Undecided voter here!

[demzilla]

I was for Edwards. I will be voting tomorrow. I am having trouble deciding between Clinton and Obama.

Here is how I see it:

Clinton is the devil I know. I know where she stands, I know her negatives. I know her positives. I know that most people who have gotten to know her personally say she is a nice person. I have a feeling that she is indeed ready to be president and capable of coping with any crises that may ensue. That said, I think she was wrong on the Iraq War Resolution; anyone with half a brain could see what Bush was up to. And I am not sure how I feel about Bill being back in the White House. I understand those who say we need a clean break from Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. Maybe we do need a new direction.

Obama is the devil I don't know. I know where he stands. He gives inspiring speeches. I don't know much about him personally -- I can't answer the question of whether he wants to "be somebody" by being president, or whether he's running to "do something" -- and I don't know whether he is up to the task of being president without some on-the-job training. I am a bit put off by his "let's all get along" rhetoric as I don't think the Republicans want to get along. I think they want to win and I am not sure how much of a fighter Obama is. Health care reform is a big issue for me and I think Hillary may be more dedicated to getting it accomplished.

All this said, winning the election is important, too. Barack reaches young voters and independents in a way that Hillary does not. But I see polls out today that show either candidate beating McCain, though Barack by slightly more.

I go back and forth between the two. My feelings about both are generally positive, but I have reservations about both.

Tell me something that will help me decide one way or the other (and, no, I'm not voting for Edwards anyway; he stuck a fork in himself last week).

[TexasObserver]

1. you wrote "Clinton is the devil I know. "

I could agree with that, if you put a comma after "devil" and before "I know."

[Mz Pip]

2. Stay out of DU!

Don't make a decision based on anything posted here.

Go to the websites of the candidates and carefully read their positions. Make an informed choice, not one based on what someone you've never met has posted on a message board.


Good luck!

Mz Pip
:dem:

[RevolutionStartsNow]

25. Candidate websites are not necessarily the best place to go...

I know what their positions are, and their websites of course put only their best foot foward. The website is essentially a campaign ad. I want analysis of the candidate. As someone else said in this thread, I want to know which candidate will be the most effective in getting their (very similar) policies enacted.

But generally DU doesn't make it easy, as so many posts are biased and inflammatory.

I'm looking for names of posters I respect, or a post by anybody who puts forth a reasoned argument in favor of one candidate over the other.

[gateley]

3. I can't help you, but I'm in the same place you are.

I supported Biden and I wouldn't know who to vote for if my primary was tomorrow.

I have the same positive feelings and reservations as you do, too.

Good luck!

[demo dutch]

7. Here's a CNN poll that has Hillary ahead of McCain, but it's all close eitherway

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/index.html

Maybe they should make up and combine the ticket to beat McCain, Not sure if that will help either

problem is you've got Repugs who hate Hillary but might choose Obama, repugs that will rally behind McCain because he's the only conservative choice and than you have Indies that either go for Hillary or Obama, & Dems who won't vote for Hillary or won't vote for Obama. I mean that exactly what the polls suggest now.

You can equate the whole thing with JFK, that was also a very close race.

[mutant80]

8. if you like a good quality of life,

Hillary. If you like good vibes. Obama.
Here is what the NYT says about Hillary's health plan today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1202274000&en=15e3ef55ea8cce37&ei=5087

Yesterday, on the front page, of the NYT was a feature how Obama didn't
get a bill to make Nuke Plants safer, through.

He told the Iowa voters that the bill did go through when it didn't.

Also, the Nuke powers contributed several hundred thousand dollars to Obama's
senate campaign.

When Obama finally pushed the bill thru, it had no teeth, and protected only
the Nuclear Power Plant.

Bummer.

I like Obama, but don't think he's sharp & pushy enough. Maybe why I like him,
but Hillary is driven and an over achiever. Look at her endorsements at her
website. They list all the work she did for groups like nurses. It's amazing.

[newmajority]

9. Good health plan?

Romneycare II: The Corporatists Strike Your Paycheck???

I don't think so.

[gateley]

35. Thanks, but it's more to me than that. And actually, I don't know if either

of them will be able to deliver what they propose. I think things are WAY more fucked up than anyone knows!

I've heard all the pros and cons about both of them, which is why I chose Biden to being with. I can't help but compare them both to him, and they each fall short to me.

I DO know I'll heartily support and work for the Dem candidate.

[mutant80]

4. MUST READ : Krugman on Hillary's Health Plan!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1202274000&en=15e3ef55ea8cce37&ei=5087

[demokatgurrl]

34. Krugman is staunchly pro-Clinton

Not that that's wrong but he is.
I've seen such venom between the supporters of these two candidates (not on this thread, yet, thankfully), and I just don't get it. They are much closer in policies, plans, wishes than they or their supporters let on. Yet I see people say they WILL NOT vote for Clinton/Obama if they are the nominee. This just seems plain stoopid to me. What are they going to do- vote for McCain? Vote for someone else and by default give us McCain?

Anyway... I've been undecided all along too. At this moment I am leaning toward Obama because I think he has a SLIGHTLY better chance of beating McCain. I know many people don't think that's a reason to vote for someone but I do feel that Clinton and Obama are pretty damned close on issues so electability is definitely a consideration for me. I do not, do not, do NOT want another era of Repug reign. I will vote for any Blue Dog that gets on the Democratic ticket.

I'm in PA, and by the time we vote in the primary, the nomination is usually a done deal. Maybe that won't happen this year. In any case, if I WERE voting today, I'd vote for Obama. That could certainly chage by April 22.

[virgdem]

5. I'm in the same boat...

former Edwards supporter, still somewhat undecided but leaning toward Obama. I did a list of pros and cons and considered which of the two would be the best catalyst at turning out more voters. Obama wins when compared to Hillary's negatives (and they are many in my estimation). In the end, though, it is a personal choice that we all have to come to in the end. Good luck with your decision.

[demo dutch]

10. Krugman suggests that Hillary healthcare plan resembles Edwards the most. I know that

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ex=1359867600&en=a51a8e1abbd47b79&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

it's not the only concern you may have as an Edwards supporter but that's what did it for me.

[virgdem]

6. I'm in the same boat...

former Edwards supporter, still somewhat undecided but leaning toward Obama. I did a list of pros and cons and considered which of the two would be the best catalyst at turning out more voters. Obama wins when compared to Hillary's negatives (and they are many in my estimation). In the end, though, it is a personal choice that we all have to come to in the end. Good luck with your decision.

oops, duplicate entry.

[sandnsea]

11. People voted for Bush because "he was the devil they know"

Are you freaking kidding me?

If the whole hope thing doesn't work out, Hillary will still be in the Senate and we can go back to taking Republicans out with mud fights on the senate floor like Hillary has been doing the last 8 years. (She has, right?)

Obama. In your heart you know it's right.

[MADem]

13. Well, GORE was the devil they knew. Bush was the UNKOWN, if you remember.

Pull that string all the way out, now...

[MADem]

12. Well, I think you just have to read up, compare, contrast and make up your own mind.

If you like and respect Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, his endorsement might help you decide:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

[Egnever]

14. I think its worth realizing

That little of what is promised in the primaries will actually be delivered. Congress makes the laws not the president. So I think the most pressing question is who will get the most done.

I can see arguments for both sides. Hillary knows the system she has been wallowing in it for "35" years. She should be able to get in there on day one like she says and start trying to turn the levers.

Obama brings the inspiration and also has shown signs of being able to bring people together from both sides to get stuff passed. His approach is more of one that taps into the power of the people to drive change more than arm twisting through back room political channels. I think getting people involved will make the most difference in the end but will be slower to get rolling.

In the end I go with Obama simply because of his bottom up approach. The crowds he is turning out are amazing and if those people become inspired to get involved it can have a real impact on this country.

He has good proposals as well and his open government policy makes me go all weak kneed. The hope though is infectious and has the potential to do a lot of healing.

In the end though the choice is yours. Vote for the candidate you feel is best for you.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

27. That's the kind of post I'm looking for...

You're making a good argument for Obama.

Let's talk about this "bottom up" thing: I was for Howard Dean, and I felt like I was part of the most exciting grassroots movement ever. I believed him when he said "YOU have the power." I felt empowered and part of the process again.

Obama is hitting many of the same notes, and I do see all kinds of people getting excited about his campaign because of that. My brother is very active for Obama after being dormant in politics for many years, and he's even getting his young son involved.

What Obama is doing is much like what Dean did: he's bringing NEW voters into the system, rather than just trying to sway existing voters. That's a great strategy.
I would much rather see a "people-powered" candidate win than a "party-powered" candidate.

But what does that really mean after Election Day? How do the "people" stay involved in helping Obama turn his plans into real legislation? As you said, Congress makes the laws, not the President, and any Democrat is going to be faced with a bitter and defensive GOP that is not going to be eager to compromise. The people who helped Obama get into the White House will be silenced unless their representatives are listening, and many people live in districts represented in DC by Republicans or worthless Dems too afraid (or too bought off) to push any real progressive legislation.

I'd love to hear more from you (or others) about how this works after the election.

Maybe we should be as focused on Congress as we are on who sits in the president's chair...

[sfam]

15. Whatever you do, don't make a thread saying you decided based on...

idiot comments from posters here. This is about a ridiculous a rationale as I can imagine.

As for a rationale, I would merely point out that any policy position by any president is dead on arrival when it hits congress. Why? Because nobody has a 60 vote majority. Unless there is SOME movement towards actual dialogue again, and a sense that people of both parties aren't inherently evil, we get another 4 years of insane gridlock.

Bottom line, ALL of Hillary's policy positions are DOA if the republicans unite against her.

Both parties have goals - many of which are similar. They just have different ways of going about it. Obama can galvanize the country behind a goal like universal health care, and can get the country to push the parties to make this happen.

Same for global warming

Same for most of the issues we support.

[BlackVelvet04]

16. I suggest

you read this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4386154

It's one of the most articulate I have read on D.U. in a long time. I think you will either strongly agree or strongly disagree.....base your vote on that reaction. That's the only advice I can give you.

[amborin]

17. hit the wrong button 6 times and present on 10 roll calls...accountability?

Chicago Tribune (Illinois)

February 1, 2008 Friday

Obama lived in the `present' in Illinois legislature

BYLINE: By Rick Pearson and Ray Long, Chicago Tribune

Obama and his fellow state senators considered more than 175 pieces of legislation on a frenetic day in March 1999. Of those measures, Obama voted "present" 31 times.

He had plenty of company. On all but two of those roll calls, more than a dozen of his Democratic colleagues did the same _ to protest a Republican budget package.

The use of the "present" button in the Illinois legislature increasingly has become part of Sen. Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Alleging Obama has a history of dodging tough decisions, Clinton likes to note: "A president can't vote present."

Her dig underscores how a peculiar Illinois tradition can be tough to explain on the national political stage.

A Chicago Tribune review of Obama's voting record found that he voted present on 129 bills and 11 personnel appointments out of roughly 4,000 votes cast during his nearly eight years in Springfield. Casting scores of present votes was not out of the ordinary for an Illinois lawmaker _ nor was Obama's taking calculated advantage of the quirky voting method to skirt political risk.

Some lawmakers say they cast present votes to avoid conflicts of interest. Others, such as Obama, have contended some present votes reflected support for a concept in a bill while opposing some of its specifics. Often, Democrats and Republicans vote present to rail at the actions of the other.

But in a system where the number of "yes" votes determines if a bill will pass or fail, the "present" vote provides lawmakers a politically convenient way to vote "no" without explicitly doing so and engendering the wrath of constituents, supporters or opponents. Illinois is one of only a handful of states that allow a vote of "present."

In many cases, Obama's "present" votes reflected an orchestrated effort by Democrats to register complaints about the actions of Republicans, who controlled the state Senate for all but Obama's final two years in Springfield.

Still, he was the lone "present" vote on 10 roll calls, and he often gave no rationale for his decision on measures that, for the most part, were approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.

In a statement late Friday, the Obama campaign said he occasionally cast a "present" vote "to advance a legislative strategy designed by progressive groups, indicate that a bill was rushed and needed more work, or signal that legislation may be unconstitutional."

In a recent debate, Clinton seized on one of Obama's lone "present" votes on a bill allowing sexual assault victims to ask prosecutors to request the sealing of court records.

Obama responded by noting he had sponsored such a bill approved by the state Senate, only to learn later that it "needed to be fixed so that it wouldn't be struck down." The Obama campaign said Friday he was referring to concerns that the measure violated free-speech protections prohibiting judges from sealing records of trials held in open court.

Legislative records show Obama did co-sponsor a version of the bill backed by Democrats, but it was vetoed by then-Republican Gov. George Ryan. The governor opted to sign an identical bill sponsored by Republicans _ the one Obama voted "present" on. Obama did not state his objection on the floor at the time, though, and the law remains in effect.

Much of Clinton's early criticism of Obama's "present" votes have involved his actions on seven bills aimed at restricting abortion. Obama and officials from Planned Parenthood have said the "present" votes were a strategy to give cover to Democrats who might be attacked by Republicans later if they voted "no." But most, if not all, of the lawmakers in question were in politically safe districts.

Shortly after Obama's presidential bid was announced a year ago, state Sen. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete, said her "present" votes were "an easy way of voting" because casting a "no" vote would be "so harsh (since) nobody's for killing babies."

"I don't recall any kind of strategy," said Halvorson, now seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress. Planned Parenthood "may have said it was OK to vote `present,' but no one on that list (of those voting present) needed cover."

Obama also has come under fire from Clinton and other critics over his "present" vote on a 2001 measure that would have required a 1,000-foot buffer between adult establishments and schools, parks, churches, day-care centers and homes. Obama, citing the need to maintain local control in zoning matters, urged a "no" vote on the Senate floor. But he actually voted "present" along with four others, including a conservative Republican. The bill failed by three votes.

A review of legislative records also showed Obama had his share of voting-button bobbles. At least six time he said he hit the wrong button. Other times, he simply blamed his voting mechanism.

"My button," he said after one such vote, "seems to be sticking."

[Irishman26]

19. I may be alone on this,

...but I'm extremely annoyed by the fact that, given the closeness of this race, the "undecideds" remaining will be the deciding factor in this. To me, to be undecided at this point is just silly. I mean it's not like there aren't countless resources out there to see the background, positions and policies of these candidates. The people who still don't know are the people who make their minds up based on the wrong things, such as: "crying", endorsements, poll numbers, last-minute-ads... It's sad how many people place importance on things like that.

Just to be clear, I am not including former/current Edwards supporters in this. Already making up your mind, and then having that candidate drop out, is an entirely different scenario. But those who have not chosen at all thus far, well that's just sad. Do a little homework. It isn't that hard.

[Writer]

18. Let me tell you about how I came to my decision...

it's really far more complicated than my nuclear post from earlier.

Believe it or not, I've read both of their platforms, and I honestly don't see much of a difference between them. For this reason, I have been primarily undecided for virtually the entire primary until now.

The IWR: I'm sorry, but Barack Obama is not an anti-war candidate. I think some people associate him with that stance because he's not Hillary Clinton. Obama wasn't in the Senate in October, 2002, and we will never know how he would have voted on that issue. Even if we assume that he would have been a Paul Wellstone-like figure and voted against the IWR, his votes for funding during his years in the senate do still indicate someone who would have followed the centrist approach to this issue. I think Obama would have voted for the IWR if he were in the senate that year.

I have had reservations about Obama's petty behavior in the past, although he was gracious to Clinton in the last debate.

The last, rather substantive debate was a help, although at the end of the day, I care more about whether either of these candidates would be more effective than the other to enact the change they claim to enact. And this is another moment when I started leaning to Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton has worked with Congressman for her entire tenure as first lady and as senator. I think she will be more familiar with working congress (including Republicans) in order to make this "change" happen.

And then, my emotional button was pressed today because of some of the rude reaction to her crying, hence my nuclear thread. As a woman, I have dealt with a myriad of sexism/sexual harassment in the workplace. It is that STRUGGLE that I'm responding to - that strive I have as an intelligent young woman to be taken seriously for my ability to think ASIDE from my femininity.

And that is why I came to my decision. I don't know if this helps, but I wish you the best of luck in coming to a decision.

~Writer~

[amborin]

20. Hillary is a brilliant policy wonk

she's got demonstrated capability to slug it out and get policies enacted....she's got substantive depth and insight....

the learning curve for Obama is high

and---Hillary Clinton is starting out with lofty goals...universal health insurance

for all the talk about "change" and "hope," why does Obama start off with such low expectations for his health insurance policy?

[sandnsea]

23. You've supported her all along

I really get annoyed with people who pretend they don't have a candidate when they've done nothing but bash Obama for weeks or months.

[Writer]

31. I assure you that I have not supported her all along.

I ABSOLUTELY assure you.

[NC_Nurse]

21. Here's my post about my decision:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4366736&mesg_id=4366736

Good luck with your decision! :)

[RevolutionStartsNow]

22. Exactly my thoughts, except...

I am still considering voting for Edwards, mostly because he's still on the ballot and if I had voted early as I usually do, it would've been Edwards. And I think the primaries are where we vote our conscience, not necessarily our party.

Except for that, you and I have the same reseverations about Obama and Clinton, so I will follow this thread rather than post my own "undecided" thread.

It's strange not knowing how I will vote the day before I walk in there.

[BlackVelvet04]

26. Hear me out before you discount.....

flip a coin. NO, not to tell you who to vote for, but it might show you how you really feel. Heads Hillary, Tails Obama (or vice versa if that offends someone). How do you FEEL about the results? Still ambivalent?

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If you agree, vote for Hillary, disagree vote for Obama.

Still don't know? I have no further suggestions, I feel for ya though.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

28. That reminds me of an episode of Friends...

Joey can't make a decision, so Phoebe tells him to just pick one answer without thinking and then see how he feels: disappointed? happy?

It was funny, but I can see the merit in that. It can get you in touch with your feelings, if you are somehow blocking them.

[BlackVelvet04]

29. I've been doing it for a very long time

when I just can't seem to make a decision. It usually makes my real feelings clear to me. Good luck with your decision.

[demo dutch]

24. Here's Joe Wilson's opinion, maybe that carries some weight?

Here's an opinion from someone at the heart of the Iraq situation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

[K8-EEE]

30. I am in the same boat, although I don't think either are "the devil."

I like them both. I was squarely for Edwards. Both my parents voted early & for Edwards. I wasn't planning on changing my Edwards vote but now that it's so close (in CA) I kind of want to weigh in on that choice: Hill v Obama, honestly, they both have their good points.

I'm a person who doesn't think it would be a bad thing to have Bill be co-Prez, I think he's smart & I like him.

I LOVE how Obama is driving up the participation especially for the young people.

And in a way I still want to vote for Edwards, for his agenda which was the most progressive of all three.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

32. Sigh, I'm with you...

It's nearly bedtime, I'm voting in the morning, and I'm still torn.

[AGirl]

33. Barack is a risk that is not worth it.

If Barack is as progressive and as sincere as Edwards, I would say it is worth it to vote for him. I do not get that vibe from him and I think you would find out that he has some inconsistencies on the war record. He said a president has to be right on day one, and he would not support for Iraq funding without timetable, but he kept on voting for the iraq funding over and over again. There is also another news about the nuclear leak legislation which he hasn’t been entirely honest about.

I think that his record is not all that clear, because he doesn’t have a lot of experiences, and it’s hard to trust him , he inspires people with rhetoric, but not enough substance , this is dangerous. Clinton is a safer bet because people are definitely not afraid to criticize her and scrutinize her, her supporters are realistic and do not overlook the flaws that she have. Many of obama’s supporters are hostrile to any criticism against Obama and are not entirely realistic in how they view Washington politics and tend to put Obama on a pedestal which I don’t think he deserve.

I want someone who will be scrutinized, someone who will work hard, someone who will stand up for the core liberal values, that’s why I think Clinton is a better choice .