Obama, not Edwards, is the true choice for progressive voters...

[Moloch]

In his senatorial race in 2004, Obama defeated Alan Keyes by a huge margin. John Edwards, on the other hand, barely won his senate seat.

Once elected, Obama has introduced numerous bills to the senate, including the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. In contrast, Edwards introduced no bills and had one of the poorest attendance records in the senate at that time.

Obama never reads from a teleprompter and is one of the most demanded speakers in the U.S. right now. Edwards repeated the same "Two Americas" speech over and over and over again.

Obama spoke out against the war in 2002 and 2003 as an Illinois state senator while Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

There's no mistaking it... John Edwards has had one goal since he got started in politics and that is being president. Obama is the true populist and people-powered candidate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. .... With all due respect ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2907644

[Moloch]

5. Yes, I've read that thread...

and instead of saying "John Edwards sucks" I have given reasons why I think Obama is the better choice.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. ...while managing to imply, at the same time,

that John Edwards sucks...

[Moloch]

22. No.. I don't believe Edwards sucks..

I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination. I just don't understand why everyone on DU seems to love Edwards so much.

[silverojo]

48. Because he cares about the poor n/t

[bdamomma]

109. Edwards just cares.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Obama was in a solid blue state running against a hard-right candidate.

I haven't made any type of decision and I like Obama, but please don't be disingenuous.

[dysfunctional press]

36. and a "carpet-bagger" to boot...

Alan Keyes lives in maryland- but illinois has fairly lax citizenship rules regarding running for office. the only reason that keyes got into the race in the first place was because it turned out that the repug candidate- jack ryan- had a bit of a sordid past, that included kinda forcing his wife(7 of 9- jeri ryan) to go to 'swing clubs'(that was before the divorce).

if not for that, it might not have been the cakewalk that it was for obama.

[mopinko]

62. you've put the cart before the horse, there.

ryan was pushed out, so that keyes could get in. because they had failed to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot. (and they failed again in '06, because they faked too many sigs.)

but i like barack. he has given my second thoughts a few times, but really, i think he is a good man, smart, compassionate.
and i think he was a well loved child. really, that is one of my big requirements in a politician. someone trying, like *, to fill the void in their soul where mother, and father, love should have been- BIG TROUBLE.
is that strange?

[dysfunctional press]

66. ryan was not pushed out for keyes-

ryan was pushed out because of the sex stuff about his past coming to light, and then alan keyes seized the opportunity to jump in.

and jack ryan minus the sex scandal stuff would have been pretty stiff competition for barack in the general election.

[mopinko]

69. i agree with your second point

but i think you are missing the point where there was a phone call from kkkarl.
to quote lily tomlin for about the millionth time in my life- "i get more and more cynical the older i get, but it is never enough to keep up."
shit doesn't happen on its own in politics.

[dysfunctional press]

73. do you have evidence of that...?

if so, what?

or is it just conjecture on your part?

most people viewed keyes candidacy as a complete joke- they would have done better to run ryan as he was.

there's NO WAY that illinois republicans would have acted on an edict from kkkarl rove to find a way to replace jack ryan with alan keyes on the ticket- it's lunacy to think so.

[mopinko]

101. no, i can't prove it, but

we live in a lunatic time. everything these guys touch is lunacy.

[dysfunctional press]

103. it seems the lunacy isn't contained to one side...

that is if you truly think that illinois repukes would have rather had alan keyes than jack ryan as their candidate, especially prior to the sex club stuff coming out...

[mopinko]

110. well, i know one thing

keyes was crammed down the throat of the local party by dc. they did not want him. make no mistake about it, the illinois thugs dance to the tune of bushco, as does every state thug party in this country. at about the same time that ryan was being thrown under the bus, john bolton was being proposed for the u.n. he had the exact same skeletons in his closet, only no one seemed to notice his. people were buying commercial drivers licenses, and children were burned to death, and no one resigned. george ryan was a viable candidate, even with those pictures on the front page. sex scandals like this do not cause political death, they cover it.
i think that keyes backfired on them, but they thought he would serve the same purpose that the gay marriage bans did. not to bring out the base, but to give cover for vote rigging and improbable results.
if you take everything at face value, and swallow the conventional wisdom about what happens and why, fine for you. but doesn't it give you a headache?

[Radical Activist]

90. There's a reason the GOP couldn't recruit someone better than Keyes.

Every serious Republican in Illinois knew they would likely lose to Barack Obama. The party tried to recruit several big name Republicans from the state but they were afraid to take on Barack. So no, it isn't disingenuous to give Obama credit for his victory, especially since he was the underdog in the Democratic primary.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. so says you

this progressive, however, will make up her own mind.

[elmerdem]

85. no one with...

...a brain would have put Keyes (I doubt Rove thought there was a chance to win with anyone, ryan dropped out fairly late) in there. Keyes was a sacrificial lamb. He was the only on who would run. I believe one maybe two others declined.

[mike_c]

4. um-- Kucinich is the best progressive in the race at this point...

...or likely to be in it at any point.

[LoZoccolo]

6. If you want to get all radical about it, Abbie Hoffman said something like...

...that the first goal of a revolutionary is to get away with it.

With less than 5% of the primary vote, Kucinich does not get away with it.

[MzNov]

7. I agree! He's a true progressive. nt

[Moloch]

9. Kucinich is a GREAT candidate...

and I have nothing but respect for him... but Obama is much more electable.

[journalist3072]

20. I had a very disappointing experience with Kucinich.

I participated in an online chat with him, and it was extremely disappointing.

I asked him very specific questions, and he was very evasive.

For example, I asked him if he were elected President, and a Democratic-controlled Congress sent him legislation to repeal parts of the Patriot Act, would he sign it. He proceeded to go on and on about how the Aschcroft Justice Department was the most extremist Justice Department in modern history, yada yada yada. Well, I did not ask him about John Aschcroft. I didn't need to be sold about what an extemist Aschcroft is. I asked him would he sign legislation repealing parts of the Patriot Act. No answer.

I also asked him to give me specific names of certain African-American leaders, that he could see himself possibly appointing or nominating to various positions in a Kucinich Administration. (I was trying to see if someone like Tavis Smiley might have his ear, for example). Kucinich then proceeds to say how he wanted to pay homage to the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington. I didn't ask him about the March on Washington. I asked him about what types of African-Americans he might appoint or nominate to positions in his administration.

Kucinich didn't impress me at all.

[MzNov]

25. Good to know these things. The more we know, the better choices we'll make. nt

[antiimperialist]

26. He has said he would repeal the Patriot Act

He must have strayed from your question because he wanted to elaborate more than he should have.
But this doesn't mean he was being evasive on purpose. He's very clear about his views on the Patriot Act.
In his website he states:

It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php

[DemBones DemBones]

97. Plus Dennis was one of the few who voted against it in the first place.

[tblue]

32. I shook his hand during the '04 primaries in NH, and it was like touching a dead fish

No eye contact, no smile, no connection whatsoever, disturbingly cool. I also shook Lieberman's hand, and he was warm and cordial, tho reserved. Edwards was there, but I didn't get close enough to him to meet hm, though he gave a memorable, rousing orator's speech in a jam packed little synagogue. Kerry I saw from a few feet away entering the final debate, and he looked like he was royalty, surrounded by groupies that he seemed to take for granted. I was put off by that vibe. Wes Clark, however, was absolutely warm, energetic, engaging, smiling, & made me feel like I'd known him for years. His town hall meeting, especially his interaction with the people, brought the crowd to its feet. I like Kucinich much better from afar, and I do like what he has to say and the guts he's shown. I wish him the best, but he did not inspire me to get on board with him at all.

[dysfunctional press]

38. that kerry vibe...

i had the same type of feeling about him, as did many of my friends- it was kinda like a sense of entitlement and self-satisfaction rolled into one.

[LittleClarkie]

41. That hasn't been the experience of the folks in the Kerry group

Several of them have met him twice, on his birthday, and found him very warm.

I think he's reserved when he doesn't know someone, but can be very warm if he trusts you.

As Pitt says with Dennis, perhaps it's the timing of when you see them. If they're tired etc.

I met a woman here in Milwaukee who used to be the volunteer who drove Kerry around when he was in town. She remembers him as someone who would shake your hand, look you in the eye and try to listen to what you had to say, even when he was exhausted

[dysfunctional press]

44. most of the people i know get that feeling from him...

most of the time; and i personally don't know a single person that would consider him to be personable...he seems to ooze with insincerity.

[Lasher]

56. I met Kerry on Labor Day in 2004

Teresa had not been feeling well and I just had enough time to ask how she was doing. He seemed surprised and appreciative that I would ask, and he said she was doing fine. He seemed pretty genuine to me at that moment.

Just sharing an experience here, I don't have a favorite candidate so far. We have a bunch of fine people to choose from, and any of them would be an improvement on what we have in the Oval Office now. But then again, just about anybody would be.

[dysfunctional press]

68. the vast majority of voters never meet the candidates...

they have to rely on the images they see on tv and in print...and the camera isn't always john kerry's best friend, so to speak.

i didn't have a favourite candidate until a few weeks ago, when i finally saw an inconveinent truth- now i firmly believe that Al Gore HAS to be the next president.

[LittleClarkie]

82. If your point had been "how did he seem" as opposed to "how he is"

I think I wouldn't have bristled so much. It seemed you were saying that he was not a sincere person, not that he didn't SEEM to be a sincere person.

I can understand that sometimes he doesn't SEEM the warmest. But those of us who've met him one on one can attest to the fact that he IS a warm person.

[dysfunctional press]

84. you really need to learn to read and/or comprehend better-

my point and my wording WAS in how he seems-

"...he seems to ooze with insincerity."

[LittleClarkie]

87. Be that as it may, your overall attitude appeared to be that

you rather believed what he seemed to give off to be the real him, vibe-wise.

"that kerry vibe... I had the same type of feeling about him, as did many of my friends- it was kinda like a sense of entitlement and self-satisfaction rolled into one."

Or were you really thinking "Gee, I'm sure he's a nice guy underneath but ..."

Just to clarify, you think his attitude is one of entitlement and not caring, that this is the kind of person he is? Or do you think he's generally a decent guy, and just can't convey that very well?

[dysfunctional press]

102. i have no idea what kind of person he actually is- and neither do you.

unless of course you are a close personal friend of the senator?

all i and the rest of the voters can judge him by is what we see in the media. and i think i've already made it abundantly clear how that comes across- and not just in my opinion, but also in the opinions of most everyone i know- and that certainly isn't my fault.

[tblue]

114. I'm an issues voter not a personality voter. I'm not looking for a boyfriend in Dennis Kucinich or

John Kerry. And just because one of them was less than charming in one instance, it doesn't mean I won't vote for him. Give me boring, give me arrogant, give me brash, give me silly. If he is right on the issues and has integrity and courage, I will follow him to the ends of the earth.

[LittleClarkie]

81. Have they ever met him personally

Or are they getting that impression from a distance?

[dysfunctional press]

83. the same way that the vast majority of voters get their impressions-

on television. it really doesn't matter how he seems in person one-on-one, because the vast majority of voters never come close to experiencing that.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Kucinich was probably exhausted.

Never seen anyone campaign like him. The man lived without sleep, never stopped, and sometimes got the way you describe when he was really needing a break.

[DemBones DemBones]

96. Will, did Dennis ever miss a House vote? I know he tried not to but

I think he missed one because of a debate. Edwards and Kerry, by comparison, missed a lot of Senate votes, IIRC.

[seashorelady]

112. I recall Edwards spending a lot of time

defending Clinton at his trial, we all know how that turned out.

[DemBones DemBones]

95. That's NOT the way other DUers who met him describe him.

Quite a few DUers met Dennis in 2004 and not one said anything like what you're saying. All of them said Dennis looked them in the eye and spent time talking to them.

So I'd say you met him when he was dead on his feet from campaigning, which can happen to anyone.

[tblue]

113. I'm sure he was exhausted. If he was like that all the time, no one would like him.

Obviously, he has an empassioned following. And I'm glad he doesn't come across like a dead fish to everybody, honest I am.

[Vidar]

74. Progressive Lieberman protege.

[never cry wolf]

78. He is NOT a Lieberman protege

The senate assigns veteran members to mentor freshman. Lieberman was assigned to Obama who had no choice in the matter.

His true mentor and friend was the late, great Sen. Paul Simon who was extremely progressive. Dick Durbin is solidly behind him as well.

[Radical Activist]

91. #2 is a bad question.

No President is going to start naming people he would put in the administration without talking to those people first. That would be foolish. I can't believe you would expect anyone to answer that.

Kucinich has said on several occasions that he would repeal the patriot act.

[DemBones DemBones]

94. Yes, and there are certainly are a lot of people who don't want to give him a chance.

Rather odd, isn't it, among supposedly progressive Democrats. . .

[Buzz Clik]

10. True progressives will fight and kick and scream and eventually...

... vote for whoever survives the primaries.

[LoZoccolo]

12. True progressives are rare.

In my estimation, a true progressive is someone who makes a new idea compelling to more and more people. That really has nothing to do with primaries and the Democratic Party in the short term, but it's the only way that their (as yet unpopular or little known) ideas will make it there.

[Radical Activist]

104. That's how I see Obama.

He's articulating progressive ideals in a way that appeals far beyond the progressive base. Its sad that some people mistake that for moving to the right. I can't think of any national leader than is more effective at making voters of all backgrounds unite around progressive ideas.

[Lex]

11. You know what they say about OPINIONS!

They are like um . . . well, anyway, everyone has one!

[journalist3072]

13. I cannot get past Obama's vote to confirm Condi Rice as SoS

I like Barack Obama. I was so inspired by his convention speech, and I think he has the best of intentions.

But he's been somewhat of a disappointment for me, for example, with his vote (in the Foreign Relations Committee) to send Condi Rice's nomination to the full Senate.

He will have to really work to earn my vote, should he seek the nomination.

With respect to John Edwards, I really loved his "two Americas" theme, because I think that is exactly what we need to address: this growing gap betweent he haves and the have nots. Since he's become a private citizen, I love how he has focused on poverty.

At the same time, however, I am STILL disappointed in him for writing to the D.C. Board of Elections in January 2004, and asking to have his name removed from the ballot (as did 4 other Democrats during the primary). Back in 2004, D.C. held a non-binding presidential primary in early January (before New Hampshire and Iowa). We were trying to bring attention to the fact that we do not have representation in the Congress. And some of the Democrats got upset that we would DARE go before Iowa and New Hampshire that year.

I have no idea who I will be supporting in '08. They will all have to work to earn my vote.

[MzNov]

21. I haven't been able to get over his immediate support for LIEBERMAN

But like so many Democrats he's a very high-quality player. We have many of those, including Edwards, Gore, many 110th House members. I don't think Obama is a progressive in the sense that the left wing of the party understands Progressive. But he's a wonderful human being who deserves an important appointment in our "new" government. I feel the same way about Hillary. She is an extremely intelligent and savvy woman, who deserves an important position. President? No for either.

This could be Kucinich's time.

:bounce:

[Radical Activist]

92. I was disappointed with Feingold voting for Ashcroft

and several other odious Bush appointees. Some Senators are a lot more lenient in Presidential appointments. I don't like it, but it doesn't make them conservative.

[Roxy66]

14. Elizabeth sways my vote for Edwards...I like the whole package thing n/t

Love Obama too though...I would fight for either of them

[jobycom]

15. So you're saying that all the other choices are false, and progressives

with other opinions are just too stupid to realize that? Or are you just saying that no one who supports someone other than Obama is a true progressive?

I must get this straight, or I am in danger of making up my own mind.

[MzNov]

24. I don't think he's saying either.

I think we should all give it time. Wait to see where things fall. We're all in a hurry, can ya blame us? We've been underdogs for so long we want everything to happen now.

Things will shake out. We need to see if the Democrats will stand up to Bush when he decides to try to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq. Then we'll see who is Presidential material. Just sayin.

:dem:

[rodeodance]

16. I am giving Edwards my vote at the moment.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. I like 'em both

Edwards/Obama '08?

[Trajan]

18. First: The 'Obama vs. Edwards' election comparison is false ...

Carolina is FAR more conservative than Illinois, and so it makes sense that a progressive in Illinois would win by a greater margin than a progressive in Carolina .... This comparison means nothing ...

Second: Most of us like BOTH men .... yet you want to make them adversaries .... why ? ...

They are comrades, and I am comrades with both ....

And so the circular firing squad is assembled .....

[Moloch]

27. You're right. Edwards has more Southern appeal.

Especially when he attacked Howard Dean for having the audacity to come down here "during church hour." Even then, his popularity in the South is limited. He didn't seem to help deliver North Carolina to our column.

Obama is popular everywhere. Thousands of people show up to nearly all of his speeches. You just don't find that kind of excitement for Edwards.

[edwardsfeingold08]

46. Edwards wasn't at the top of the ticket.

John Kerry was a hard sell in North Carolina in 04.

I just saw Edwards speak in Los Angeles. People were excited to see him and people don't usually show that type of excitement for a politician around here in my experience. You seem to be underestimating Edwards' appeal. I think Obama is also great.

Despite my name, I have a hard time choosing between Edwards and Obama at this point--not to mention Gore.

[GreenArrow]

37. ah yes, the circular firing squad

as opposed to the circle jerk, where each prospective candidate is slathered with equal passion, regardless of his or her qualifications, views, and abilities.

[marmar]

19. Comparing Obama's election to Edwards' really isn't fair....

First off, Obama ran against Alan Keyes, who many people consider borderline crazy. And Edwards ran in the south, which for a Dem, pardon the football analogy, is like starting your first offensive series already down 7-0.
I will enthusiastically endorse Obama or Edwards, I like both of them, if either is the nominee rather than my choice (A certain guy named Al who likes to talk about the environment). But the candidate who best meets the definiton of "progressive" is Dennis Kucinich, no contest.

[tblue]

23. Edwards always talks about the poor, and I give him a lot of credit for that

That is why he stands out to me. I don't know if Obama talks consistently about the poor but, from what I've heard of his speeches, I don't think that's his core issue. I can imagine it's harder for a black candidate to focus on the poor because stupid people will only accuse him of being a one-issue candidate. Obama and Edwards each have some conservative leanings that I disagree with, but I'm not naive. I would love to have the most progressive candidate run but, let's face it, only candidates who give the APPEARANCE of straddling the fence win in these United States.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Neither, thank you

[WilliamPitt]

29. Hm

I say the following with no intention of endorsing Edwards or denigrating Obama. I think either or both will do well if they get into it.

Simply, damkira, I reply because I think your logic through most of this is flawed and augmented by mere assumptions.

In his senatorial race in 2004, Obama defeated Alan Keyes by a huge margin. John Edwards, on the other hand, barely won his senate seat.

And Illinois is politically like North Carolina how? Alan Keyes can be compared to any other candidate in the last few elections how? The two states are very different politically, so that comparison fails on its face. Alan Keyes is a barking mad frothing lunatic, so Obama's defeat of him was about as surprising as the sun rising in the East. Also, psssst, Edwards was a pretty damned populist Democrat who won a statewide election in the South. To date, Obama has accomplished no political victory nearly as significant.

Once elected, Obama has introduced numerous bills to the senate, including the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. In contrast, Edwards introduced no bills and had one of the poorest attendance records in the senate at that time.

Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills in his one term. This is not to denigrate what Obama has done - he has made a splash - but you make Edwards sound like a cardboard cutout. This, I think, is unfair.

Obama never reads from a teleprompter and is one of the most demanded speakers in the U.S. right now. Edwards repeated the same "Two Americas" speech over and over and over again.

I guarantee Obama was reading from the teleprompter during his DNC speech in 2004, because everyone did. I also wonder how many times you've seen Edwards on the stump. He's really goddam good. Obama is also really goddam good, but your characterization of Edwards is, frankly, absurd.

Obama spoke out against the war in 2002 and 2003 as an Illinois state senator while Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

No argument here, although Obama, like Dean, had the advantage of not actually being in the Senate and not having to make the choice. I'm sure he would have chosen correctly, but this bears noting.

There's no mistaking it... John Edwards has had one goal since he got started in politics and that is being president. Obama is the true populist and people-powered candidate.

This is the biggest example of just a flat-footed opinion you happen to hold. I find this leap difficult to swallow; the same could be said of JFK and Clinton, and boy howdy, it'd be nice to have either of those two still running the show. You don't prefer Edwards? Cool. But a lot of this is just you pretty much making things up on the fly.

[Moloch]

45. reply...

You characterized Alan Keyes as "a barking mad frothing lunatic," which I whole-heartedly agree with. I think that those character attributes could accuarately be applied to Lauch Faircloth, the republican senator who Edwards defeated. Faircloth wanted to be considered the conservative senator from North Carolina. (i.e. to the right of Jesse Helms) and his voting record clearly puts him in the same category as Keyes. ( http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Lauch_Faircloth.htm )

To be fair, the political landscape is quite different in Illinois than in North Carolina. I don't think that takes away from Obama's amazing victory.

I would definitely like to see the source of your claim that Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills. I'm not saying I don't believe you but I've not heard this elsewhere.

I've seen Obama speak twice and he was completely mezmerizing. Out of all the people who came here to Virginia to campaign for Jim Webb (including Wesley Clark, who I supported in the '04 primaries,) none of them moved the crowd quite like Obama. Edwards was too busy campaigning for himself in Iowa to lend a hand to a struggling Democratic campaign in a neighboring state... Obama campaigned nationwide and was pivotal for our successes in this election.

[Catchawave]

88. I'm not sure what you were implying, but

Edwards was moving crowds for Webb and Andrew Hurst in Virginia. He also was going to states supporting the minimum wage initiatives, and they all passed !

I'm not sure why you're on such a smear campaign, but please don't.

[1932]

111. Edwards campaigned for Webb. It is on YouTube:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Edwards+Webb&search=Search

You're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

[Moloch]

115. Fair enough.

I was wrong.

[JCMach1]

30. Kind of jumping the gun there-- Obama 'hasn't' wanted this???

Also, put Obama in North Carolina and see how well he would have done.

[aaronbees]

31. They're both populist, people-powerd candidates...

And I like them both. Why the false choice? It's a mistake to say there's only one "true choice" for progressives, especially so far from election time. We have some good candidates (Kucinich) and great potential candidates lined up to participate, and I think overall it's a fairly progressive group of prospects. Far too soon for such declarations (and I'm quite enthused about Obama, by the way).

[Marr]

33. I can't believe we're even talking about this.

Just because the Beltway hacks would prefer to titter about a distant presidential election instead of covering any of the very relevant happenings of the moment, doesn't mean we have to. The next presidential election that will take place in a political landscape so far away that it's beyong the curve of the earth. The circumstances are unknowable, and arguing about candidates at this point is completely meaningless.

[Trajan]

35. The OP has an obvious agenda ....

Promoting one and denigrating the other ....

As obnoxious as I find the Clarkies at times (Wes is one of my favorite Dems), this is certainly comparable to the worst promotions of pet candidates ....

[cascadiance]

71. I'm also wondering why we have to decide NOW who we are behind...

I don't think we've still seen all of the players that will be in the race yet for one thing. Of who is in it so far, I'm not really heavily behind any one of them. Had Russell Feingold entered in instead of pulling out, I might be more "decided" at this point, as he's the model of what I'm looking for in a candidate. I think there's a lot of time between now and 11/2008 for me to decide on who's what I want from this list. i'm guessing I'll change my mind a few times. Basically I'm looking for the best package of the following traits:

1) First and foremost, I want a populist who represents people's interest and not special interests who give them lots of campaign finance money. Most DLC affiliated candidates need not apply. Some who have left the DLC, or who I can see clearly aren't really behind their methodology of special influence lobbyist peddling, I'll look at. I want someone whom I could be confident in taking the lead on lobbying to get public campaign financing in at the federal and local levels. Feingold I believe could have done that. Perhaps others here could too. Don't think a heavy DLC candidate would though.
2) Someone who's electable and better apt to win against the Republicans - Though I like a lot about Dennis Kucinich, I'm not sure he wins out here, but I'm staying open with him too, since the wind could blow differently in a year or two, and he might be someone I really want then. Al Gore on the other hand, would I think have a lot of the grass roots policy agenda that I'd like, and ALSO be electable if he entered the race, and probably would be my choice were he to announce. Experience is also helpful too I think in making someone more electable.
3) Someone who is personable, intelligent, likeable, and comes across as someone you could trust.

Obama I'm convinced has a good rating for #2, and perhaps #3 too, but he's still a big question mark for me with #1. A lot of his record doesn't convince me enough that he's removed enough from the special interest lobbyist corps as I'd like him to be. The fact that he's being heavily marketed now almost makes me wonder if he isn't a "stealth" candidate for the DLC, since the DLC knows already that their favorite Hillary is perhaps too much damaged goods for many of us out there. Now perhaps this extra marketing is just a good organization behind him getting his campaign going effectively, and in that case, I say more power to them. But I want to see his substance as a rookie senator more over the next year or two before I'm convinced he's high on my item 1 list.

Wes Clark I like a lot because I think he as an outsider would be more apt to be a good populist that I'm looking for. I still am not sure yet if he has the experience and "machine" around him that makes item 2 work for him yet though. Though I have questions about him heading the ticket, he or Russ Feingold would be my heavy favorite choices for a running mate for the eventual nominee.

[GreenArrow]

34. a coupla points

"In his senatorial race in 2004, Obama defeated Alan Keyes by a huge margin. John Edwards, on the other hand, barely won his senate seat."

Not relevant to quantifiying either candidates progressiveness.

"Once elected, Obama has introduced numerous bills to the senate, including the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. In contrast, Edwards introduced no bills and had one of the poorest attendance records in the senate at that time".

Somewhat relevant. It might be better to compare the totality of their votes and not simply what bills they introduced. Edwards did however co-sponsor IWR, and voted for the Patriot Act.

"Obama never reads from a teleprompter and is one of the most demanded speakers in the U.S. right now. Edwards repeated the same "Two Americas" speech over and over and over again".

Again, not relevant to any sort of quantification of either candidate's "progressiveness".

"Obama spoke out against the war in 2002 and 2003 as an Illinois state senator while Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution".

Big plus for Obama. No need for making apologies that aren't really apologies.

"There's no mistaking it... John Edwards has had one goal since he got started in politics and that is being president. Obama is the true populist and people-powered candidate."

I tend to agree with you on Edwards' goal, but I'm not so sure that Obama doesn't share it. McCain certainly does on the other side. I'm not convinced either one is justified in his aspirations. I voted for Edwards as Kerry's VP, but I will not vote for him as President. The jury is still out on Obama, as far as I'm concerned; I haven't been entirely pleased with what he's done in office so far (aye vote on Condi Rice comes to mind) but lets see what he does in the next year or so. He might be better served by running on the bottom half of the ticket.

Kucinich is THE progressive candidate out of those who have announced or are speculated to announce. The others are simply posturing to greater or lesser degrees.

[derby378]

39. On guns, Obama is more authoritarian than progressive

From Obama's debate with Alan Keyes:

Mr. Keyes, for example, does not believe in common gun safety laws like the assault weapons bill. I have, as one of my guests today, the head of the Fraternal Order of Police. I'm proud of the support that I've received from that organization, in part, because they are concerned precisely about what Mr. Keyes referred to--getting shot by assault weapons, when they go in, in an attempt to do a drug bust.

Now, Mr. Keyes suggested that, somehow, because criminals break the law, that we shouldn't have laws in the first place. That defies logic. People break all sorts of laws, but we still have the laws in place.

And the fact of the matter is, is that Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits, that I can tell, with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, and that is to kill people, unless you're seeing a lot of deer out there wearing bullet-proof vests, then there is no purpose for many of the guns.

I think it is a scandal that this president did not force a renewal of this assault weapons ban. If it had problems with it, then we should have closed those loopholes that might have made it not as effective as it should have been.

That isn't going to play well in Texas. And, last time I checked, Texas has more electoral votes up for grabs than any other state in the Union except for New York. (And maybe California.)

[thatsrightimirish]

42. California was WAY more electoral votes

55. Besides the Democrats aren't going to win Texas anyway.

[derby378]

55. Now, if everyone believed that we can't win Texas...

...then Howard Dean need not busy himself with any "50 state strategy."

Besides, most of the judges in Dallas County just turned Democratic last month. You'd be surprised.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. How does this compare with Edward's stance on gun control?

:shrug:

[derby378]

61. Last I heard, they're about the same

But I could be wrong.

[thatsrightimirish]

43. Excuse me, but

since when is winning a senate seat in Illinois against a carpetbagger easier than being a progressive winning a senate seat in red North Carolina?

[ms liberty]

47. Some points here...

First: John Edwards won his Senate seat here in North Carolina - and in fact, won the seat from a Republican. A progressive Democrat. In the south, the state that cursed the country with Jesse Helms. Senator Obama beat Alan Keyes - who did nothing to endear himself to the people of Illinois, and had little or no chance of winning from the get-go.

Second: IIRC,as a new Senator, wasn't John Edwards chosen by the Democrats in the Senate to defend Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial? Since Clinton was acquitted, I think freshman Senator Edwards did a pretty good job, don't you? Maybe that's one of the reasons he didn't get his name on a lot of legislation? There's more to being a Sesnator than putting your name on legislation, you know. Also, IIRC, John Edwards attendance record was one of the best in the Senate, until he began campaigning for President, then Vice President. The attendance record issue was a Rovian lie, used by the GOP in the election.

Third: How many of John Edwards speeches did you see, read, and/or attend? All of them?

Fourth: Very true - John Edwards did vote for the IRW. He's repented. Very few national political figures came out publicly against it at the time. Even fewer have repented.

Fifth: How is there no mistaking it? Because he ran for President after one term? By that reasoning, Obama also has had one goal, to be President - and in '08 he will not have even finished one term in the Senate as John Edwards did when he ran.

Don't get me wrong...I like Senator Obama. I also like John Edwards. Neither are my preferred candidate for President in '08. But I also don't see any need to run one Democrat down in order to make another Democrat appear more appealing.

When I discuss my preferred candidate, I don't try to promote him by trashing any of his potential opponents. I don't have to destroy someone else. This is not a sporting event. It's not some trashy reality show. Some of the candidates who don't get nomination are going to continue in public service. Do you really want to trash someone who might end up as SecState or SecDef or SecEd, or another cabinet post?

[2Design]

49. he is a good orator - but is he a wolf in sheep clothing

he did not vote democratic in the senate - he may surprize you by not being for the values of progressives and liberals - slick sales people are great talkers - he is almost too clever

[Moloch]

50. Obama has voted consistently Democratic in the Senate...

What are you talking about?

[GreenArrow]

52. are you talking about Edwards or Obama?

I think they both know how to talk a good game, and use their looks to their benefit, but niether is nearly as progressive as he lets on.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. You're gonna tell us who we get to choose from? Who are you, the media?

NO THANKS.

Here, let me draw you a picture:

[VelmaD]

53. so what do any of your points have to do...

with either candidate actually being a progressive?

[LWolf]

54. Either man may be a viable choice for a variety of reasons.

I don't believe that either of them meet the standard for "the true choice for progressive voters." There are better progressive choices.

[smoogatz]

57. So far, Obama's been behaving like a center-left Clinton-style "progressive"

--careful not to offend Republicans, and critical of the left-wing of the party. I like him, but he's not the best candidate for '08.

[DemBones DemBones]

99. In other words, a moderate Republican.

[madokie]

58. we have so many in the fold that would make a good President

and I will vote for the one who comes out on top, any one of them.
If they make it through the ranks of Democratic candidates thats plenty good enough for me. I luv's me some Democrats

[jsamuel]

59. I have to agree that Obama does seem more authentic and he seems like a better

decision maker.

[LSK]

63. quite frankly, I wish Edwards would run for the Senate again

I dont think he has a chance of winning the nomination in 08, but he has a great shot at the Senate and he would be a great Senator.

[KoKo]

76. If he doesn't run for Pres....Liddy Dole's seat could be his.... That would

pay NC voters back for his giving up his Senate Seat (poor judgement) under pressure thereby allowing RW Hack Richard Burr to take his place and put us back to having 2 Repugs as our only Senators.

[w4rma]

64. I like Edwards more. (nt)

[ScreamingMeemie]

65. Your Primary Wars are starting way too early for me.

:toast:

[FogerRox]

67. Well

ACLU gives
Lieberman 63%
Obama 75%
Sanders 100%

http://action.aclu.org/

Drum Major Institute

Lieberman 75%%
Obama 83%
Sanders 100%

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/

[Redneck Socialist]

Wow, he beat Alan Keyes?

That's really impressive. :eyes:

[PeaceProgProsp]

70. I remember Edwards having a very high voting record and among

the highest for candidates in 2004 second only to Kucinich. He didn't miss many votes.

Do you have a link for your claim?

[Blackhatjack]

72. On this point you are simply uninformed about Edwards....

"Obama never reads from a teleprompter and is one of the most demanded speakers in the U.S. right now. Edwards repeated the same "Two Americas" speech over and over and over again."

If you are implying that Edwards cannot think and speak on his feet you are dead wrong. He addressed juries here and spoke for hours without a single note in his hands. He appeared on Hardball yesterday without notes, and answered all of Tweety's questions.

If you like Obama better as a candidate that is fine. HOwever, there is no reason to try and smear Edwards with allegations that go against the facts.

And BTW in case you have any doubts, every candidate for President presents their strongest argument at each campaign stop in its most effective and consistent form. Watch the Road to the White House as they follow different candidates and you will find that all the candidates do exactly what you are criticizing Edwards for doing.

I prefer Edwards over Obama because I have had the past 25 years to observe him up close, even before he entered politics after the death of his son.

Obama's biggest challenge lies ahead when he is pinned down to articulate his positions on important and difficult policy decisions. His support will naturally wane as his positions will alienate certain groups now support him based on what they think they know about him. This is not a criticism of Obama, just a fact of political life.

If you want to see who the Republicans fear look at the time and money spent to counter each Democratic candidate. They hated and feared Edwards, and spent extraordinary sums of money to try and dig up 'dirt' on Edwards --and just take a look at what they found: Nothing. Even his opponents acknowledged he is a straight arrow, honest, one of the smartest and hardest working professionals they ever went up against.

I hope Obama can survive such a forensic investigation because I believe he brings a lot of pluses to the Democratic Party. However, we will have to wait and see how events play themselves out.

[FrenchieCat]

75. I prefer Obama, but not for the reasons you provide as much as

the fact that Edwards supported the Iraq War, co-sponsored it, and voted for it.

I realize that many will and have said that John Edwards repented so "it's all good", I disagree with the premise that using words to excuse deeds 3 years after the fact is penance enough to turn around and make him president. I forgive him, but I will not forget that he was 100% wrong and wrong for a long, long time.

John Edwards spoke about the fact that America needs a leader with good judgement in his Hardball interview just yesterday, and I agree with him....unfortunately that takes him out of the running for me.

This world is in seriously bad shape, and the United States is not the exception. I don't want novices trying to fix it....I want someone who knows what in the fuck they are doing.

[Moloch]

77. Edwards must be faulted for his IWR vote.

I'd be willing to bet that most of us here on DU were against IWR at the time. There is no excuse for ANY Democratic senator voting for it. We all knew the war would end up like this.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Well I see a difference in various Senators who voted for it...

John Kerry for example gave many qualifiers with his vote. He made it clear that his vote was to take the matter to the U.N., so although he voted wrong on it, and he had voted AGAINST the first Gulf War (which still gives me pause on that backward situation), I believe that he voted reluctantly for it....and of that I take note. Doesn't mean he did right, but at least he made sure that his rationale was clearer than most.

On the other hand, John Edwards qualified his vote by writing an Op-Ed stating that we couldn't be held hostage by what the U.N. would eventually do, one way or the other. He also stated that he understood his vote to mean that this war was not just about WMDs, but rather it was a vote to procted Israel. He minimized the politics of the IWR, even if the vote was just a few weeks before the 2002 election by stating clearly that he felt this was a national security issue....of not only the United States but for that region. He also linked Saddam to 9/11 as was done by Cheney and Bush in another article/speech he gave on 10/07/02. In other words, John Edwards knew full well what he was voting for, and his co-sponsorship of the Bush-Lieberman Bill on 10/2/02 (along with very conservative Democrats and warmongering Republicans) further evidences that fact. He was on the intelligence committee with other senators, the majority who ended up voting NO on this resolution......so when he states had he known then what he knows now, he wouldn't have voted for that Resolution, he is being disingeneous, IMO.....because we know now that there weren't any WMDs, yet he said in '03 that this didn't really matter to him, and that his vote still stood.

Bottomline is that John Edwards put himself where he ended up at the time deliberately, and just because it now is seeing as the wrong side, saying sorry bout that 3 years later....once a majority was against it is not the mea culpa that would give me any sense of comfort on his instinctual judgement, which considering his lack of experience on such matters is the only thing that I can look at and assess. I conclude that he ain't got it, and I'd be foolish and blind to now support him so that his "penance" would result in my supporting him to sit in the Oval Office chair. With billions gone from our treasury, John Edwards is partially responsible for having made all of us poorer...which makes his fight for the poor somewhat ironic. The fact that many gloss over all of the evidence that John Edwards knew exactly what he was doing is frightening as well. It shows that most really don't give a damn about how we got into this war, don't give a fudge about Iraqis now, and really would prefer if Democrats had a nominee running who couldn't even make an issue out of How we got into Iraq. Sounds like the 9/11 panel that said, we don't care so much how it happen as much as to see that it never happens again. How can one make sure of the latter if one is willing to ignore the former?

So I conclude that being seen as a "populist" does not excuse wrong behavior on important matters that have been the center of discussion in politics for the last 4 years....because if that is what it takes, then its just way too easy. A populism stance is not a cure all in my book, in particular when one's deed literally conflicts with the corporate cronyism that has been part and parcel of the entire Iraq undertaking since day one.

[WI_DEM]

80. I like both Obama and Edwards and think each would be a good president

and to his credit Edwards has really focused on poverty since '04.

[Radical Activist]

93. I think they would make a great winning ticket

with either one at the top.

[bdamomma]

108. I think this would be the ticket Edwards and Obama

Obama then would get all the experience to make a run for the Presidency in 2012. Both of them are great, and both know how to put a sentence together.

[novalib]

86. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES!!!!!!!

And of the two candidates who have declared their candidacy, KUCINICH is the MORE PROGRESSIVE!!!!

I'll start worrying about "other" candidates (like Obama) when they STOP PLAYING AROUND WITH US and DECLARE THEIR CANDIDAACY!!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

98. Exactly! Everyone else is being coy.

Obama's "announcement" last night was childish.

Is Hillary still denying she'll run?

[Radical Activist]

89. I think they are both good choices for progressives.

I do prefer Obama but Edwards has a lot going for him as well.

[Imagevision]

100. Obama right now, with Edwards a darn close second!! I'm glad the two are available!!

listening to Bush speak from a script and teleprompter leaves one feeling manipulated, like a machine is dictating your values and desires...

[Generator]

105. Yeah but

Edwards is white, Southern, nice to look at (so is Mr. Obama in my opinion) and is name is JOHN. Have you forgotten what country this is?
It's barely willing and (I do mean barely) to give black folks the vote, it ain't electing them to president.

Here come the bands calling me racist-it's realism-I wish I lived in a better country-but this is the country that picks white good old boys. Not black men and even not white women with husband's as former presidents. We are not that advanced.

Oh and Keyes was also Black, a fricking lunatic, and they were being elected in the liberal bastion of the north.

Oh and yes, Obama IS the better speaker. He is more eloquent, in his way But he's hardly been the perfect progressive either.

Edwards has baggage from 2004, but he has experience. AND he really really really wants to be president. Along with Kerry, McCain and the Hil-they are the ones to beat. Because they really really want it. That's what you need. Because who else but the ambition insane would EVER want that job?

Obama seems to think it's just fun. And he really really wants to work with the rich and the Republicans. He is always finding something NICE to say about the other side.

Edwards is the only man electable in the current Democratic known field. It's a fact.

[Radical Activist]

107. Look how close Harold Ford came in Tennessee.

Considering that Ford had some serious problems as a candidate unrelated to being black (his Uncle getting arrested for corruption, being seen as a fake pretending to be more moderate than he really is) I challenge the idea that a black person can't get elected. A 30% increase in turn-out among African Americans nation wide will change the electorate. It will put a few Southern states in play and put a few other swing states safely in the Democratic column, like Michigan.

I think Obama and Edwards on a ticket together would be the best Democratic ticket we've had in decades.

[EstimatedProphet]

106. Oh, good. It's official now. Thanks for instructing me who to vote for.