Ok here is the deal. I think Obama, Clinton or Edwards would make a good president.

[yellowcanine]

I am disappointed that the discussions here so often make it a zero sum game. We have good candidates - the Republicans would die to have such a set of canditates. I am so disappointed in the tone here that I am going to retreat into my shell for a while. I will not be part of this. Reasonable people can disagree in a more reasonable way. Hopefully after a month or two someone will be the clear front runner and we can focus on what really matters - winning the general election. But until then I am out of here.

[HeraldSquare212]

1. The negativity is intended to drive people away. nt

[cobalt1999]

2. I agree with you.

I intend to vote for Hillary, but I'm not personalizing the choice.

It's almost like some sports fans are. Identify with a team to the point that the other team is the devil, their fans are ignorant and classless.

I'll vote for any of them, but I'm not idolizing Hillary nor demonizing Obama or Edwards.

Don't leave a few voices of calm will be required between now and Super Tuesday.

[Cant trust em]

9. Perfectly said

I really think that people here should get a grip. Any of our candidates would be a fine choice for president who holds up most of the values that we hold dear. If anything, the supporters of certain candidates actually turn me off more to the candidates themselves.

[villager]

3. Yes. Somebody has a stake in getting people to "sit this one out," it seems...

n/t

[sandnsea]

4. They aren't equal in the integrity dept

If some people just don't believe everything that has come out of the Clinton campaign has been intentional, then I can see where they all look the same to some. Otherwise it's stunning to me anybody could think they're all equally honest and good.

[yellowcanine]

5. Congratulations. You are the poster person of what I am talking about.

[sandnsea]

8. They Are Not The Same

They just aren't. Why don't you answer the point about honesty and integrity instead of attacking me. Hillary's position on lobbyists. Her fundraising scandals. Her connection to people like Burtle and Chatwal. The racist smears that came out of her campaign. The daily distortion of Obama's record and words, which would be turned on Edwards if he were her competition. It matters to me. I don't know why it doesn't matter to you.

[hfojvt]

10. who can follow all of that stuff?

Seriously, I cannot verify the veracity of those claims. Not that I need to being already HHH and ABC. Her position on lobbyists actually had some merit, I thought. She pointed out that some "lobbyists" represent people too, such as unions, AARP, IOOF, etc. What fundraising scandals? The guy in California who was bundling? I am not sure that candidates are responsible for everybody who sends them money. Burtle and Chatwal? Who the heck are they? The California wine makers? (TV joke about the old Bartles and James commercials). Have there been racist smears and daily distortions? Again I have not been following all of the various accusations on DU. Racism! Sexism! All of that "he said - she said" to me takes away from discussion about substantive issues.

I am more concerned that Hillary had the progressive side in the last debate - attacking Bush's tax rebates and Obama had the conservative side - touting his early embrace of tax rebates and thus supporting a bad proposal from Bush.

[sandnsea]

14. Yeah, if you dismiss everything you don't want to see

then I could see how they all look the same. Exactly what I said.

Obama has the progressive stimulus plan, a FICA tax rebate that everyone will get. Some kind of tax rebate is part of Hillary's plan too, but she gives money to help the mortgage industry first.

Saying "I don't know what in the hell is going on" is no excuse for your position on the candidates.

[hfojvt]

17. I did not see anything about FICA tax rebate

although it seems that that would leave out the elderly. Hillary's stimulus plan is a good one, which I gave her credit for, until I read Krugman and found out that she copied it from Edwards. Of course I was reading Krugman to defend Obama against the charge Krugman made that Obama is to the right of Hillary. I have already made my own case for why I think Obama would be more progressive than Hillary

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/70

My point is not that "I don't want to hear it." but that to get at the truth of anything, you cannot just read an M$M story or a KOS diary, you have to wade into the weeds and do hours of research. I'm simply not that interested in the topic. I generally do know what's going on with budget and tax issues though. In this case, it is important for Democrats to oppose the Bush plan, which involves throwing money at rich people and businesses in favor of something more like the Edwards plan. It will be interesting to see what Obama does in that battle. Unfortunately, that battle will happen after my state's primary.

Although it is kinda interesting that Hillary is not just divisive along the red/blue division but also seems divisive within the Democratic Party.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/63

[sandnsea]

18. He adds a stipend to social security checks too

Why don't you do yourself a tremendous favor and read what the candidates actually say instead of what partisan hacks say they say. Yes, Krugman has proven himself to be nothing but a partisan hack who will say anything to benefit Edwards and attack Obama. Economic plans are not stimulus plans. A stimulus plan has to be highly targeted in order to get quickly through Congress. Edwards's green ideas are certainly good ones, they all have green economics as part of their platforms, but it's not going to move quickly through Congress.

I don't even read blogs. I always go right to the source for my information on candidates and policies. That's why I know Edwards' health care plan doesn't rely on mandates to reduce costs or bring everyone in, he implements the entire plan before he mandates anything. That is the complete opposite of what Hillary has said, but Krugman has decided to jump on that mandate bandwagon, even if it means people will have to choose between monthly premiums and power bills. Obama has said that he would consider mandates after his entire program is implemented too, which actually puts him in line with Edwards.

Krugman has not done progressives any favors this election cycle. He is viewing everything from an ivory tower perch where what works on paper often leaves real people out in the cold, much like "ending welfare as we know it".

[hfojvt]

19. uh, that's what I did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2685436#2686063

I called Krugman on his inaccuracy. Not that anybody noticed.

[sandnsea]

21. The senior benefit is right there

I see that they didn't differentiate the FICA tax rebate in their release, that's their fault. I know he has been clear to make the point. That's where sometimes I think the problem with Democratic campaigns is too many people who are too distanced from the lives of real people. They don't even know there is a difference between people who pay FICA and regular income taxes, so it doesn't occur to them to make the point. Republicans don't make that mistake, unless they make it on purpose to mislead working people into believing they're going to get something that they aren't.

[dajoki]

6. I am with you...

I think, at least hope that we will eventually come together, that is our only chance if we want to put a Dem in the White House.

[redqueen]

7. "Reasonable people can disagree in a more reasonable way"

We have a dire shortage of reasonable people, it seems.

:hug:

[hfojvt]

12. "It is not logical to hunt a species to extinction."

"Who ever said the human race was logical?" Star Trek IV

[leftynyc]

11. Total agreement

I will happily vote for any of the three (sorry, Kucinich just isn't realistic). I will send them money, help set up rides to the polls, etc. That's for any of them. Do I like them all the same? Of course not. But any one of them is worlds better than a puke. The people threatening not to vote or to vote puke sound infantile.

[Carrieyazel]

13. The "set of candidates" will soon be meaningless. Only one gets the nomination.

and as Democrats, we're usually stuck with one who cannot get elected. If its Hillary or Obama, that candidate will not win the general election. McCain can now taste it; he's so close to the White House.

We shouldn't waste our energy on a pointless exercise. We now need to concentrate on gaining as many House seats and Senate seats as possible. With decisive control of both houses, governorships, and state/local offices, we are in a great position for the long term. But we need to do a better job selecting our presidential nominees in the future.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. I agree with you. Day after the GE should be great fun here!

:evilgrin: Gonna make this look tame by comparison. :rofl:

[robbedvoter]

15. You're missing the fun. But you're essentially right - see you soon!

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

20. Obama, Hillary, and Edwards would all make good presidents as compared to the current error-in-chief

but they would emphasize different things.

They have different views on trade, access to health care, tax policy, civil justice, increasing the minimum wage, and a dozen other important issues.

It is right to expect that passionate Democrats would have preferences among these candidates, and it is wholly understandable that they would make these issues personal because of their deeply held convictions.

I'm just a lurker here who has decided to join the debate so I have little standing to comment, but I encourage you not to get too depressed about the tone of certain commenters; the edginess of the tone is in proportion to the passion of the commenter.

Don't look at the harshness as a sign of ugliness, but as a measure of the passion about candidates who we should all be passionate about.

[yellowcanine]

22. I wish I could agree but I can't. The harshness is ugliness. I am very excited about Obama.

But I know he is not the perfect candidate and both Clinton and Edwards have qualities that would serve us well as President. We have got to get past the personalities and concentrate on formulating a set of policies that we can win on. And it is the economy, just like it was in 1992, which is why McCain if he is the nominee is very beatable - he literally knows nothing about the economy and it shows. He can't even talk coherently about it. Any of our top three candidates can run rings around him.