a moderate. I would, however, say that unlike Edwards, Obama hasn't put out proposals and postions specific enough for us to gauge his place on the spectrum. What's the plan to get to universal health care? Will he, like Edwards, reject corporate-sponsored, balanced-budget-fetishizing Rubinomics? Will he, like Edwards, stand up against the Washington Consensus on "Free" Trade? My sense is that Obama has good progressive instincts--the question is, will he act on them or will he, seeking to cover potential problems in the general election, run a safe campaign?

I'm very impressed, though, that Obama opposes the death penalty. Good for him.

I would say it starts out as anti-Edwards and then goes on to be fair. I have always thought Obama was a liberal, but I think many people question why he hired so many centrists to run his campaign. I have never argued that Edwards is more liberal than Obama. I just believe that Edwards has a more detailed progressive policy right now, it is still early. For instance, Edwards stepping stones jobs program is an amazing one that could really help alleviate poverty and keep more money in states' pockets. I would argue with your statement that Edwards is a free trader, he's made it pretty clear he is for fair trade, strict labor and environmental restrictions and is for pressuring and sanctioning countries who do not follow these guidelines.

I am just afraid that Obama and Edwards will be competing for the same group of voters while Hillary takes the nomination.

I edited to remove the ACLU point.  I didn't think it was a fair comparison without finding all the numbers.  

Thanks for the Kudos!

Personal=82
Econ=0

"Hard-core liberal"

Wow, I'm way to the right of a lot of people here. And yet, I fit right in where I live in Madison. I think some of the questions don't give the whole story...like, I'm for vouchers, but not at the expense of public schools. I'm for privatization, but not at the risk of benefit cuts and increased debt.

Personal Score     42%    
Economic Score     34%

______

Mr. Obama is well aware of the serious criticisms he engenders, including the charge that he is conciliatory to a fault. He argues that he is "not interested in just splitting the difference" when he habitually seeks a consensus on tough issues. "There are some times where we need to be less bipartisan," he says. "I'm not interested in cheap bipartisanship. We should have been less bipartisan in asking tough questions about entering into this Iraq war."
_______

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/ 057/32283

I can see where your coming from.  I don't think it quite hits the nail on the head... Being and acting liberal isn't really partisanship, its ideological.  Obama can be quite partisan, as evidenced by his Senate votes (he was number 3 for Dems on partisan voting during the last session of congress), but he also is willing to work with others on consensus issues... in other words, he sees no need to be partisan for partisan sake.... if he agrees on an issue with a Republican, he will work with them on it.. like he did with his bill to raise Pell grant Funding.  But he won't compromise his values just to get some waterdowned bill passed like Liebermann, McCain, etc.  This is what I like about him... and what I think a lot of people in the Netroots don't seem to get... they have been burned by the DLC too often and think Obama will be the same... but a look at his record, the bills he co sponsored, shows otherwise.

and he knows he has a better chance of getting them passed if he is bi-partisan.

Psst...his bills are progressive.  Don't tell any Republicans. :)

He has been thoroughly vetted by the press and has the experience of being under the spotlight continuously for months. That is not the most important reason that I support him, but it does matter to me as well.

Obama has not been through a tough national campaign, and even his Illinois campaign wasn't that tough, because his general-election opponent was a joke.

Ezra Klein also doesn't get it.  He doesn't understand what Obama is about and doesn't seem to want to take the time to learn.  He equates Obama's bipartisanship to the DLC brand... the two ARE NOT THE SAME.  Obama's brand is new and exciting... it actually looks to get things done.

I can understand his confusion... He has been burned by the DLC.  Obama is all about working with Republicans to get issues THEY BOTH AGREE ON passed.  He will not ignore Allies on a bill JUST BECAUSE they are Republicans.  He will not work with someone if they want to make him compromise his values just to get a bill passed.  He wants US as Dems to find our counterparts in the GOP who also want to end the war, and work with them on ending the war... or to get Universal Healthcare... or other issues.

I'd put money on the Democratic nominee being either Edwards or Obama. I think either of them has a better chance than Clinton. Both will have volunteer armies supporting their candidacy, which makes a difference.

I like Edwards' domestic policy priorities--I like the way he has been working to strengthen labor unions. I'm not saying Obama is not for unions or card check or whatever, but Edwards has made clear this is a big priority for him, since unions are one of the best anti-poverty programs the US has ever had.

I look forward to learning more specifics about Obama's health care plan. The Edwards plan gives us a possibility of a single-payer system eventually, which I support. Our Congress would never adopt single-payer all at once.

Either way, the debates should be fun, with Edwards and Obama talking about who has the best plan for universal health care in their first term, while Clinton explains that we will have to wait until 2015 or 2016 to achieve this goal if she is president.

I'm the same as you, which is the main reason why I support Obama over Edwards.  Edwards is my second choice (clearly, after I looked at Richardson and educated myself on him), and the only way he moves from that position is if Gore gets in.  I would still like Edwards to answer WHY it took so long for him to apologize for his war vote and admit it was wrong.  Maybe one of the MYDDers will get an interview with him and can ask that question.

I don't think your post is trollish.  It brings up points others have brought up as well.  I have heard that said about Edwards.  On Iraq, I agree I have some questions.  On other issues though he is very consistent... Labor support, not taking PAC money, etc.  So my only questions are with Iraq.

I have to address this, even though its hard to take someone seriously who never uses caps and spells Iraq with a k.

"i believe he says what he thinks is politically expedient"

Surprise surprise, he's a politician.

"its his statements..his incredibly hawkish and immature statements that he knew that saddam had chemical and biological weapons and on an on"

Saddam did, at one time, have chemical and biological weapons, and there were some still in Iraq.  We did find some, just not massive stockpiles, and not weapons that were new or good condition.  Because we didn't have proof that all were destroyed in the 90s, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that he had some left.  I think most war opponents thought he had them, and did not really care.  Only nuclear weapons matter.

"his failure to back away from his pro resolution vote as late as late 2004! he was still claiming he would vote the same way but we already knew a lot by then! i KNOW what he was doing... he knew if he ran for president he'd be questioned on his security bonafides so he was trying to position himself as a tough guy.. now he realizes there is a vacumn in the primary left by the lack of a dean democrat (for want of a better term) so he's trying to position himself as the netroots/progressive dean democrat candidate... its his prerogative to do so but its patently transparent and i'm surprised more people don't see it for what it is."

Edwards voted against funding for the war while he was still in the senate.  I don't recall his statements during the campaign, nor do I really care, because he was subordinate to Kerry.  Your speculation about this seems to be based on your distrust in him on one issue, and then you assume the worst about him.

"i like richardson .."

Not for long.  He has a poor record compared to all of the other candidates.  He supports "access" to more affordable health care, but not universal health care.  He thinks that NAFTA and other free trade deals are good for everyone, even though the number of people in Mexico living in intense poverty has significantly increased since NAFTA.  He is probably the Democratic candidate that most strongly supports free trade.  Check out his record.

Yep, but even in this diary there have been a few... albeit, they were not completely trollish in nature... the tone is, but they also try to be critical, so it is a start, which is appreciated... Would like a more respectful tone, but some people just write that way, so what can you do.

Just to add this into the mix, Obama tends to start out quiet and then BUILD as the campaign goes on.  It helps keep the attacks off him... and so far it has worked... the number of positive to negative press stories on him is amazing compared to Edwards or Clinton.  

THis is what he did to great effect in the Senate Primaries.  Blair Hull was slipping even before his divorce scandal came out, and Obama would have over taken him even if it hadn't.  

I will be the first to admit that Edwards has addressed Poverty much more than Edwards, just as Obama has a stronger progressive record on other issues.  If that is the most important issue to YOU, then I can understand your support of Edwards, but it doesn't mean one is more progressive.

Edwards is not a sitting Senator and does not have to worry about relection if he loses.  I agree, he is the most free of them all... I would bet money if he was sitting, 1) He wouldn't be as free and 2) He wouldn't be supporting defunding.  I may be wrong, but it is just a feeling I have.  Of course that and $1.85 will buy you some coffee.

I also think Edwards HAD to release his Health Care Plan.  His announcement got knocked out of the news cycle by Ford's death (bad luck on that one) and Obama and CLinton speculation pushed him out of the media.  Announcing his plan got him some press, although I am sure not as much as he hoped.  Otherwise, why release a plan 10 months before the first primary?  Strategically, it makes little sense, unless you need the press coverage or it helps bring in money for you.  Obama, fortunately for him, can wait.  I know that displeases some on here, but it will come and they need to be patient.  

I'm curious about your quibbles.  If they are on the vote match ratings, please don't bother... as I said, they aren't MY opinion (I had some quibbles on them for both candidates for the record).  If other stuff, I'd love to hear it.

And this sums up I think part of the difference between Obama supporters and Edwards supporters.

Obama supporters are looking for someone to bring the country together, to unite a polarized country.

Edwards supporters are looking for a leader that will welcome the fight and take the country in a bold new direction with fundamental change.

Obama's action have been pretty much fight.  He has quickly responded to every attack brought against him.  He even froze out Fox News.  To say he doesn't fight for his beliefs is just making a statement that is not supported by fact.  

I looked at the LCV webiste, and they only have rankings for the committee leadership.  For the record, in their archive, they say that John had a good record, IIRC, when discussing the 2004 candidates.

And I think yitbos just phrased the part about the estate tax weirdly.

They are similiar on nearly every issue.  So Then you either didn't really read the post very well, or you just are chosing to ignore the facts.  OBAMA IS A LIBERAL.  AS MUCH SO AS EDWARDS.  BOTH ARE STRONG FREAKIN LIBERALS WITH SOLID PROGRESSIVE VALUES.

You don't get that what obama has done and preached is NOT the DLC type of capitulation.  He is not HRC pragmatic.  He is about finding allies where one can... He may only agree with a particular Republican on one issue.  But if they both agree strongly on that issue and Obama doesn't have to compromise his progressive ideals to work with that Republican senator, then he will.  He looks at the persons belief on the issue at hand before he looks at their party affiliation.  THis is not what Lieberman or others will do... they will give up some of their beliefs inorder to get a small portion into law... they are pragmatic.

I don't agree with bashing either, cant stand it. But sometimes people are also a little thin-skinned. There's no reason why anyone should be afraid to disagree on the issues or point out differences in ideas or policy or background. It doesn't need to be a love fest. This needs to be a real debate. There is certianly unnecesary flaming that goes around, but thats more about individual posters on a forum than about a candidate.

Yeah we were talking about this a few days ago.  Interesting to see, although the sample size is extremely small.  Still it does lend credence to the Obama Momentum meme.

have to agree with that. All the democratic candidates probably agree on 90% so I don't think that tells us very much.

I guess i am not seeing your point Peter.  Please elaborate.

Did Obama campaign for Leiberman? I can't remember. I hope not.

"Timing is important. does a candidate stand up for certain issues when the chips are down? How a candidate evolves over time is important to predict future behavior."

This raises a few questions implicit in my post above.  Edwards voted for the war when it it was the politically cautious thing to do.  Obama opposed the war in a politically favorable context to do so.  Obama cut a deal with Lieberman and refused to campaign for the anti-war candidate in Connecticut.  Edwards, not part of the Senate deal, did campaign for Lamont.

How do we read these moves in terms of political calculations and thoughtful convictions?