Obama, Clinton, or Edwards? Oh my!

[Zerbie]

Vanessa posted on the Iowa thread asking for feedback to help her choose between these three.

For my part, I am juggling Edwards and Obama.

Can anyone share their thoughts regarding Edwards/Obama and which they support and why? And since Vanessa asked, let's throw Clinton into this question too.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I really, really, really, really, really like M. Kucinich, but I'm afraid that he won't win. Of the others, my top pick is Obama, but the others were fairly convincing in tonight's debate. Then again the dictatorial ABC (owned by Disney, which gives money to particular candidates) didn't allow Kucinich to participate, and Dodd and Biden left. It was a rather lonely stage.

Ron Paul is cute in a completely nonphysical, I-love-the-constitution-way, but I am afraid that I just am not a libertarian. Too much of a populist here.

[inca nitta]

what is the difference between a populist and a libertarian?

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Not to steal the thread. A Libertarian is one who basically wants the Government to get its hands off as much as possible. Free Market, little to no regulations on anything, thus most libertarians would legalize many drugs, sexual practices, and anything that doesn't harm anyone else. They coined the term, "Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine."

A populist is a bit different, and often has different meanings. Think of it like this:
Libertarian: free economy, free private lives
Populist: some regulations in both sectors

At least that is how I would explain it. I support government regulations, because I think they help society. I am not always against the government legislating morality, as long as it is "common good" morality, and not the morality of one paradigm or worldview. That's how I would sum it up right now, though it is possible that I am wrong.:D

[Emproph]

Clinton: Too boring to be true. She's so knee deep in political BS I don't know what she stands for.

Obama: Still has not publicly fired Donnie McClurkin, and acknowledged that an "ex-gay" status is never an excuse for a "gays kill children" anti-gay status.

Edwards: I vote Breck girl, he's a white pretty male without the evil.

[BruceChris]

And came away with mixed impressions. I think that Romney was a clear winner on the Republican't side, but then I'm a Democat.

I think that Obama's lack of experience seems to be his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. The longer that you are in the public eye, the more enemies you can make, the more you are seen as being part of the system, and the more things that you will say that can later be used against you.

In a place like Washington, that's kinda like being a (male) virgin in a very disreputable brothel. (Are we allowed to use the phrase "sleazy whorehouse" here? It fits SO much better)

They all looked tired, especially Hillary, for the first part of it. And hey, as a good liberal, I think that I'm stuck with the choice of being either a sexist, or a racist, unless I vote for Edwards.

The word "Populist" usually carries with it the impression of being from the grass roots, or from the common man, as I understand it.

Peace, Love, and Politics :confused: , Bruce Chris

[Zerbie]

Oh if I had my druthers I'd vote for Kucinich, but it seems he doesn't stand a chance of the nomination.

I like Obama and I like Edwards, and after last night I still have not been moved to prefer one over the other.

Emp - it sounds like you're for Edwards b/c of the incident with the ex-gay or whoever he was, endorsing Obama on the campaign tour?

[Emproph]

Actually give me Biden first, Kucinich is too nice for the world stage to take seriously enough.
Emp - it sounds like you're for Edwards b/c of the incident with the ex-gay or whoever he was, endorsing Obama on the campaign tour?
Yeah, Edwards by default, if it comes down to it I'll settle for Obama. I LOVE Kucinich, think Biden is the Bomb, wish Feingold was running, and long to get behind Hillary.

Again, if it comes down to it I'll vote for her, but I may as well be voting for valium at that point. :sleep:

[tymejumper]

I think I would vote for Guliani if I had to vote Republican. I am not so sure for Democrat. I did vote for Hillary 2 times before:lol: But honestly, I think I probably would vote for Hillary just for the fact that I think we could use a woman president and she did try to get Clinton not to pass "Don't ask Don't tell". I reember there was quite a big to do about it all cause she as his wife did not back his plan.

I really don't see a good, strong canidate for Democrat at this point. They all lie anyhow(polititians) and I still say that one person really can't do that much, after all they have to go through the Senate and COngress and get everyone to agree,so that pretty much makes one person highly ineffectual in my opinion.

I want to see some really strong oppinions on what the canidate is going to do for me, a gay american before I give them my vote. I am SO tired of people bringing their religion into politics. The same goes for their personal life, I mean who really cares if you have a mistress? It surely did not affect Kennedy as president.

I say run the country and keep the rest private as it should be. Serve the people, not just your religious or your moral constituents only.

[RedneckDyke]

I can't get excited about any of them. The last couple of election cycles, my guy dropped out beofre we even had our primary. I hate that. I think everyone should vote for a federal primary on the same day. Why is OH and NH so special? :mad::mad::mad:

[Zerbie]

Oh yeah - if there is only one site like this, I took this quiz months ago and came up like, 95% aligned with Kucinich. I forgot about this quiz, and the reason I'm not considering Kucinich is I feel that he will not get a nomination.

Well, why not look at it again. ?

Thanks Udog. :cool:

Edited text here:
Took this quiz and no, it is not the one I took some months ago. This quiz showed my opinions most aligned with Gravel (91%) and Kucinich (90%.) Clinton at 84%, Edwards at 78%, and Obama at 72%.

It seems to me that Clinton, Edwards, or Obama will be getting the nomination. If I really want to vote for a candidate who agrees with me on all the things I find really important, it would seem I'd need to run for president myself. Soooo never gonna happen.

The more I read and listen the more confused and undecided I get.

Help.

[tdogg]

Kucinich 92%
Gravel 90%
Richardson 83%
Edwards 81%
Clinton 79%
Obama 77%

No republican was over 35% (not a shocker)

He really is my favorite candidate. He has great ideals, so close to my own. But I'm not sure he has a clear plan on how to succeed in getting to his ideals.

I've actually been a fan of Hillary but at this point I'm wavering. Guess I have a few short weeks to become conclusive in my choice.

[Vanessa White]

Kucinich 79%
Gravel 78%
Edwards 77%
Obama 77%
Clinton 76%

I wish Kucinich could potentially do better, because I really like him as well. I don't know a thing about Gravel, to be honest. The results seem to go along with what I was thinking...... I still really like Edwards, I think?!?:confused:

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Kucinich and Gravel : 86%
Obama: 80%

[Pablo Rafael]

I won't really have any say in this issue because the Colorado primary is way too late to have any effect.

Plus I am a Republican, so I couldn't vote for Clinton, Edwards or Obama anyway. But if you want a Republican perspective here it is:

Clinton is the least acceptable candidate to the Republicans. I thinks she might have the hardest time in the general election. I personally think she is highly qualified and think most of the negativity against her comes simply because she is a woman.

I do like the stand Edwards has in regards to helping out the less fortunate. He more than anyone seems to want to lessen the rich/poor divide in the US. However, I have a hard time trusting him. He seems the smooth lawer/politician to me.

Obama would be my choice of the three. I think he is smart and would make some needed changes. He seems more centrist on many of the issues. Of the three, I think he would be most generally successful in getting some Republican votes in the general election.

Now of the Republicans? McCain or Guiliani. But like I said; it will already be long decided before I get to vote.

[Zerbie]

I won't really have any say in this issue because the Colorado primary is way too late to have any effect.

When is the CO primary??



Clinton is the least acceptable candidate to the Republicans. I thinks she might have the hardest time in the general election.
That is what I've heard for a while now. Personally, I prefer the other two candidates over her, but she did do a nice job tonight and I appreciated tonight's speech from NH.


I do like the stand Edwards has in regards to helping out the less fortunate. He more than anyone seems to want to lessen the rich/poor divide in the US.
That's the number 1 reason I like him.

However, I have a hard time trusting him. He seems the smooth lawer/politician to me.
My mom says the same thing. I am missing it so far.


Obama would be my choice of the three. I think he is smart and would make some needed changes. He seems more centrist on many of the issues. Of the three, I think he would be most generally successful in getting some Republican votes in the general election.

Interesting.

Now of the Republicans? McCain or Guiliani. But like I said; it will already be long decided before I get to vote.

Giuliani? Really? Why?

I don't know that the republicans have a candidate that really appeals to a lot of them. The McCain thing interests me a lot, since he's local, and I went from voting for him and supporting him to being completely alienated. I swore a year or two ago I will never vote for him again. My take on McCain has been that the fairly far right will not trust him, and with moves in the past couple years, those more to the left have now been alienated. But I guess that depends on a lot of other factors too. They obviously like him strongly in NH.

[tpdncr4christ]

K so this is my first election ever to vote in and I haven't a clue! All of these politicians seem more helpful than hurtful and nothing really makes sense. Why isn't there some sort of test that you take that tells you who to vote for? Honestly.

[tpdncr4christ]

http://www.glassbooth.org

This site does pretty much that, Austin. Use it to arrange a list of candidates that you want to investigate. Then start googling!

Yay age of instant gratification! Thanks U-dog, I'll check it out.

[keltic63]

I live to serve. ;)


http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q305/keltic63/gooddog.jpg

[Vanessa White]

I just signed on to help with Edwards' campaign. He's my man/person for the job. I just ordered also a bumper sticker for my car, Edwards '08- a RAINBOW sticker no less. Something clicked for me with him today and I really believe him to be the right choice for me and my family.....:love:

[Zerbie]

I just signed on to help with Edwards' campaign. He's my man/person for the job. I just ordered also a bumper sticker for my car, Edwards '08- a RAINBOW sticker no less. Something clicked for me with him today and I really believe him to be the right choice for me and my family.....:love:

What was the something?
Was it his speech last night??

I think it would feel to great to feel on board with a candidate. sigh. I wish. I still like Obama though. And can't decide.

[Vanessa White]

There were a couple of somethings actually. I fell asleep and didn't get to hear his speech last night; but I started thinking long about McCain's rising from the ashes, just by being who he is, and seeming real and genuine. And I have had that thought about Edwards from the beginning of this campaign; not last time in 2004, but this time I do. I also read a story on NY Times today about the death of their son eleven years ago, his wife's illness, and their unity as a couple against devastating tragedy.

Maybe it is the parent in me, but it really resonated. According to this article, his wife was afraid that he would drop out after she got a bad prognosis in March, but she didn't want him to. He is willing and does, stand up for the persons in the most dire need in this country. He also has some firm plans for the ONE campaign to help eradicate disease,hunger and poverty in the world.

Bottom line: He is someone I believe that I can put my trust in.

I really do like Obama, I just think that he will be more conservative than serves my needs.

[Zerbie]

He is willing and does, stand up for the persons in the most dire need in this country.

That is why he is way up there in my estimation.


I really do like Obama, I just think that he will be more conservative than serves my needs.

I think that too, but otoh, anyone who gets elected to this office in 2008 is going to be too conservative for me. :p So I get to pick one of them or skip voting!

Meanwhile, found a different quiz. On this one, the rating came out Obama 89%, 86% Kucinich, 80% Clinton, 79% Edwards.

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

[Daniel]

Though I bemoan the fact that Mr. K embodies everything I could want in a candidate- and he couldn't get on the Las Vegas debate the other night. And you know another guy I really like? Biden. Knows his stuff, but, as many have noted, he doesn't seem to know when to edit what comes out of his mouth. That said: he's make a great Secretary of State, don't you think?

I found this at Towleroad this morning. Made me laugh.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/hillary-clint-2.html

Said Clinton: "Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome aboard the maiden flight of Hil Force One. My name is Hillary and I am so pleased to have most of you on board. FAA regulations prohibit the use of any cell phones, Blackberries or wireless devices that may be used to transmit a negative story about me. In a few minutes, I am going to switch off the 'Fasten Your Seat Belt' sign. However, I've learned lately that things can get awfully bumpy when you least expect it—so you might want to keep those seat belts fastened. And in the event of an unexpected drop in poll numbers, this plane will be diverted to New Hampshire. If you look out from the right, you will see an America saddled with tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war without end. If you look out from the left, you will see an America with a strong middle class at home and a strong reputation in the world. Once we've reached cruising altitude, we'll be offering in-flight entertainment: my stump speech in its many variations. Once again, thank you for joining us on Hil Force One. We know you have choices when you fly, and so we are grateful that you chose the plane with the most experienced candidate. Thank you all and have a great flight."

At least she has a sense of humor.

All this aside, I do like Edward's too, am not convinced that Obama has the 'there' in the 'there' yet. His rhetoric comes across as somewhat hollow to me. Ok. I get the world 'change'. But change what? How? By what means?

All this aside aside- the three (it looks like) major candidates are remarkably similar on their stances about policy. Practically speaking, I will vote democratic, whoever gets the nomination.

Hillary radiates a hunger for the Presidency (a good thing in my mind). That count's for something, no?

[dsdrane]

Hi, y'all.:D

I absolutely agree with Daniel, though I will certainly (and actively) support Obama should he win the nomination.

And I, too, thought the flight attendant schtick was tres amusing. She should show this side of her more often.:cool:

[tdogg]

I'm also voting for Ms. Clinton. Her vast experience (and not solely related to being the First Lady for a number of years), knowledge and stance on many (no all) of the issues that are important to me have helped sway me to her. I really like Kucinich, but he lacks in actually expressing a plan to get from his ideal to reality, and I think for me Obama does too. I get the hollow feeling from his speeches as well, tho he may be the man in 8 years to take over for Clinton.

And like Daniel and David I will be voting for a Democrat in November, regardless of which one ends up with the nomination.

[Zerbie]

Let's inject some other questions into this thread:

What should a president's greatest strengths be?
Is it more important that s/he have the talent to engage, fascinate, inspire, and unify the citizens and leaders of this country? Or is it more important that s/he push very specific policy from the executive branch?

I am still caught between Obama and Edwards for a favorite, with Clinton in my personal 3rd place. Earlier I was leaning to Obama. Presently I am leaning to Edwards. Edwards' policy begins to sway me more - it appears more specific, more definite, and more in line with what I personally believe will be most helpful to this country. (Besides my appreciation for the way he came through and seized opportunity to re-direct the debate last night.) But from what I hear of Obama, his stance is not greatly different from Edwards on the issues I care about. And I am considering this question: is his talent for personal leadership and inspiration AS important or perhaps even MORE important for engaging this country, from citizens to senators, in the changes that need to be brought about?

In this thread, I have utterly left out those who were not media babies and have only even discussed the top three. It seems to me that we have a serious problem there: if the campaign reaches its national audience mostly through the big media, then wasn't it the media who decided who the top players are in this campaign? Why is it that we've practically never heard about Kucinich? Biden (and wasn't Dodd in there for a while?) was a barely referenced after-thought. Does this mean that the media is picking our candidates for us?

Lastly, if I still haven't chosen between Edwards and Obama by Super Tuesday (assuming the state of AZ even received my re-registration:eek:), will Kucinich still be in the race? Is it "wasting" a vote to vote for the one I would have really liked to see be a contender?

This is incredibly frustrating.

Feedback?

[Vanessa White]

I thought about the whole wasting of a vote thing myself. And, the media has pretty much been ignoring him in the last few weeks, and made the democratic race an Obama v. Clinton race. I agree with you that Edwards is specific in his areas of policies, strategies, etc., and he has tried to focus on that in all of his public events. I do believe, that the best candidate has to be a full blend of both a policy maker and a person whom will inspire those that are disheartened with the political process. I believe that those three top contenders in the Democratic party all have the best interest of the American people- US - at heart, but I like Edwards approach the best in that dept. I also like Kuchinich, and I think it is about exposure.

[tdogg]

If you have a candidate whose stance on issues closely matches your own, but who isn't articulate enough to effectively communicate their stance or plan, and/or who isn't enough of a leader to convince congress of the importance of the issues, then nothing would get done in DC.

If you have a candidate who is articulate and an effective leader, but who doesn't see the issues as you do, then it could be detrimental.

So I think it's very important to pick a candidate that sees the issues as you do, and who also is articulate and a good communicator, and appears to have the traits to be an effective leader. I also think it's very important that the candidate not only has a vision but a plan on how to get there.

I also get nervous when candidates change on policies that once appeared to be very important to them, then change their stance on the issue. Who says they won't retract once they are elected? I do like Edwards more now than before, but I worry very much that once he's elected, he will place more important on his personal beliefs esp. in regards to GLBT issues.

I also feel that any one of the Dems would be a huge improvement over any one of the Reps and of course over the current administration!

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28gay.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

For Gay Democrats, a Primary Where Rights Are Not an Issue, This Time

Oh really? The headline doesn't sit welll with me. From the article...

Still, many gay leaders said they are unhappy that none of the Democrats have embraced the cause of gay marriage, even if they understood the political calculus at play.

“There’s a feeling that supporting gay marriage would be politically unacceptable,” said Mr. Geto, the Clinton strategist. “Still, we’ve come a long way. Four years ago, civil unions created such a huge firestorm. I think things will be different one or two election cycles from now.”

So.....we're supposed to support a democratic candidate, none of whom supports gay marriage and hope that our grandchildren may be able to marry, but we'll have to settle for Civil Unions for now?

There's nothing civil about that. Our dear Canadian Liberal Crozier warned us about this. And here it is....

Liberal! Where are you?!!!

And this item is presents an interesting perspective....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp

[ladyinred]

Part of the reason why the democrats are treading softly on this issue, is they don't want it to hurt their chances of electability, there is a strong evangelical base and they are afraid of the uproar it would cause and don't want to lose votes.If you go to the democratic website they do support civil rights for gays and lesbians. With the religious right and the republican party being in power in the past we've had much more to lose than gain frankly. Many of them are admantly against civil rights for gays and lesbians.While the democrats aren't exactly standing up and endorsing marriage rights for gays and lesbians, better they as allies, albeit with reservations, than having the republican candidates which strongly identifiy with the right gaining more ground.America loses if they gain more power, I'm personally not for a theocratic USA.Right now there may have to be a little compromise on the issue of marriage while still working toward full rights.Nothing wrong with that.

What other option is there? To vote for a republican candidate and hope they get it? The reason why I refused to vote republican in my own state(And if there was a republican contender without a democratic one, I left it umarked.)Is I refuse to aquiese and give the right more power and support for their agenda. I'm not saying all republicans are the bad guys. But it is hard to know who is more moderate and who isn't since so many of them do identify with the right. The right won't compromise and give an inch when it comes to gay rights, period. Is that an option?

Remember their ideal is to remake the US into a theocratic nation, they are not only trying to undermine gay rights, but civil rights for other minorities including blacks and women, they also want to undo much of the progress in these areas, they just don't attack gays, but liberals, people who don't agree with the war, reproductive rights and opportunities for women, other religions, the environment, regulation through agencies like the EPA and FDA, also separation of church and state, public education, gun regulation, they also want to undermine unions and workers rights , are pro corporate and anti regulation, and also promote discriminatory hiring practices based on a person's religious and other backround. Free speech and special rights are for them not everyone else. Anyone who disagrees or dissents is considfered the enemy,possessed of demonic influences or whatever.

As if they don't insult gays enough they level accusations as gays are anti-Christ, hate Christians, have the mark of the beast and even imagine that the anti-Christ will likely be homosexual.
We know that there are those who are called reconstructionist who base their theology based on a old testament biblical world view, are dominionist, beliveing they should have authority and control over all aspects of society from government, and other instititutions, to a person's choices and personal acts in society. Frankly if they gain power, we will be heading back to the dark ages... Can you imagine stoning people? Major witch-hunts for those not sufficently Christian enough to support their worldview? Women being told their role is to stay at home and bear children and being denied access to higher education and employment? Married couples even being denied access to contraception and birth control,kids forced to go to schools to be indoctrinated with their principles and ideology? Repression of other religious denominations ?Persecution of jews, buddhists, pagans, hindus and moslems and atheists?

[BruceChris]

Maybe these biblically literal Fundies forgot to read the part where Jesus says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" He wasn't just talking about taxes.

P&L, BC

[Vanessa White]

Citing some issues with lack of media coverage, he is withdrawing today. I have to say, I am stunned. I knew he was behind, but expected him at least to see through until we got through Super Tuesday. And, without sounding overdramatic, I feel really, really emotional about this. I have been on the verge of tears since I heard an hour ago. He really resonated with me in a very deep, personal way. I really don't even know who I want to support now, but I fear that John Edwards was the best way to get a Democat back into the White House, against John McCain. I mean, I never saw that coming, but I think he is on his way......:'(:'(:'(

[Daniel]

Citing some issues with lack of media coverage, he is withdrawing today. I have to say, I am stunned. I knew he was behind, but expected him at least to see through until we got through Super Tuesday. And, without sounding overdramatic, I feel really, really emotional about this. I have been on the verge of tears since I heard an hour ago. He really resonated with me in a very deep, personal way. I really don't even know who I want to support now, but I fear that John Edwards was the best way to get a Democat back into the White House, against John McCain. I mean, I never saw that coming, but I think he is on his way......:'(:'(:'(

I feel your pain (not to go all Clintoneque on ya! :rolleyes:) But really. Edwards brought a heck of a lot to the table, and I am sorry to learn as I did this morning when logging onto the NYTimes, that he would be dropping out of the race. Mr. K too. There are good things about having candidates stay in the race because they influence the race itself and the discussion. And now that's changed, and, I think, not for the better.

He message of protecting the little guy resonated with me. I could care less about the haircut matter and his former lawyer stuff. Big deal. Every candidate has their issues. The one great thing about his candidacy was that he kept telling the truth as he saw it- to a large part of the country that actually does matter.

You know, he's been at it more than a year- on the road- never home- it must just be one huge grind. In that sense, I hope he can find some peace from the madness each candidate will be facing in years to come. A race for a year and a half?

That's nuts!

Oh...and let's not ignore the twist in Florida. Because the democratic party did not want the primary to take place when it did, Clinton 'won' the vote, but did not get any delegates. Obama got them. So in the long run, he won. Ain't that something?

[keltic63]

I feel your pain (not to go all Clintoneque on ya! :rolleyes:) But really. Edwards brought a heck of a lot to the table, and I am sorry to learn as I did this morning when logging onto the NYTimes, that he would be dropping out of the race. Mr. K too. There are good things about having candidates stay in the race because they influence the race itself and the discussion. And now that's changed, and, I think, not for the better.

that was my thought this morning as well. I was disappointed. I wasn't sure that he was my candidate, but I felt a loss for the race because of his influence on it and now the subsequent lack of influence.




Oh...and let's not ignore the twist in Florida. Because the democratic party did not want the primary to take place when it did, Clinton 'won' the vote, but did not get any delegates. Obama got them. So in the long run, he won. Ain't that something?

that, I just don't understand. Why does Obama get them if Florida is being punished? I thought no one would get those delegates.

[Zerbie]

Just when I started to define my preference for Edwards. . . but I did see this coming after South Carolina. I thought, the investment has got to be too huge to keep this up after such a distant 3rd place in the home state. I very much liked the influence he had on the debates and I agree with his campaigners who stated that in many ways, he defined the issues that the democratic contenders talked about. I believe he really did.

I do not understand the situation with Fl's delegates. What's that about?

[andrewlittle]

Oh...and let's not ignore the twist in Florida. Because the democratic party did not want the primary to take place when it did, Clinton 'won' the vote, but did not get any delegates. Obama got them. So in the long run, he won. Ain't that something?

Now, I could be wrong, but this is the danger of spin.

Technically, nobody gets the delegates, because the delegates from Florida (and Michigan, BTW) don't get to vote at the national convention. The reason it has been stated that Obama "gets" the delegates is that, since Florida is a "winner take all state", there are 57 Clinton delegates who won't get to vote at the convention. This has been likened to Obama getting the delegates because they don't neutralize the convention votes of 57 Obama delegates.

It's really like Florida and Michigan don't exist as far as the Democratic convention is concerned, and they were both Clinton states. That was the price to pay for changing their primary dates - the Democratic voters in those states got f'd, because it kust might end up being pivotal.

[BenL]

Oh...and let's not ignore the twist in Florida. Because the democratic party did not want the primary to take place when it did, Clinton 'won' the vote, but did not get any delegates. Obama got them. So in the long run, he won. Ain't that something?

... I couldn't help but think of Florida in 2000, when Gore got the votes, and Bush took, um, was handed all the electoral votes by the Supreme Court. No matter what, Florida seems to be screwing up the process, eh?

[Daniel]

Now, I could be wrong, but this is the danger of spin.

And it is very likely that I lapped up some commentors spin.

Technically, nobody gets the delegates, because the delegates from Florida (and Michigan, BTW) don't get to vote at the national convention. The reason it has been stated that Obama "gets" the delegates is that, since Florida is a "winner take all state", there are 57 Clinton delegates who won't get to vote at the convention. This has been likened to Obama getting the delegates because they don't neutralize the convention votes of 57 Obama delegates.

I see your point.

It's really like Florida and Michigan don't exist as far as the Democratic convention is concerned, and they were both Clinton states. That was the price to pay for changing their primary dates - the Democratic voters in those states got f'd, because it kust might end up being pivotal.

You said a mouthful. Come super-tuesday, we'll have a greater sense of how it all adds up- and even more so at the convention.

Is it just me, or is anyone else simply tired of listening to candidates? I really want campaign finance reform. We shouldn't have to endure a year and a half of this kind of torture again. Nor should the candidates. The only folks getting anything out of this (financially speaking) are the TV corporations who make a killing on ads.

I think those same corporations should have to give back some air time free. After all, what makes them 'own' them? We do. The people.

[Jennifer5]

One down side to being 16 (17 by Nov.) :rolleyes:

I said I wouldn't get caught up in the election stuff this year, but I got on the computer today and a couple hours later I was still reading stuff about Edwards and him dropping out and everything.

Long before any of this got going, I liked the idea of Clinton, I don't really like her much at all anymore. I just don't feel like she can bring forth the change that this country needs to see. If it comes down to her, I think she could still be a better option then whatever the republicans have to offer, she just wouldn't be my first choice.

In my mind Obama was the only real option. Was it Patrick who said it?, I think that him being new to this game might be one of the best things he has going for him. In my opinion, a new voice is exactly what is needed in this situation. He has a lot of goals for this coutry and he sounds like he's got a pretty good idea of how to reach them, I think he could be a great thing for our country.

Edwards I hadn't even really looked at and now he's out of the picture, so I suppose it's just as well.

By absolute ideal situation would be, Obama - president & Edwards -Vice President.



See... complete waste of time, I definately have my opinions here, but it doesn't matter because I can't vote.

[BruceChris]

This country has long needed a woman as president. We have equally needed a person of color to add their balance to our presidency. But since Oprah's calendar is booked for several years at least, it looks like we're gonna get stuck with either Obama or Hillary.

Cheers, BC

[Jennifer5]

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=50879#post50879