NH Obama & Edwards 54% v. Hillary 39% Splitting anti-Hillary vote?

I am considering switching to Obama from Edwards for this reason. Also, to a lesser extent mandatory health insurance makes my skin crawl.

to stop Hillary.

it doesn't seem like Obama has been doing a lot of that. Edwards is the only one really address corporate greed. And he's in it to deal with that issue. If he drops out, he's not doing helping his cause because Obama is not on top of that.

drop him either. I'd put my money on Clinton to win it now.

a brokered convention. They have to bargain with each other if there isn't a clear winner.

If after all the name recognition and money she's spent she gets 30% in Iowa and 39% in Iowa...

Viewed another way

61% voted against HRC

63% voted against Obama

83% voted against Edwards

none of them has run away with this.

I believe that Obama got like almost 50% of the actual vote, but each precinct allots the delegate count based on the prior caucus (2004) allotment.

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I would actually rate Hillary over Obama.

That amendment says that we should stay in Iraq as long as we perceive Iran is a threat?

I just try to figure out who will, day to day, make the best president. I really like all the candidates, but Obama's just a little too short on substance and too enraptured with bipartisanship for me.

Oil and energy are at record highs because of that war, that in turn causes food to cost more

The amount of money that is being spent on that war, is not of a productive nature, and is helping increase our deficiet

You mention Obama and imply he is too enratured with bipartisanship. What was her vote on the IWR, or the patriot act? The nicest thing you can say about that vote is that maybe it was to show solidarity, i.e. bipartisanship

The most honest thing you can say about that vote was that the IWR, over-rode the War Powers Act, and allowed the executive branch to act without oversight from Congress in going into Iraq

The patriot act was unconstitutional, plain and simple

this is why I can't and won't vote for Hillary.

Suddenly people are saying the war is not the number one issue.

The hell it isn't.

The money spent impacts everything stateside.

The waste and arrogance affects 'where this country is headed'

HRC is partly to blame. She voted for this shit.

Action then versus her words now.

I could swear I heard her say one battalion a month, slow slow. There are 4 battalions to a brigade, there are somewhere from 13 to 18 Brigades in Iraq. If she did say Battlion(600-800 troops with Marines being larger than army) which I feel I am sure she did say, then we are looking at a LOOOONNNGGG time. So its either 13 to 18 months to withdraw or 4 times that number(4+ years) which I think is what I heard.

talking about the war anymore, and why should she. Along with others, they essentially enabled bush to go to war

Could he have gone into Iraq without Congress? Yes, but after 60 days the War Powers Act would have kicked in, and Congress would then be forced to be involved: They would need to do one of three things:

1. Declare War
2. Immediately, withdraw troops
3. Extend the stay of troops for clean up operations, and orderly withdrawl

Instead they voted for the IWR, which eliminated that oversight

There were no profiles in courage there

I do know Clinton was talking about bringing the troops home soon. She gave more exact time but I've heard so much politics the last few days I can't remember exact numbers.

So I'm not sure where that's going to go.

He alone will take corporations to the woodshed.

:nuke:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Edwards is the only true liberal of the three. Obama and Hillary are very, very similar on the issues.

:-(

Hillary to get the nomination. I guess I'll just have to support Obama.

Purely pragmatic.

She lost it for me with the Kyle/Lieberman amendment, and what amazes me is her supporters brush that vote off as though it means nothing

That vote is a vote for endless war. Forget the nuance whether it is binding or not, the vote for that amendment represents her position

Not whoever garners the most of the least.

if supporters don't give up.

to demand changes for things he doesn't like in a brokered convention which i like so i'm staying with my guy. got to go erase some posts now.

I considered voting for Obama for exactly that reason, but ended up sticking with Edwards.

Didn't work.

but do not give up on john....

and stop taking progressive voters from Edwards. If Obama weren't in the race, everyone would see Edwards as the one with charisma and as the candidate for change.

Now, of course, that's horse manure, but not any more than Edwards should drop out and endorse Obama to not split the progressive vote.

It really is better for both of them to be in the race. Since delegates are not winner take all, look at it as a progressive alternatives. For example, say there's some one who doesn't want Clinton, but isn't so keen on the health plan Edwards has. They can vote for Obama. And say there's some one else who doesn't like Clinton, but just can't warm up to Obama - that person can go for Edwards. Come the convention, if no one else has enough for the nomination, they can bargain.

Two things about New Hampshire (for what they're worth): they allow independent voters to vote in the primary, so the results may be different than a closed primary state. Oh, and New Hampshire is one state with a tiny fraction of the delegates. There are 49 other states which may tell a different story.

I have no problem with mandatory health care as long as the costs are fairly distributed. I think we need to focus on preventive care in this country, and we can only do that with a cradle to grave approach to health care. I would like to say what Joe Bloe does is his business, but when my (Medicare) tax dollars pay for his quadruple by-pass it becomes my business. I see the concern of where it could lead though, nanny government not letting us have a cheeseburger, required medical tests, etc.

I think Edwards will find a balance that respects individual liberty but makes sure health insurance is available, accessible and affordable to all.

I love John Edwards but we need new blood in the White House ...by the time the January 19th caucus is in Nevada ...I'll be in Obama's camp.

I don't want to vote for him to be against her. Thats not what its about for many of us I am sure. We are for who we are for. I could just as easily add up the hillary and edwards percentages and then say its the anti-Obama vote? I don't think so....

As Edwards put it, they're two change candidates, but now they're acting as spoilers for each other. If either one hadn't been in the race, Clinton would have lost tonight.

I love them both, but I think that to be fully competitive, there can only be one reformist running. I'm a big fan of Edwards, but Obama has the money and better oratory skills. I'd love to see Edwards in a cabinet spot, though: I think Attorney General would suit him well.

I hear what you're saying about mandatory health insurance. Personally, I think that anything short of single-payer Canadian-style healthcare is a waste. The efficiency of such a system, and guaranteeing that everybody gets access, is really the only logical way. Yes, I know the arguments about efficiency as applied to life-extension care for the elderly, but it's not like we don't have people right now who die because they're refused medical treatment on the grounds of being too old. And--not to sound too cold about it--but I'd rather a 77 year old man be denied a transplant than a 17 year old girl.

Preventing Hillary as the nominee is the most important thing to me.