To the Hillary and Obama supporters ... What's the differences between them?

Being an Edwards supporter, I'm not up on the nuances between Hillary and Obama in policy. Right now, I just see them as the same. If you chose Hillary over Obama, why? If you chose Obama over Hillary, why?

Edwards people may want a crash course in what the differences are, because I can't tell except for gender and skin tone. Right now, I'm still voting for Edwards in the VA primaries. (Or, using VA's open primaries to cast a vote for Romney.)

One candidate is a top-down hoarder of secrets, the other is grass-roots oriented and wants to inform the citizenry and get them involved in the process of government.

I'm not going to go GOTV for Obama, nor will give him a dime or effort. I'll just hold my nose and vote for him. That's all he's getting from me.

I was ready to caucus for JE now. I'll just pick him as my 1st, and then go Obama as 2nd.

(Repost, from a response I gave earlier this afternoon) :)

When the Edwards and Obama campaigns rolled through my state of Iowa, during the caucus
run-up, choosing between Edwards and Obama was a tough decision for me. I agonized over it.

In my mind, the most critical issues in this election, deal with reversing the BushCo damage and
getting this country on the right track. I believe we need a paradigm-shifting leader
and I believe that both Obama and Edwards could catalyze that kind of change---bringing
us out of this war and conducting their Presidency in ways that honor our Constitution
and our civil rights.

I attended several Edward's events when he campaigned in Iowa. I was very moved.
He was the only candidate to say the word "neocon" and I was so impressed with that.
After all, that group of warmongers is the sole reason we're in this mess today. He's
committed to poverty--when it's not politically exciting to do so, and that meant a great
deal to me.

I could not decide between Edwards and Obama. I was so torn. I would hear Obama
speak and lean Obama. I would listen to Edwards and change my mind back to Edwards.

I began to lean toward Obama more, when I read about his commitment to restoring our
Constitution and our basic civil rights. Obama talked about these things at big
events in Iowa, but they were never covered by the mainstream press. Like Edwards'
poverty issues--Habeas Corpus just isn't sexy enough for the media. Unfortunately.

Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. He taught Constitutional Law, and other law classes
for a decade at the University of Chicago. He is an expert on what our Founding Fathers
laid down, and he is hell-bent on undoing the BushCo damage. In Obama's plan for America--
he specifically states his desire to restore Habeas Corpus--our rights as Americans to
hear the "body of evidence" against us--if we are arrested for a crime. Bush and Gonzo
haphazardly decided that we didn't need "the great writ" anymore. Obama found that offensive.
He's running to restore our Constitution.

As I continued to struggle between Obama and Edwards--Obama called me. I told Obama I was leaning
Edwards. Obama listened to me. He told me, "John Edwards is a wonderful guy. I can
understand why you would support him." He had nothing put praise and admiration for the guy.
Obama didn't launch into a speech which compared himself to Edwards. He just expressed
profound respect for him.

I stared asking Obama questions. I told him that I was deeply concerned about our civil
rights being stripped. I told him that our government was not about "We The People" any more.
He told me that he was against illegal wiretaps and Bush going around the FISA courts. You
can see yesterday, that Obama echoed those feelings. I asked him how he would vote on
giving the telcos retroactive immunity--he said would vote NOT to give them a pass. As you
can see, Obama voted yesterday in exactly that way. Privacy is a legal right of all citizens,
and Obama's passion for our rights will drive his administration to undo all of this BushCo
damage that has horrified all of us.

Obama also wants to close Guantanamo. Did you see that the lawyers representing the Guantanamo
detainees, many of whom have been detained for years with no charges filed--collectively endorsed
Obama? They understand what his deep respect for the Constitution means. No more indefinite
detentions. No more torture. No more denying people a fair trial and basic rights.

I also find Obama's health care plan very innovative and a SERIOUS solution to the problem. Did you
know that Obama's plan to cover the poor is about making premiums more affordable? He plans to
subsidize premiums---cutting their cost in half or more. Many have argued that this "fails to
cover everyone." It's a REAL solution. It's a first step. Hillary says she covers everyone.
However, did you know that her plan to help the poor with insurance coverage is a mandate? She
mandates that the poor have insurance. She does NOTHING to reduce costs or make the coverage
more affordable. If they do not buy the mandated insurance, they are fined. I don't see
her healthcare plan as workable. She says it's "universal coverage", but it's a mandate.
You can mandate that all Americans have a Prius in their driveway---that doesn't mean they'll
all be able to afford one. Obama is at least TRYING to make insurance more affordable. He
could have enacted a mandate, to give him an easier soundbyte. He didn't do that. He's
offering a thoughtful solution that addresses the number one reason that the poor don't have
insurance--cost.

From a strategic point of view--I can tell you this. I'm a stay-at-home mom now, but I worked as a PR
executive for 15 years. I have NEVER witnessed a campaign like Obama ran in Iowa. The campaign
was amazingly organized and staffed with respectful, enthusiastic and inspiring volunteers. When
they called, they listened. When they heard I was undecided, they sent over a supporter to talk
with me. They invited me to an Obama house party. This was one of 1,000 Obama house parties
that happened simultaneously. Unprecedented in Iowa or any political campaign. They're a very
creative, tenacious, gracious bunch. This campaign, if extrapolated onto a national stage---will
smoke any Republican candidate. I don't care what the polls say now. America has really not met
the full force of the Obama campaign--as many of the early states did. It is powerful. It is
unbeatable, in my opinion.

Speaking of that house party I attended...The person who invited me--and who was an Obama precinct
captain--was a disenfranchised Republican who was distraught about Bush. She is just as mortified
at what Bush has done, as any of us. There were Independents there, and liberal Dems. This small
house party was a political melting pot. We talked issues and our fears about the neocons for
two hours. It gave me hope to see that a candidate had managed to galvanized centrist Republicans,
Independents, Progressives and Centrist Democrats. Obama appeals across party lines and that
is key to being elected. Especially if McCain is on the ticket. You MUST have an exciting, inspirational
candidate ate who appeals to those sought-after Independents and centrist Republicans. Obama
can do that in spades. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I know this was long, but I feel so strongly about Obama--his plans, his ideas and his electability--and
yes, his ability to inspire. I had to choose between Obama and Edwards, and I struggled. However, I
know that there is a great deal of reciprocity between the Obama and Edwards camps, and I firmly
believe that Obama can repair the "Constitutional damage" unleashed by Bush. Only with that repair
can be begin to move forward with any Democratic agenda of helping the poor, stopping tax cuts
to the most wealthy, addressing corporate corruption, giving Americans healthcare, restoring our
nation's standing in the world and ending this never-ending neocon war plan.

Good luck with your decision. I'm sorry that Edwards didn't go on to a higher level. I know this
must be a tough day for all Edwards supporters. I really hate to see him go too. I hope
that when you're ready, that you'll consider giving Obama your support.

between Edwards and Obama. I did that in 2004 between Dean and Edwards.

I heard about how well-organized his Iowa campaign was. That goes to how organized his administration might be. I do get a better sense from Obama than I do from Hillary. There's all that Clinton baggage and I really dislike Bill Clinton and what he was doing last week.

Thanks again for all your input.

Living in Iowa, you've had the opportunity to talk with the candidates personally. There are two issues that really concern me about Obama and they are the reason that I am supporting Clinton for now. Can you change my mind by responding to my concerns in as thoughtful and respectful a way as Obama did to you when you said you were leaning toward Edwards?

1. You say that you've seen how well Obama can galvanize a group of people with widely differing points of view. On the one hand, I thin that's wonderful. On the other hand, it worries me. I don't want to collaborate with neocons. They've lied and cheated this country into two terrible unending wars and take away significant constitutional rights. I don't trust them. It bothers me that Obama speaks of "healing" as if both sides are at fault. This is much more than a misunderstanding between two points of view. I see this as one side - corporatist neocons - stealing the country away and the other side - Democrats in Congress - too willing to compromise. I don't want more compromise. I want a president who will change things.

2. My second concern is linked to the first. I see Obama reaching out to many conservatives, especially social conservatives. As a lesbian, I am deeply hurt and concerned by his connection with people who advocate religion as a way of being "saved" from homosexuality. I am a woman who loves another woman. It isn't a "lifestyle." It isn't something I chose to have happen. It's who I am - as fundamental as the color of my eyes or skin. I am a deeply spiritual person who believes strongly that God made me the way I am and loves me for what I am and is proud of me for being honest about who I am. The people associated with Obama's campaign are responsible for the suicide and despair of thousands of young gay people. They are responsible for perpetuating the idea that it is ok to discriminate against gay people on the basis of religion. This makes me distrust Obama.

Can you answer my questions in a way that allay my concerns? This is a sincere request.

I thought 04 would've taught us about the myth of electibility.

Such short memories ugh.

them do it....again.

The race shouldn't have been close enough to steal...if that did happen.

10% can be stolen as easily as 5%, anyway.

And with the last Dem president spending his entire book tour supporting Bush and defending his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, one would never even expect a Dem nominee to get even close, let alone win.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

And then there WAS Carville's antics to consider:


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

What?

Both have pretty good liberal ratings on domestic issues. Personally I can't and won't vote for anybody that voted for the IWR to be our candidate. It surprises me that so many on DU have forgiven Clinton for that especially since she still defends it as having been the right thing to do. No, it wasn't and 23 brave Senators stood up and said so that day to their everlasting credit.

My other point is: have we learned nothing from 2000 and 2004? The bias throughout the MSM against Clinton is obvious. The media bias in favor of McCain (if he is the nominee) is equally obvious. The same MSM is (so far) somewhat enamored with the newness and message of Obama. Obviously these jackals can turn at any moment but they haven't yet so there would be a possibility at least of a more even playing field this cycle, even against McCain.

Personally, I'd rather not go through another general election with the entire MSM arrayed against our candidate. It's not the path to victory IMO

That's where I start with this kind of question...

...that is why JRE did it for me.

<sigh> I am really sad that he dropped out.

Edit for typo

care.

That's my top 3.

This drives the Obama people nuts.

...then promoting legislation that screws the average American.

Obama has a record (albeit less of a record overall) of championing policies that tries to help the average American.

helping them to claim their place in government and make the changes they thought they needed.

Obama worked for a civil rights law firm.

Obama took stands that weren't politically popular, like tape recorded interrogation in capital cases.

Obama doesn't take PAC or lobbyist money.

Obama gets it done and has the record to back it up.

The article goes into SCHIP while Hillary was first lady; it didn't go into Obama before the US Senate. That may be where you walked away with Obama having no experience. The article covered what they did in the Senate -- with the exception of what Hillary did while first lady.

While I disagree that Obama has "no experience," it's obvious that Hillary has more experience. Her two terms as First Lady definitely count in her favor as experience. Also, she's been dragged through the wringer since Bill was first elected governor of Arkansas way back when - two terms as First Lady of Arkansas, two terms as First Lady of the U.S., a term as Senator from New York - that is a lot of experience.

Obama has experience, too.

that leads me to believe that is an issue that he believes in. He also has supporters surrounding him who are longtime advocates for open government.

And, imo, the Clintons contributed greatly to the ongoing protection of secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s, which led directly to the re-emergence of BushInc in the form of Bush2.

In my view, open books would have assured the Bushes and their cronies were in jail by the end of 1994 - and certainly not able to pull off the turnover of Congess and a Bush2 presidency.

Robert Parry, the investigative reporter who uncovered many of the IranContra crimes has a similar view about the importance of open government and how costly it is for our country when secrecy and privilege becomes a priority for ANY president.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

with me. That, and the recent endorsement from Ted Kennedy.

.

Unless McCain picks up someone like Huckabee as VP, he's going to have a lot of trouble getting support from conservatives. They loathe him for his bipartisan work (with John Kerry, of all people !!) in the Senate involving MIA in Vietnam, retiring Vietnam's nation debt, normalizing relations with them and other "commies," and on and on. McCain's even against torture - gasp!

Hillary Clinton's senate record is as hawkish as McCain's. If conservatives could see past her sex (a woman!!!! eek!) they'd pick Hillary over McCain in a heartbeat on the national defense issue.

The problems this country is facing right now are enormous and it's really no time for on the job training.

One of them will fight like a rabid dog against any repuke in a GE.

One of them will be able to enter the job and play hardball with the republicans, who are never going to "unify" with the dems, ever.

One of them can stand toe-to-toe with someone who has national security experience up the wazoo like McCain.

I trust that one of them knows exactly what they want to do, rhetoric aside, and how to get it done.

Clinton.

This is about winning and keeping that office for 8 years, to me.

We have to right this ship before we go over the edge. This is about returning to normalcy and sanity, to me, not some rhetoric about "change" without any specifics or history of such a thing.

be a dilly.

To paraphrase an old Carville quote.

Hillary's YES votes on the IWR and K-L should not be rewarded.

but when its all said and done they will screw us all over.

Both have terrific supporters

Both have nasty supporters.

Both have Trolls claiming to be Democrats

Both have fabulous and hard working supporters.

Both have jerks who act like spoiled children.

Both have supporters who truly admire their candidates.

There are good and bad in BOTH camps.

Let's try to remember we are all in the Democratic Corner together and we all have pretty close to the same goals.

Hillary in the GE if she is the nominee, though. I truly can't stand Bill Clinton, but I'll not hold that against Hillary.

one draped in the language of "hope and change", one draped with the language of "experience and readiness." Pick your poison.

I was leaning Edwards until the news broke.

I have to go to Obama. While I share your difficulty in finding major policy differences between the two remaining candidates, I have to go with these 5 reasons.

1. Obama spoke out against the Iraq Invasion before the invasion. This wasn't necessarily popular, but it was the correct position. And it was the more courageous position.

2. Obama seems to be able to move people (the grass roots) in ways Hill can't. This will be very important no matter what the composition of congress after the 08 general. If Obama can lead the people to push the congress for change, then it's a possibility.

3. Obama can win states that Hillary can't possibly win, particularly the Rocky mountain West. Obama actually has a shot at winning Montana, Colorado, NM, and others outside the region that won't go to Hill.

4. If Obama wins the nomination, it will be a death kneel to the DLC. Sure they will probably still operate, but what little influence they still wield will be greatly diminished.

5. Obama has the endorsements of many people I greatly respect. From Ted and Caroline Kennedy to Kerry and Carter, I think from my lefty point of view, that they embody what is the best of the Democratic Party. Hill has some endorsements from people I like as well, (JFK Jr. Maxine Waters) but on balance, I think Obama has the most and the best from people I respect.

in the primaries yet. If not, will you be casting a vote for Dennis, Edwards, or Obama. If VA had IRV, my ballot would be Dennis, Edwards, Obama.

I have stepped back from my posiiton to not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her in the GE. Now, it's about who to vote for in my primary on Feb 12th.

A caller on Randi is making a good point for Obama. Randi is making a good point for Hillary (re; tough, to take on McCain).

If it's still undecided I will probably vote for Obama.

In terms of electability, I think Obama holds the edge. For one thing, both McCain and Obama are attractive to independents. Hillary isn't as attractive to independents. Also, it will be voted-for-the-war VS against- the-war, so that would be a better match up, also.

I'm didn't hear Randi's argument, but it seems to me that if a voter is in favor of the war, then McCain will win that voter no matter what. Why vote for hawk lite? However there are a lot of people who are against the war who won't have any incentive to go out and vote for Hillary. Or to work for Hillary.

As far as the GE goes, Hillary won't win MT, guaranteed. but Obama might. It would be a lot closer certainly.

Obama has shorter hair.
Clinton has a higher speaking voice.
Obama is taller.
Clinton is married to a man, Obama is married to a woman.
Clinton is a senator from New York, Obama is a senator from Illinois.
Obama is an ethnic minority.

In terms of policy,
-Obama likes to leave all options on the table, Clinton prefers to not rule anything out.
-Obama believes that separate-but-(inherently un)equal civil unions are best, Clinton supports civil unions that are separate-but-(inherently un)equal.
-Obama believes in getting more teachers to schools that need them, Clinton believes that needy schools should get more teachers.
-Obama wants an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050, Clinton wants 80% lower CO₂ emissions by her 103rd birthday.
-Obama will start removing troops from Iraq in his first 60 days, Clinton has pledged to start removing troops from Iraq in her first 2 months.

There's more, but I have stuff to do today.

Wish I could recommend this one!

Hillary in the GE if she is the nominee. Not much difference between them on policy. Differences are on who is more motivating. Who is tougher (as in smack-down!) Who may be more "open in government."

I just read a good reply from a Kucinich supporter, who is going with Obama.

One reason I know that Gore and Kerry beat chimpy is that they're both taller than the chimp. That along with exit polls proves that they both won.

Obama supports raising the cap. Hillary opposes it..some drivel about it being insufferably unfair for people making that kind of money.

For those of us who have household incomes under $70,000 or 50,000, we find her attitude disturbing.

And frankly I think building a movement is the only way we're going to get anything done. The best strategists can't beat a system that is stacked against us and is bought and paid for by the corporations.

People need to get off of their asses and demand change instead of expecting politicians to do it for them. Obama is trying to inspire people to do it.

Clinton info:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Obama info:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

I am votng for Obama because I think he has a better chance of advocating his policies and pushing them through the general population.

I don't have anything against Hillary, but she rubs off the wrong way on a lot of people. I don't think it is her fault, but the constant republican bashing for the past 16 years have made her a divisive figure in the country. I know a lot of people who have an irrational hatred of Hillary and react emotionally to her name.

I really don't want another 8 years of Clinton bashing. Hillary will definately will do some good things, but the politics of the nation will be in war.

Obama seems to rise above the partisan bickering for the moment and can send the country to a new direction. A lot of moderate republicans are fed up with the current system too and would side with the Dems on a lot of economic issues. Obama is connecting with many independents and repubs right now, which will help the Democrats set the agenda for the country and push more progressive policies for the future. I just don't see Hillary getting the same bipartisan support as Obama for this.

This Rezzc trial coming on Nov 25th is BAD news for Obama people. His strong ties to Rezco that got him campaign finances and a home at 300k less then face value. ARE TROUBLE! Hewill be unelectable once this stuff hits the fan. It undermines his whole change mantra,, HE IS IN BIG TROUBLE HERE!

FULL UNCUT NEWS CLIPS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SrtyFY6qTA&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOFT8jtuVpo



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-vlOf3mAc&feature=related



What these videos say is Obama did favors for Rezco, GOT favors from Rezco and GAINED politically and financially from a 17 year relationshipwith a CORRUPT Chicago POLITICAL FIXER.



They point out as his involvement gets disclosed he CHANGES his story!



They say he basically RAN from reporters who wanted immediate answers!



They say AT THE TIME OF OBAMA gettinga homewith Rezcos help (first he denied it, now he admits it) That Rezco was ALREADY under investigation!



OBAMA CANDIDATE FOR CHANGE, EACH TIME HE GETS CAUGHT LYING HE CHANGES HIS STORY!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

..at the end of the day, America wants to actual like the person who is leading them.

and I think separation of church and state has suffered enough damage already.

I also think Clinton is better equipped to fight the GOP. They'll eat Obama for lunch.

There's not a hair's difference in their positions or philosophies..... therefore....


It comes down to likeability and how the candidate makes us feel.

The emotions associated with Obama are hope, excitement, intrigue, drive.

The emotions associated with Clinton are revenge (for impeachment of Bill), cynicism (because of the politics of personal destruction), despair (because of 4 more years of scandal), betrayal (because of Hillary's Iraq war vote).

Obama brings out the best in us.... Hillary brings out the worst.


I'm hoping America votes to bring out the best in us.

Hillary is more liberal than Obama.

Hillary has much more experience than Obama. Obama actually has very little experience... not enough, frankly. I don't want another president learning on the job.

Hillary knows full well what the Republican machine is capable of, and she's ready for them. Obama wants to adjust our policies to please the Republicans.

They've been vilifying Hillary for many years. Everything about her is basically out there, ad nauseum, but she still has amazing support. We don't really know what impact months of attack ads on Obama will result in... and they'll be relentless if he gets the nomination. These are the same people that destroyed Kerry and Max Cleland using their very honorable military records. Remember that.

Obama speaks in platitudes. Hillary speaks in specifics.

I have no doubt that Hillary will be an effective, though not perfect, leader. Her experience confirms this. I have my doubts about Obama's leadership and his ability to really get things done.

And finally....

I think that the General will be a challenge for Hillary. But I do think she has a shot, a good shot. I don't think Obama can win the General.

One of those elections analyzers said this on the radio tonight, I generally agree.