I need to ask my peeps a question...

Why does so many on DU support Obama and HRC? They are clearly not progressive people, Edwards has the most progressive and thoughout plan then Obama and HRC has.

I just do not get it, I really do not understand the clamour here on DU over HRC and Obama. The most progressive man that is viable and within reach is clearly Edwards and people here are falling over themselves about HRC and Obama.

Does any of my Atheist peeps have a clue as to why this is? please explain it to me, I am completly clueless to this.

Some people think only Kucinich is a "true" progressive. Some poeple think Edwards is the only "progressive". I also have relatives with ties to NC and they weren't impressed with Edwards congressional record.
But think about this....Edwards is a white male whom made his money as a trial lawyer. We have a black man and a woman who have real shots at winning the Presidency. Thats pretty interesting to many here.
There are also a lot of centrist moderate Dems here. I don't have a problem with that. I do HOWEVER have a problem with people who shriek you aren't a true progressive if you don't believe A,B,C.
A democrat is a democrat. Even though I am an Edwards fan I don't have a problem with people supporting either Obama or HRC, (though I find I dislike HRC pretty intensely). Despite what some idiots here say, neither is anywhere NEAR being a "DINO" or a closet Republican.
I can tell you that alot of dems IRL like Obama because he has said he thinks bipartisanship is a good thing. Do you honestly think anyone outside of the 17% or so self identified liberals will vote for someone who says I REFUSE to work with the other party.
I am also a pragmatist, I work for a large corporation and my Dad worked for teh evul empire of GE for 30 years before retiring, so I do understand corporations and there places in society, good and bad.
I actually do like Obama and think he would make a good president. HRC is intelligent and has a certain ruthlessness that would probably serve well in the WH (My theory is you can't be a really nice person to be President).
It comes down to electability I think. Many believe HRC and Obama are electable as well

Many people believe that Washington D.C. plays by "pit bull" rules. HRC is absolutely the baddest pit bull in the pack. If elected she will do exactly as she did when she was First Lady of Arkansas, that is, she will leave a trail of bloody footprints from treading on the corpses of those people she has stabbed in the back. She is a "take no prisoners" ruthless politician. And some people like that. They believe that it is our turn to have a Karl Rove clone kicking ass and taking names.

Obama is the foil to HRC. He is the nice guy, the reconciler, the peace maker. His supporters just want everybody to get along. They believe that we have had one too many Karl Roves and it is time to change the way business is done in D.C.

In both cases policy takes a back seat to performance. Each side can justify the shortcomings of their candidate by looking only at their attitude.

I've been involved in Presidential politics since 1960 and I am appalled at the way style has replaced substance. But I just write it off to "cranky old man syndrome". Fortunately, I also believe in the pendulum theory--the further we swing in one direction, the more likely we are to reverse and swing back.

Footnote (disclaimer): During the 80's members of my family had business/political/social relationships with the Clintons in Little Rock. They unanimously confirmed that she has a very strong moral compass that always points directly toward herself; that her desire to "serve" is a thinly veiled disguise covering her lust for political power; and that she does indeed leave bloody footprints as stated above. Even then her political ambition was so obvious that my own Mother made me promise that I would never vote for her. My Mother is long since gone, but the promise is still in tact.

is that Obama ISN'T a reconciler or peace maker. Look at the McClurkin mess. He's a panderer and he strikes me as very willing to throw "undesirables" under the bus in order to forge this wonderful bipartisan coalition. Of course I'll vote for him if he gets the nom; with all his faults he's 3000% better than the best Republican.

interesting isn't it how 'ambition' is perceived...the ethic in colonial and revolutionary times was that only people that demonstrated no ambition (don't even campaign for an office) were fit to hold office. I guess that still lingers among the general populace, but not all - I think many on the right see unbridled ambition no matter the motivation as good - yet without ambition what person would have the desire for office?

It's a difficult balance to find in any one person, the right amount of ambition and directed in just the right direction (like finding the angle of approach for atmospheric re-entry) not to far towards helping others because that will most likely lead to actually going out and getting involved in grass roots efforts or something closer to the people anyway, but not to far in the direction of self-satisfaction either - somewhere between those two angles of approach to ambition and still have the correct skills.

She is frequently credited with Bill's loss of the governorship in 1981 because of her abrasive campaign tactics. When Bill moved her to the background, he was able to regain the governorship in 1983.

HRC does not seem to appreciate the archaic definition of "politic"--a synonym for courtesy, discretion, and prudence.

I have family that are washington Democratic insiders...and cold hard and ruthless are terms I heard often about her during the Clinton years. I also heard an apocryphal story (I trust the source) about her hurling a lamp at Bill's head in the WH.
She is however EXTEMELY intelligent, perhaps moreso than Bill. ANd there is something to be said for toughness especially considering we will see the nastiest of politics from the Repukes no doubt.
I know she's flip flopped on things, but I just laugh when I hear people say she is no different than Bush. The smear on her during her years as a first lady was she was waaay too liberal! I do think if she got in, she probably would push a fairly liberal agenda.

Means there is no party for progressives. (And there certainly is a party for regressives!)

...and the resources each has available, I have come to the conclusion that it will be either HC or Obama. As much as I may like Edwards, I just don't think he can win the nomination.

Senator Russ Feingold in an interview today with the "Newspaper of Record" the Appleton Post-Crescent (HT: TPM)

"I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

"The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

"When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."



I remember his stances from '04, and frankly, I just don't
trust the guy. He's saying what we want, but he's just
not BELIEVABLE to me.

Not that I'm head over heels with the others, mind you.

Edwards was my first choice, from an "electability" standpoint,
but now.....

Well, I'm hoping for a brokered convention.

the above is why I don't feel great about ANY of the Democratic nominees. Right now Edwards is the only one talking the talk, but when he had the opportunity to walk the walk, he didn't.

I wish Feingold had decided to run.

are FURIOUS with him for this.

I would have voted for him in the primary anyway,
but I'm in Michigan, so I had to make do with
"uncommitted".....

(story of my life)

:evilgrin:

Which says a lot about how progressive DU is. The Clinton and Obama supporters tend to be more vocal, so that might give the impression that their numbers are larger. Just look at the poll results. Edwards always wins easily. It's Edwards Underground. ;)

I read a well thought out post by PATRICK today under one of lame54's threads. He summed up well the rationale for being an Edwards supporter. He's a gifted writer. We probably won't win this time, but it's the long term movement toward progressive ideals that's important, not so much this particular election. However, I do feel that by the next election in 2012, the poor economic conditions will be ripe for real change in the corporate duopoly. I said that in 2004 too, but the pendulum takes time to shift. Progressive are always pulling the pendulum to go faster, but the inertia of the country takes time to overcome. An economic depression accelerates change.

Clinton and Obama are corporate centrists, with very little to distinguish them politically. I think it's more of which personality appeals to you, and whether you feel the election should be about the first African American or the first woman in office. Not to diminish either goals, but I think it should be about political positions that we electing them for. Clinton is the DLC, but Obama has his own corporate allegiances. I don't get the impression that he is any more liberal than she is. He likes to talk about hope and change and is quite impressive as a public speaker. But it's not so clear what the hope and change really entail. It seems like we just get more corporate centrism.

Also, many people get sucked in by the electability meme. They're probably not willing to take a stand on principle alone, and prefer to go with one of the leaders, to be on the winning team. Certainly Edwards is a long shot in anyone's book, but the longer he stays in the race (hopefully to the convention), the more he can shape the Democratic Party platform, if he is the king or queen maker. This makes it all worth fighting for. But even if he doesn't hold the delegate balance, he's caused the other two campaigns to shift the debate left to absorb his message to a degree.

And the possibility of a brokered convention is interesting. We just might get a better candidate than Obama or Clinton. One can hope anyway.

You guys seriously need better leaders.

:)

That's usually the question for independents, whether they can get behind one of the corporate duopoly candidates. I've voted Nader the past two elections, but Edwards this time. Even Nader is voting for Edwards in the primary. And many other progressives. He's had a lot of a conversion since 2004, and is saying many of the right things now. But he's the only one who is.

for any of the Democratic candidates to use words like "shared sacrifice" in their speeches or on their web sites, because that's what's going to be necessary in the years to come. They're all selling the snake oil that if they can just throw enough money at these problems, then everyone can keep living their lives exactly the way they've always been, if not better, and it ain't gonna happen. I'm still waiting for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, to address the really difficult issues, like how they're going to deal with the problem of dwindling water resources all over the country. I've searched the websites of Edwards, Obama and Clinton in vain for even one word about this issue. The Republicans plan to pray for rain, and that's not much worse than what the Dems have in mind. And I'm still waiting for any of them to tell us how they're going to pay for all the things they're proposing, with a 9+ trillion dollar debt staring us in the face.

http://grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html#null

Edwards is the best on environmental issues. The other two are more beholden to corporate profits, coal, nuclear lobbies. But I think green energy will have plenty of profits and will create jobs from alternative energy that will be needed to help with the coming recession. End the war and work on the home front. Rebuilding infrastructure.

They're all snake oil salesman, but I like the oil that Edwards is selling best. It comes with CO2 recapture technology. ;)

To fight the recession, that $9 trillion dollar deficit is going to increase even more. Helicopter Ben will be seeing to that tomorrow. But the tax refunds Bush is sending out and lower interest rates are only band-aid measures. They're not going to keep us out of recession. At most, they'll slow the descent a bit. Long range sustainable investments are needed. Green investments are the logical choice, because of the impending climate crisis we're facing. Put people to work, save the environment and economy, end the wars for oil.

They are the greater evil. I'm just saying that your current crop of leaders are bullshit. Not that I'm suprised, mind you. I have a very low opinion of the majority of humankind, and the people they choose to follow. Myself? I don't follow anyone. I understand that other people have power, and that I have to do what they tell me, but I'll never carry someone on my shoulder. It doesn't matter if they are a politician, a boss, or even a civil rights leader (though I recognize that sometimes I have to work with other people).

You follow a leader, you deserve to end up where they inevitably take you.