Friday, February 01, 2008

I agree

with Sophmom:

sophmom said...
I would feel that way if I hadn't concluded that the only explanation for his dropping out is that he thinks that staying in will hurt the candidate he supports. It sucks.


The worst thing he could do right now in my mind, is to endorse either one of these schmucks.

I won't vote for either one of these parrots. I'll vote independent before I vote for them.

I ain't sayin' Edwards was the Messiah....but he's the only thing that made sense to me.

We'll be stuck with Hillary/McCain.

God I hope we get a decent independent.

14 comments:

For change said...

Snarky Coulteresc comment- I'm either voting to match tghe same table legs in the WH as LA has in the Senate or a non-PBJ. I aint wasting my vote on a Corsair

Anonymous said...

What is it policy-wise that would keep you from supporting Obama?

Anonymous said...

Edwards made about as much sense as his views on supporting the public housing protesters here in NOLA. He panders just as much, if not more, than Hillary. There aren't any perfect candidates on either side, but he is far from the best of the crop. He was probably most polished candidate, which is how he probably fooled most naive voters to this point. The JFK sex appeal.

Dambala said...

- What is it policy-wise that would keep you from supporting Obama?

What policy? His "policy" is about as defined as a lump of play-doh. His corporate masters will define it for him if he takes office.

Dambala said...

- Edwards made about as much sense as his views on supporting the public housing protesters here in NOLA. He panders just as much, if not more, than Hillary. There aren't any perfect candidates on either side, but he is far from the best of the crop. He was probably most polished candidate, which is how he probably fooled most naive voters to this point. The JFK sex appeal.

Labor Unions...New Orleans...his advocacy for those two topics alone garnered my support.

saudades said...

- What policy? His "policy" is about as defined as a lump of play-doh. His corporate masters will define it for him if he takes office.

I also liked John Edwards quite a lot as a candidate, but I must say I see at least as much specificity in Obama's plans as in Edwards or Clinton (who, btw, are much more in line on a some issues than Obama and Clinton). Let's take his health care plan; imho it is much, much, better than Clinton or Edwards, who's are nearly identical. Let's take his economic stimulus package, NYT gave him the highest rating of any candidate D or R. Edwards and Clinton both voted for the war, while Obama was an outspoken oponent of going into Iraq before the invasion.

Also, keep in mind that Obama has gotten quite a lot of Union support, and I'm relatively confident that AFL-CIO will endorse him, as some of their affiliated unions have already done. Transportation workers shifted their support from Edwards to Obama today.

At this point, if you're going to vote for an independent, you may as well go ahead and vote for McCain, as it could very well end up having the same effect.

Dambala said...

the war vote issue is somewhat of a moot point to me at this stage in the game. I agree there is an issue of integrity and Obama certainly deserves credit for opposing it from the beginning, but at this stage in the game I don't see any candidate in the field actually living up to the promise of pulling back. The fact is, it would have to happen over the course of their entire term...it's not gonna happen in one to two years. If McCain wins...and I think he will....we're going full steam ahead into Iran and perhaps beyond.

For me...PERSONALLY....the defining issue is strong labor unions. In a two person field between Hillary and Obama, I'm sure Obama will get the nod of the AFL-CIO and other unions, but my point is that it's not a high priority on Obama's agenda. It was the center of Edwards agenda. I think now more than ever, this country needs strong unions and the ability to stand up to corporate control. The middle class of this country is in as desperate a situation as we've ever been and I believe the only thing that can steer us back on the right path are strong labor unions. We desperately need to reverse the path Reagan set us on during the Air Traffic Controllers strike....I believe it set a precedent which has systematically dismantled the middle class over the past 3 decades. I think Edwards was the best hope we had to change that course as he understood the need for strong Unions more than any of the democratic candidates. That's just my opinion.

As for an independent candidate, I disagree with you on it being a vote for McCain. I would be interested to see a cross party ticket like Bloomberg/Hagel or even a Gore/Powell(Colin) platform which transcends party lines. I think the country is ready for that.

A McCain/Clinton race is the worst of all possible worlds. Clinton is a corporate schlepper. I do think that Obama is a much better choice than Clinton, but he is still not very inspiring to me.

McCain will win anyway...I'll bet my bones. I think we're in for even darker days ahead.

Saudades said...

The fact that Obama was critical of the Iraq invasion is extremely important to me. Having participated in nearly every war protest in San Francisco preceding the invasion, I can recall that voices of dissent from elected officials were few and far between (remember how Barbara Lee was vilified?). More than anything, it's a sign of that he was willing to place his political future at risk by taking a courageous and unpopular stance.

He's been very forthcoming in his criticism of Corporate greed and speaks frequently about the plight of the poor and middle class; you can see that commitment reflected in his policies. His extremely successful work as a community organizer/activist in Chicago earns him, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt that he has the best interest of labor, the poor and middle class in mind.

Bloomberg is almost as bad as Guliani, at least if you look at some of his statements in the past ... I have some respect for Hagel, but he's still going to appoint conservative judges. Gore/Somebody could be interesting. Powell is very vocal in his honest assessment of the administration (retrospectively) but I can't see that it does us any good. He had his chance to do the right thing more than once. Rather, he let Herr Bush, Cheney, Rove and the gang crap all over the lawn of the White House while he quietly worked behind the scenes and gracefully bowed out ... sorry, it wasn't a time for subtlety.

Ultimately, I'm really tired of giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. In most professions, people don't get the chance to say "duh, if I'd known then what I know now ..." After all, what defines good leadership, the ability to admit you were wrong? I hope not.

Sophmom said...

Thanks, Ashe. I hope we're wrong, but I so fear that the loss of Edwards means McCain wins. I just have a very difficult time patching together in my head how either Hillary or Obama wins next November and feel strongly that we (progressives) lost our best chance of taking the White House when Edwards exited the race.

I like both Clinton and Obama. Together, with Clinton at the top of the ticket, they might have a shot (but that's not going to happen). Obama will get the nomination and then fall to the big guns that the Swift Boating machine is holding in check, waiting for their moment. JMHO.

Dambala, I know it's a very busy weekend down there, but, when you get a chance, check out this incredibly data rich (new) Kos diarist's Super Tuesday Preview. It knocked me off my feet. Incredible.

Finally, to those who're suggesting that Edwards' progressive positions were just more political pandering: I might have agreed at the beginning of the campaign. He does sometimes appear insincere. But looks can be deceiving and my choice has been to search beyond appearances to what he does. When he and Elizabeth chose to continue on despite her cancer's return, that told me what I needed to know. His sole attention to the problems unique to post-flood New Orleans simply sealed the deal.

Peace, darlin'. Happy Mardi Gras. I wish I was there.

Sophmom said...

...and another thing: wasn't that debate just awful without him??? Ewwww. I wanted to pull out the hose and spray cold water on 'em.

What would you think about an Obama/Edwards ticket?

I'm out'a here. Gonna go spend a few minutes with Best Friend's grandson and then lose myself for the afternoon in a bag of ooey gooey porcelain (and try to forget that I'm really sad not to be in New Orleans this particular weekend).

cero said...

I am also considering still voting for Edwards. Am I right that he hasn't given up his delegates, suspended the campaign but didn't really drop out, is waiting for the convention?

I think Obama can beat McCain but not Hillary. I don't want McCain or any other Republican. I don't like either Obama or Hillary but although I'd like to write in Edwards (I was for Kucinich originally) I'm thinking maybe I need to vote for Obama now so we have someone who can beat the Republicans.

? Am I deluded?

cero said...

Also - do you think Edwards dropped out because he and Obama have already decided to run together?

Dambala said...

yeah, i think he will be Obama's VP....IF....Obama gets the nod.

I would vote for an Obama/Edwards ticket. I will not vote for Hillary unless she chooses Oyster or Ashley as a running mate.

And no....I don't think Obama can beat McCain. But I don't think Hillary can either.

Sophmom said...

Obama might if he has Edwards. It's so weird. Maybe I'm not paying enough attention 'cause I'm looking at Mardi Gras pics online, but I'm watching the returns and they're not even mentioning Edwards and Hillary just talked about her "life's work". *sigh*