To The Die Hard Edwards Supporters From The Die hard Obama Supporters.

The Lyrics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJJ6P_81n no

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-06 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and Obama Supporters

Shucks, I don't want to die hard I want to live well.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-06 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and Obama Supporters

LOL

It's all metaphoric. The club is the blogosphere. The charts is the polls and the beats are the fundraising.

;p

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-07 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and Obama Supporters

Yeah, really liked the clip, thanks.  All I meant was that Obama supporters seem to want to create the community I want to live in.  With all the flame-dancing and fire-twirling among supporters in this diary it was nice to have a good tune to go with it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-07 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and Obama Supporters

LOL.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-07 09:09AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------