Need help deciding here

[ericgtr]

For me, I started out supporting Obama until he started in with his tough foreign policy spiel which just turned me off to him, we need a diplomat and I am tired of hearing tough talk about war mongering. Then you have Hillary for special interests then against special interests. I then started leaning toward Edwards until I recently heard him say (adamantly) that he does not support gay marriage and though I am straight, I completely support the idea.

So who does that leave me with? I am starting to lean the way of Kucinich. No? Make a believer out of me.

[quinnox]

1. Obama and war mongering

Yes, I think Obama shattered a few illusions among some of his initial supporters when he made those remarks.

Now those supporters are looking for another candidate.
It sounds like Kucinich may be a good candidate for you.

[Colobo]

12. Yeah, one less for Obama, better for Hillary...

[mntleo2]

2. Richardson?

...I am supporting Obama because while I think he was talking the way he did, it is already pretty set policy to do what he suggested (even under other presidents including Clinton), we just do not talk about it ~ but that policy is always in the background of ANY diplomatic talk.

However Richardson has had a great deal of experience both in foreign policy as well as domestic and, while I do not know where he stands on gay marriage, he is a very progressive candidate. I would be proud to support him as well and to be honest he is WAy more experienced than Barak Obama in many ways. I would not hesitate to vote for him.

Now you are making me convince myself that Richardson is a better candidate. Stop it! :spank: :spank: :crazy: :crazy: :spank: :spank:



Cat In Seattle

[trayted]

4. I am sorry, and I hope that this offends no one, but people need to get over Richardson

Have you ever listened to C-Span, and heard the callers, including Democrats and Independents? The most important issue to many of them is "illegal immigration," and many Democrats say they would vote Republican simply because of illegal immigration.

The worst thing the Democrats could do is nominate Bill Richardson in 2008. The country is overwhelmingly venomous about illegal immigration, and Richardson is too vulnerable, "yes," because he is hispanic. Let's just be honest here.

If the public is in a tizzy over illegal immigration, the worst thing the Democrats could do is nominate Bill Richardson, and have the media make illegal immigration be the #1 issue of 2008, and have every Republican strategist and radio host spreading false stories about Richardson having secret deals with the Mexican government to relax immigration standards even more.

Of course Bush is the real culprit, with this North American Union, but we know that the public is not sophisticated enough to get beyond "image." They will see Richardson's hispanic heritage and believe every word of it, and the Democrats would lose in a landslide.

I'm sorry, but it's the truth, and if most of you think about it and perform your own internal risk assessment, you'll come to realize that I'm right.

[mntleo2]

7. As A White Parent With Hispanic Children ...

...I well understand prejudice and the unspoken damage it does.

As a white woman who has worked "McJobs" all my life and have nothing to show for it, I understand the fear of someone "taking my job for less money." As a white woman who has fought for social justice all my adult life, I understand that no immigrant is even given food stamps, much less are they able to enter what is left of the tattered safety net we have left for millions to fight over, while the rich stay above the fray with all they want or need intact.

Furthermore, I am poor, if there is anyone who has to "fight" for rights/safety net/security/safety, it is my family and me. I live right next door to some immigrants from Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Columbia and African Americans and we all get along fine, thank-you very much. Our children play together, we support each other in emergencies, we gladly and generously share with one another when there is need ~ which is more than our community does with their so-called "concern" for these hardworking people "taking their jobs/homes/life-styles."

To be honest with you I can clearly see that America is richer with my amazing neighbor's passion for being American, their rich cultures which they freely share, their wonderful insights, and all they bring. So, instead I see a great deal of unity among people who are poor no matter who we are because, well I hate to say it but ....upper income people are ignoramuses around many social issues and this "concern" around immigration makes their prejudices and ignorance stick out like a sore thumb, IMO.

Maybe I am not being real as far as how ignorant and prejudice, and isolated middle and upper class people may be, but to be honest, if this is so, it is a class thing IMO. Otherwise these people should admit right now they are, ahem, not very well informed and too lazy or dumb to BE informed. I think that maybe the immigrant issue is important to people on the southern border, but not for me, who lives on the northern one and furthermore see lots of immigrants of ALL cultures in my community and feel they are an asset, not a threat.

And you heard this from an "ignorant, uneducated, poor-trash white woman" who should not know as much as they do. I do not think Richardson who I understand also has a white parent, is a bad choice because he is part hispanic. I have some other questions of his qualities I wish I could ask, but that is not one of them. Obama's father was an immigrant or at least someone who lived in this country long enough to father American children ~ is Obama any less qualified? I don't think so!

My 2 (very broken hearted) cents

Cat In Seattle

[snowbear]

10. What a beautiful response Cat in Seattle..

Just beautiful! ~~

[trayted]

3. You get the most out of supporting John Edwards

Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist, and represents the status quo.

Barack Obama seems to be kind of naive, and comes across as if he believes that the Republicans and special interests may not be as bad as some of us say they are, as if they won't stab you in the back even if you try to work with them.

Kucinich would be great if he could be President, but I have a feeling that the media is beginning to push Kucinich to try and peel some of John Edwards' most liberal support away from him, which is why the new mantra is, "if you want it all, you may as well support Kucinich." Ed "the Hillary surrogate" Schultz was saying it the other day, and it was the meme on Tucker Carlson for the remainder of the week after the AFL-CIO Forum.

Anything to chip away at John Edwards, the media is all in favor of. They aren't smarter than I am, though. They just reach too many minds through the television set.

Either way, John Edwards has the best chance of winning, and he offers a lot more change than both Clinton and Obama do.

Edwards is an outsider. The special interests hate him because he was a trial lawyer who beat them in courtrooms, the Republican establishment hates him, the establishment Democrats hate him as both David Sirota and Bob Novak reported, and the establishment media can't stand him. He could use your support.

If you want to change the culture of corruption in DC, help elect that trial lawyer President.

[ericgtr]

6. He almost has a Republican

feel about him sometimes in my view. And what's so bad about gay marriage, as a liberal I was really disappointed to hear that.

[trayted]

9. As soon as any candidate says that they favor gay marriage, they become unelectable in the US

in a general election. Only someone who is being honest will say that. Besides, I guess some people just want a President who agrees with them because beyond that, no President is going to do much about it.

Interesting that you say that he almost has a "Republican" feel about him. That's why the Republicans fear John Edwards. Because he can take more liberal positions and still give off a sense of moderation. A southern accent does that for Democrats.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Kucinich vs. Paul.

An election with all the bullshit stripped away.

[DutchLiberal]

8. Why I think you should support Dennis Kucinich:

Kucinich is, in my opinion, the only candidate running for president who has always been right the first time on all important issues. I don't say that with the comfort of hindsight, but because Kucinich checked the facts before he casted his vote in Congress and he always voted in the interest of the common people.

Kucinich was the Congressman who tried to rally the Democrats in Congress against the war in Iraq, back in 2002, when it was politically risky to do so, as one could count on being smeared and trashed by both the Republicans and the right-wing media. Clinton and Edwards, but also Biden and, I believe, Dodd caved into political and public pressure. They put their political careers above the future of both the US and Iraq. Edwards even gave a speech in 2002 in which he linked 9/11 to the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq (you can find that speech in this 'General Discussion' board). Kucinich voted against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. And since then, he has continued to vote against giving Bush more money to continue his war. He wants US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but also as safe as possible. The money that Congress gives Bush has to be used to with-drawl all US troops. At the same time, Kucinich wants to engage Syria and Iran, which -whether we like it or not- are vital players in the region, into creating an (international) peace-keeping force in Iraq. Kucinich wants *no* soldiers left stationed in Iraq or in the region and *no* permanent US bases in Iraq. Other Democratic candidates have *not* showed willingness to reject the idea of permanent US bases and US troops in or nearby Iraq.

Kucinich is also the only peace candidate. The top three candidates have each clearly stated that with regard to Iran, all options are on the table. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have tried to outbid one another on tough talk on Iran. They even talked about the possibility of nuclear weapons. What a disaster that would be! And it's not stopping with Iran. Obama talked about the possibility of invading Pakistan. They are all *so* eager to talk about war, military actions and sanctions. What's the difference with neo-con rhetoric? Kucinich is speaking of a new strategy for the US. He understand that current US foreign policy is creating more terrorism than it is combatting it. That's why Kucinich is advocating a policy of 'strength through peace'. Don't let the media fool you into thinking this is a far-left extremist hippie ideal. Is it extremist to vote for peace instead of voting for more war? Kucinich is talking about re-connecting with the nations of the world, repairing the damage Bush has done to US relations with countries all over the world. Engaging in diplomatic instead of military efforts.

Unlike several other candidates, Kucinich not only talks the talk, but he also walks the walk. You can find out that his record of voting is consistent with his speeches and his promises. What you see is what you get: integrity and honesty. He also represents the interest of the common people. He doesn't take money from the lobbyists or the corporate industry, unlike Clinton, Obama and possibly Edwards. Clinton even took money from Rupert Murdoch, owner of Faux Noise, *the* network to trash Democrats. Kucinich, once president, won't be owned by corporate interests, but he will represent only the average Americans who have contributed to his campaign. Kucinich will introduce universal single payer not-for-profit health care. And as with so many other things, he's the only candidate running for president who is advocating this. He already has, together with, I believe, John Conyers, introduced a proposal in Congress that would make this possible. He has stated he wants to cancel NAFTA and with-drawl from the WTO, which will stop the out-sourcing of American jobs to countries like China and India. If you are a working class American, or supportive of them, you want to cancel it too. Then Kucinich is your man.

To protect your civil liberties, don't go to the big three candidates. Nothing will change when they're electing president. They won't repeal the Patriot Act. Clinton even voted for it! Kucinich has stated clearly that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act the first day he's in office. Likewise with the Military Commissions Act, which is a shameful piece of legislation that allows torture to be a legal practice. Kucinich will also approve full marriage to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. He is again the only candidate who takes this position, as you could have seen in the CNN/YouTube debate. Last but not least, he is the *only* candidate running for president who wants in impeach Dick Cheney for lying Congress and country into war. The only one! He has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney already. It's obvious he is the candidate who wants to hold the criminals in the White House accountable.

I hope I or others have 'won you over'. Of course I can't say it as well as Dennis Kucinich himself. You should watch some of his speeches. They're easy to find on YouTube. I hope to have informed you enough. :hi:

[saracat]

11. Would you rather he had lied? it took courage for him to admit what he did. He said

he was battling with himself and on a journey. His wife already supports gay marriage and Edwards himself supports domestic partnerships.He says gay couples should have ALL the rights of straight couples.He will come around.He has to get elected first.Richardson doesn't support gay marriage AFAIK.He thinks homosexuality is a"choice". Or so he said during the forum.I understand he tried to retract that statement later.

[ericgtr]

14. No I would hope he is honest and candid

which he appeared to be and I simply can't agree with his stance, though I appreciate him being honest.

[Colobo]

13. Eric, I invite you to reconsider Obama. The man makes sense on foreign policy.

He is diplomacy oriented, and would only use force in the case we learn about Bin Laden whereabouts in Pakistan and we don't get any help from Musharraf.

[ericgtr]

15. I have always thought of him as diplomatic until that statement

It was a bit forceful and presumptuous IMO. What ever happened to the UN? If he had mentioned consulting the UN on the best approach to truly fight terrorism where it really exists, I would've been completely won over. America can only go alone with everything for so long, we can't just ignore the rest of the world they way we have been.

[ericgtr]

16. Would it be so bad to consult the UN about it though?

For God's sake, this country needs to get off of it's power trip and start working with the rest of the world instead of alienating it.