Obama and Clinton

[Andy823]

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I am very curious.

If Hillary was "NOT" the ex-first lady, just a woman senator, would you still vote for her with her connections to lobbyists, her votes, and her money coming from coporate america?

If Obama was "NOT" black, but a white first term senator, with his same voting record, and backed with money by the same people pretty much that back Hillary, would you vote for him?

This is not an attack. I see 3 people here wanting to be the nominee for president. I hear them in the debates, on TV, I read their sites to see their message, and honestly I come up with Edwards as the best all around candidate. He has a real message about change for this country and a plan to accomplish that change. He seems to be to be a real "fighter" for the people, and I think that's what we need.

So I really want to know if things were different, how people would be voting.

[MadBadger]

1. Id still support Obama, because my reasons are not based on skin color.

[Andy823]

4. Not the skin color

But the "first" black, or the "first" woman thing is what I see. History in the making as they say. I should have clarified that, sorry.

[MadBadger]

7. Doesnt matter to me. The stance on the war is what attracted me to him.

[Andy823]

9. That's great

But he has said in the past he really didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in congress. He has not tried to stop the war funding, so myself, I just can't jump on the wagon for that alone.

[MadBadger]

11. He said right after that, that from his vantage point, the case for war had not been made

When he was making those statements, he was speaking almost as a surrogate for the democratic nominees for PRes and VP who both voted for the war. Secondly, I know what his stance in 2002 was. He said that if he was in Congress, he would have done what Dick Durbin did and voted no.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. What's in Edwards background then that is so compelling?

That the other two lack?

What makes him the best all around candidate?

[Andy823]

8. I asked first

And you didn't answer, but I will answer you.

One is the money trail. I think that anyone who gets so much money from coporate america will be "owing" them something in the future.

Second, I really see no plan to do the things they say they will do. They avoid so many things.

Edwards has a plan, and all you have to do is listen to him. He doesn't avoid the questions at all. He alos does not have the money from corporate america feeding him, and he won't owe anybody anything.

I also think that the message he has is by far more in line with the changes we need in this country. I think everyone knows that corporate america, and the greed they have, is the main problem in this country. Everything else stems from that greed. He is willing to take them on, not let them finance his race for the nomination. I don't see the other two making the kind of promises about lobbyists, and corporations that he is making, and I beleive he will do his best to keep those promises.

[Metric System]

3. If Edwards was "NOT" running a populist campaign,

would you still vote for him despite the fact that his record in the Senate doesn't quite match his current rhetoric?:hide:

[Andy823]

10. Again you didn't answer my question

But I will answer yours.

He has apologized for his vote on Iraq, I like to see someone who can make mistakes and the own up to them. People can change, I know, I have done so myself. I believe he has made mistakes, I never would deny that, but I have seen a change also, and that's good.

I liked him in 2004, but I thought he needed more time, just like I think Obama does. I see what he has done over the years in his fight on poverty, and trying to help those who can't afford it in his own state, get a college education, and I like that. These were thing he did before his current run for president.

[killbotfactory]

5. I support Obama, and would support him even if he was white or a woman

1. He's the only one in the field who opposed going into Iraq in the first place.
2. He was a civil rights lawyer.
3. He's a constitutional scholar.
4. He has the most progressive record.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone responsible for helping start the current war in Iraq should be in jail, not running for president.

[Andy823]

12. I guess most of the dems in congress

Should be in jail then?

The problem I have is that he stated that he was not sure how he would have voted if he had been in congress during the vote on Iraq. And I think that it's really easy to say you would have voted against it, when you didn't have to vote. He could have voted to stop the war funding, but he didn't.

Is his record that much diffrent than Hillary's?

[Tom Strong]

6. That's a real good question

I dunno.

All I know is that, for me, this election is all about crushing the neoconservative movement, which I think is pure evil, once and for all.

And I think Bill and Hillary Clinton are the people to do it because they have never lost before.

Hillary '08

Obama '16

[Andy823]

13. I agree

The neoconservative movement needs to end, but if Hillary wins, I really think that it will rally the base like we have never seen, and I fear she will lose. I could be wrong, and if she gets the nomination, I sure hope I am.