anybody else doesn't really see any difference in obama, clinton, or edwards?

[undercutter2006]

They just don't differ that much from each other on the big issues IMO. It also doesn't help that they seem to always favor espounding empty platitudes in favor of specifics. That's why I actually prefer Biden or Richardson because those guys seem to be much more willing to get into the meat and potatoes of the issues, too bad they have no chance in hell of winning the nomination.

I am not really excited about any of the main democratic candidates - I wish they were serious about taking big business money out of politics, stopping corporations from creating monopolies that are destroying our capitalist culture, making sure those at the bottom of the economic ladder can exist in livable conditions, reforming our asinine foreign policy, and so on, but hey, they still would do a much better job in those regards than any of the republicans, so I support them. But I find myself in a weird position where I see so little difference in them that I am actually deciding who to vote for in the primaries based on completely superficial characteristics; same as if I were a completely uneducated voter who has zero functional knowledge of the issues.

Like for example, I really want hillary to be the president after what happened last night at the debates. When I looked at this forum last night all I could see was people talking how hillary clinton 'went crazy', 'had a meltdown', had a 'dean scream moment' during the debates. So obviously I was thrilled to go on youtube to see this crazy ass thing, and then... All I saw was a woman talking passionately, with a forceful tone of voice, slightly agitated but never losing her composure. And I was like - what the hell? How is this different from any other time when (male) politicians get passionate about something? Did she not smile enough or something? It just makes me wish we had a female president for the next four years so people would be FORCED to get used to hearing a woman speak with authority, I think it would be good for our culture.

And it's little things like that that actually make me decide who to vote for right now.

Anybody else feel the same way?

[bowens43]

1. Which of these things is not like the other?

Which of these things just doesn't belong?

Hint: It's not Obama or Edwards

That being said , I want to make it clear that I will support the Democratic nominee. Any of them will be a far better president then any of the republican candidates.

[undercutter2006]

5. isn't that a foo fighters song?

lol ok

which of these things is not like the other

Hint: It's not Clinton or Edwards

[StrafeLeft]

2. Actually,

can anyone state any concrete policy differences amongst these three.

Personality:
Obama - is cool friendly
Hillary - is tough and bit cold (maybe has to be because a women, otherwise faux news bashes her)
Edwards - slick talking lawyer.

[Change has come]

4. Which Democrat do you like Strafeleft?

:hi: welcome to DU.

[skipos]

3. Clinton is way more status quo, imo.

Edwards voting record is about as status quo as Clinton's was/is, but Edwards 2008 is pretty different.

[begin_within]

6. A very important difference:

Edwards does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees. (Yes, he has accepted donations from trial lawyers. But has clearly stated on "This week with George Stephanopolis" that all lobbyists will be excluded from his White House, including lobbyists for trial lawyers - even though they have contributed to his campaign, the still don't get access). Edwards' decision to refuse donations from lobbyists and PACs means he is not tied to special interests and is free to make decisions in and for the public interest. The same cannot be said for Obama and Clinton - they are both, directly or indirectly, tied to corporate dollars, and money is the lifeblood of politics. This is a key difference between Edwards and the other two.

[undercutter2006]

8. good shit

I always leaned towards edwards because of that, and after nader endoresment I think I am going to vote for him

but i wish i could vote for hillary as well, just because of all the sexist crap that i see, you know what i am saying?

[begin_within]

11. Hillary is hamstrung by her ties to corporate money. Obama is too, but not as much.

Kucinich was my first choice, but the commercial media have ostracized him. That leaves Edwards, my second choice, mostly because of his support for the Iraq war in 2002, but the fact that he's not allowing corporate money into his campaign is very significant to me.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Clinton and Edwards voted YES on the IWR -- Obama opposed the war from the start.

That's the screaming difference that resonates with me.

[undercutter2006]

9. i believe edwards came out and said - hey, i made a mistake

correct me if i am wrong

hillary never apologized

and i don't really blame anybody who voted for the war, just because the bush admin pulled one over them talking about WMDs and mushroom clouds and whatnot and got everybody scared shitless, however, knowing what we know now there is no excuse not to say that we should have never attacked iraq and we are less safe because of that

[AtomicKitten]

10. The K-L was the piece de resistance.

And everybody BUT Clinton was against it.

ABH.

[undercutter2006]

12. what's that

[leftofthedial]

15. if Hillary knewen what she knows now,

her non-admission that she was wrong to give king george his Middle East popgun would have been different

or something.

I haven't heard her say one honest, straightforward thing in six months.

[Ravy]

17. So Obama was not in favor of UN inspectors re-entering Iraq,

while our NIE was saying they heavily suspected Saddam Hussein of having WMD.

Nice.

[Imagevision]

13. undercutter2006-> I beieve you haven't much when it comes to reading people...

[undercutter2006]

14. i read books

not people

[Ravy]

16. There difference is not so much on the issues, I agree...but here is how I see it....

Hillary will take us back to the good old Clinton days. To tell you the truth, I *loved* the Clinton days, there is nothing wrong with that. I would expect many of her cabinet members and advisors to be a rehash of those years. I would expect a degree of bi-partisanship from her administration, ala Bill's.

Barak will attempt to do everything in a bi-partisan manner and build consensus. I would expect several republicans in his cabinet, and he will try to get legislation that everyone can agree on (if the Republicans let him).

Edwards will be very anti-corporate and really try to shake things up. He will fight partisan battles, and he will fight them effectively. We are likely to get the best legislation (from a purely Democratic perspective) from his administration, but most Republicans will fight him tooth and nail. He will just run over them.

I support Edwards, but I think any of the three could be effective.

[undercutter2006]

18. anti-corporate is the way to go

i agree after some more thinking i was wrong and edwards is the one i am going to go with