Obama or Hillary? That is the question

I was going to vote (NJ primary) for Edwards Tuesday though he didn't have much chance at getting the nomination in the hopes that he would push the convention and party platform at the convention to the left due to his command of a good number of delegates. But dropping out morally (if not legally) releases those delegates so to continue to vote for him after he drops out would make no sense to me.

Obama or Hillary? I too am going to have a hard time with it. In either case a vote for them is a vote on the side of history though, to be upbeat about it. Obama says he is for "change" but in reality his positions are almost the same as Hillary except for his early opposition to the Iraq war. The only "change" I see is that he is a new face on the scene. Hillary, on the other hand, has a lot more experience being around and handling Washington characters (not to mention help from Bill, though lately Bill has been a liability in some quarters). The down side of Hillary is that maybe she mobilizes the wingnuts with her (and Bill's) WH baggage, but wouldn't Obama mobilize the racists? If Hillary runs more women than ever will vote to counter it and more blacks than ever will vote if Obama is the nominee.

The thing that bothers me about both of them is their ties to the corporate world and its stranglehold on American government. Oh well, I guess with the system we have that requires millions to run that it is impossible to have anyone else rise to the top.

I am going to think about it a few days.

That's really the way the question strikes me. Honestly.

Wait, which one is that?

The idea of either the first woman president or first black president is uplifting. To be alive to see that is a thrill in itself.

My problem is that I see very little difference between them that would cause me to choose one or the other on policy. My decision will have to be made, I think, based on who has the best chance of winning the general election because over and above the issues of gender or race the prize cannot go to another Republican.

Although, I am disappointed that the possible first black president can't come from the Congressional Black Caucus. There is a long list of deserving candidates who have paid their dues fighting, not only for African American causes, but progressive causes, opposing Bush and the Neocons (and Ronald Reagan) every step of the way. Unfortunately, none of these wonderful people would sell their souls to appease the corporate masters.

I guess I'm stlll stinging from losing Kucinich, and now Edwards. Right now, it just feels like the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

SHOT is what you get by voting Republican, or not voting at all.

Vote for him anyway. It's the primary. Let the other two know that Edward's ideas resonated with the voters. Give them something to think about.


It's better than voting for the other two.

There could be no brokering by Edwards to push the party platform to the left if he is no longer in control of delegates at the convention. While some delegates may still be legally required to vote for him on the first ballot, without him behind them they would have no leverage or bargaining power.

Why change now? I will vote for Edwards. Now it has become a matter of principle. The rest of the population will decide for me once again.

I would never vote for McCain.

gets your support. It's a very personal decision. I knew a month ago who my second choice would be so I've already done the deliberation (I wanted to be prepared for John Edwards dropping out.)

Good luck on making your decision. Don't let ANYONE push you into supporting their candidate.

Obama can beat McCain. I myself could never vote for Clinton for the following reasons.

Hillary Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, and for it’s renewal in 2006.

She voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution and still supported the war until late 2005.

Also I believe she would just continue the Clinton dynasty and we all should remember what Bill gave us.

Such as:

NAFTA

The Communications Decency Act of 1996, that tried to censor the internet.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 that eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that ended what was then commonly known as welfare, the Aid Families with Dependant Children (AFDC) and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996. That was found to be unconstitutional and a grab for more power for the “Imperial Presidency”.

The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (also known as AEDPA) is a series of laws in the United States signed into law on April 24, 1996 to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes." It was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the Oklahoma City bombing and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was: 1. contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2. based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. While critics have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation. After all, some interpretations of federal law can be not merely incorrect but actually unreasonable, thereby allowing federal courts to grant relief under the first prong of AEDPA's limitation. Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For example, before AEDPA the judicially created abuse of the writ doctrine restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions. The AEDPA replaced this doctrine with an absolute bar on second or successive petitions. Petitioners who attempted to bring claims in federal habeas proceedings that have already been decided in a previous habeas petition would find those claims barred. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals. Furthermore, AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals's denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals. (from Wikepidia). The first real threat against the Writ of Habeas Corpus!

The Defense of Marriage Act, that allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law.The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, that lowered the top capitol gains rate from 28% to 20%. Just like Dub-ya!

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. (Precursor for the Iraq War).

Initiated the Don’t ask, don’t tell policy toward gays in the military, 1993. A stab in the back after many campaign promises.

Extraordinary rendition got approval for the first time in the USA from the Clinton administration. The kidnapping and extra-judicial transfer of a person from one state to another for the purpose of torture. (Thought that Bush started one, didn’t you!)

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violating our 2nd amendment rights as free citizens.

Criminalization of desecration of the flag. http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972


It seems to me that we have a choice between McCain (Republican), Hillary (Republican light, also owned my the Corporatist's) and Obama (a Democrat)! At this time, getting Obama in is more important than making a statement about our displeasure.

My 3 cents worth (adjusted for inflation)

Nearly all those things you say "Clinton gave us" were the very same times he signed the veto-proof bill and trumpeted how it was HIS idea -- causing the Republicans to scream bloody murder.

That was what "triangulation" originally meant.

You seem to have forgotten what happened when he ordered the integration of gay people into the service. One of our generals actually began talking mutiny.

Nor do you remember the various bills he sent to Congress to increase anti-poverty funding. (Remember "How A Bill Becomes A Law"?)

I see you don't like the Brady Bill. Yes, the bastard prevented people from exercising their constitutional right to hunt squirrels with semi-automatic machine guns.

But I also seem to recall that the Clinton Administration was the ONLY administration since the middle 1960s that had a sustained increase in prosperity for ALL Americans. That's why Ralph Nader said we were "anesthetized by prosperity". We also earned back the trust and respect of the world community that Reagan and Bush I had squandered.

Incidentally Bill isn't running this time, no matter how the media may spin it. It's Hillary.

You have a very short, selective memory. You wouldn't be under 25, would you?

--p!

I am 63 and I worked in every Democratic campaign from JFK to Bill Clinton's first run for President.

Also from what I have heard on DU, Hillary's idea of universal health care is to force everyone to buy health insurance. And I like what one person wrote, "That is like mandating that the homeless buy a home".

You are also correct that I don't like the Brady bill. I believe that the framers wanted us to have guns to repel a foreign invasion of the US and for the people to be able to stop any tyranny at home. I also need personal home protection because I live in a rural setting that would require a one hour response time from law enforcement in the most ideal conditions.

Obama lets healthy people who can afford insurance opt out and roll the dice on whether we will have to pay for their healthcare.

That raises the costs for everyone.

This will be a tough decision, Clinton or Obama. Thanks for info and perspective.

If this is the best that the Democratic party can do for progressive liberals.

Frankly I see both of them as enablers, their corporate support is withing a couple of percentage points of each other, their Health Care Plans AREN'T Health Care OR plans....

Maybe we need it to get worse.

a good margin anyway and gain those that won't vote

The biggest pieces float to the top!

For Obama, you can't beat his long time resistance to the Iraq war. If its a top priority for you, he's probably your guy. However, I think Hillary truly has him beat on health care, her plan covers homeless people on the street for instance, while Obama's seems a lot sketchier on that.

But don't take anybody's word for it, especially around here. Instead, check them out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4271494

Another perk for me with Obama is his commitment to transperancy. Open government is really important to me. (but Hillary seems to be following his lead on this) But for Hillary, check out her stance toward energy, and the energy dependance global warming mess. I think you'll like it.

I've bookmarked that string and will examine it over the next day or so. I was hoping for that type of information to help me decide.

I still think we need true single payer Universal care, but found these very interesting.

I am going to choose the high road and abstain from being forced to choose the "lesser of two evils". I also will not have my vote be associated with someone who's deeds I know I will not agree with.

There is no "evil" in either of them. I think they are both very good people who I could be proud to have as presidents. I liked Edwards more due to his populism and avowed desire to wean government from corporate America. Perhaps Obama and Hillary cannot do that, but that does not make them evil. Likely, it just confirms that they are the products of a system which neither controls and they are utilizing that system to get their ideas heard and perhaps enacted into law.

Neither one of them I would consider as "evil". Evil is just being used as a component in the figure of speech its been loosely used in "the lesser of".

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused on that.

is capable of securing the nomination without some significant clout or corporate power behind them, be it overt or covert. The only thing that has any influence on my decision is the words they speak, and the actions they take, and have taken. I expect typical political speak that serves to impress the most voters possible. Those are known knowns and can be interpreted through one's perception. For me, the reality may be that there is no choice, but I also play the lottery. I guess I believe in the possible.

Edwards did address the corporate issue and it was one of the main reasons I supported him.

As I stated in another reply in this string, that does not make Obama or Hillary "evil" because to get their ideas heard they have had to follow a system they had nothing to do with building.

in office it was blackmail at the ballot box that election

right after 9/11 and "hot on the trail of the terrorists"

the bushies had convinced enough Americans that Saddam had something to do with 9/11

he'd have voted for the IWR as well as it didn't give * the permission to do what he did

That will not be the deciding factor for me, nor will any one issue because I think Hillary and Obama are very close on all those that really matter to me.

I think it may come down to the "vision thing" that Bush39 liked to talk about (not having for himself). Obama's speeches are indeed inspiring. At the same time Hillary has been through the Hell storms, survived and is still willing to fight as hard as ever. That's character too.

As I said, it will be hard for me to decide and I am not going to do it today.

Neither of the others deserves it.

Not one little bit.

look up DLC to see what it means.

I had forgotten about Dick Morris.

...so many Dicks, so few Richards!