Debate: Should Edwards supporters prefer Obama or Clinton?
Welcome to the second formal debate hosted by Swords Crossed and open to multi-blog participation! Today we explore the pros and cons of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination from the perspective of an Edwards supporter.
Click here to join the debate at cruxlux
Essays written for this debate:
** Some reasons for Edwards supporters to prefer Obama
More details below the fold
John Edwards recently suspended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, saying "It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path" and reminding us all that "We must do better if we want to live up to the promise of this country we love so much." He ran a strong campaign that influenced the positions of both Obama and Clinton. Naturally his supporters are disappointed. Many of them vote this upcoming Tuesday and are now trying to decide whether Obama or Clinton deserves their vote.
I know that discussion of this topic is often heated and so I was hoping to try a different format to allow everyone to help lay out a logical case for why Edwards supporters should (or should not) consider Obama, and also why Edwards supporters should (or should not) consider Clinton. I've set up a debate at the neutral third-party site cruxlux, which has a format specifically tailored to structured point-counterpoint debate and incorporates user feedback on arguments. I've created a skeleton framework for the debate and now you can add arguments, comment, give points, or engage in conversation on any aspect of the topic of interest to you. Everyone is invited to participate -- Edwards, Obama, or Clinton supporters, or none-of-the-aboves -- and hopefully the end result will be a constructive examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic candidates from the perspective of an Edwards supporter.
We are also linking all essays written today on this topic here, so if you write something on your blog please comment below and it will be added to the list. Comments at the original post are encouraged, of course, but please feel free to incorporate that discussion into the large-scale cruxlux debate as well.
Our last debate discussed the pros and cons of the Electoral College .
Comments :
As an Edwards supporter, I really don't know which way
I'll go. I will choose but I'm not sure yet who.
I want to believe in Obama. Except, his bi-partisain appeals worry me. Why? Well, truth be told, every instance of bi-partisainship that's been displayed since the 90's has translated into Republicans get what they want
, progressives get a kick in the ass.
In that respect, I trust Hillary to fight better, but she's a tad too much a corporate whore for me (sadly, I suspect that Obama would be equal to the task there so I'm not sure that aspect could differentiate either of them). However, having lived with the actions & deeds of Republican extremists, I think she has a better handle on what she'll get from any "negotiation" with the other party. But here again, if she negotiates for a middle point, we'll end up with republicans again getting most of what they want and progressives getting a kick in the ass.
I feel like it's a damned if I do & damned if I don't scenerio.
PS - not all republicans are republican extremists. But the party and it's leaders are all extremists right now. Being that they are better foot soldiers than Democrats are, I expect that it is those very extremists who will continue to define their values and desires. As an example see this memoir review from Senator Lincoln Chafee.
He says he knew the intel to attack Iraq was bogus but he blames democrats for "letting it happen". Weren't the Democrats the Minority party in 2003?
(update) As an example of "reasonableness" of Republican attitudes, yesterday John Hindraker said:
" Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. . . .
I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids of the world.
That passage was then promptly quoted by National Review's Mark Steyn, who said that Hinderaker "might be on to something."
Let me try to wrap my mind around this one. Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden and Harry Reid are all equivalent in Republican's eyes. That is what we progressives are up against and it's exactly them that I have no interest in being bi-partisan with, in fact they really deserve to be fought with tooth & nail every step of the next 9 years.
I think these are talking points kindness
Behind the scenes in their suits, most republicans aren't represented by these talking points. A few are, but many are much more reasonable.
For example Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith aren't that hard core, but the powers that be force them to tow the line ideologically. I think folks like this more moderate are the ones that Barack Obama could sway to work with him in many policy areas and bring them across the line. I don't think any Republican would cross the line to work with Hillary.
I'm only half stupid
I don't get Edwards backing down
when the day before he said he was in it to the end.
If I had been an Edwards supporter, I think I would be kind of angry about it. Anyone who cast an early ballot for Edwards has already thrown away their vote.
I found it interesting that Edwards was trashed by Russ Feingold, who highlighted his voting record and his campaign positions as diametrically opposed.
I think some folks were going to vote for Edwards, sort of as the cop out vote. They couldn't decide so they were going for Edwards.
Other Edwards supporters have been fanatically committed to his message of anti-poverty-anti-lobbyist.
The longer the campaign goes on, I see it as being more favorable to Obama. I see that he doesn't appeal to the working class, because of the way he talks.
What is most striking to me is how Edwards left his backers in the lurch, and is now doing a reach around to the prime candidates insisting that whoever takes his message of anti-poverty most seriously will get his nod.
I'm only half stupid
Check out cruxlux when you get a chance
They've updated and improved their software. The "conversation" feature is much nicer now, and it's easier to track new posts.
Get yourself an ID and put in a few arguments, supports, or counterarguments -- it's really quick and easy, and it's interesting to flesh out the cases =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just put this up on dKos, so if you're around
and interested by all means head there
for comments or cruxlux 
for debate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I had a hell of a dr's. Appt
I think I'm gonna have to sit on the sidelines for this one. Sorry.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hope everything is alright.
Pico did a lot of heavy lifting, we'll get you in next time.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Interesting diary at dkos
from a well-respected Edwards supporter on whether either candidate is drawing him and other Edwards supporters to their campaign
. The comments are surprisingly neutral: most don't like either Clinton or Obama, and the few who like one or the other more or less balance each other out.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Likelyhood of a Hillary backlash?
What do you all think the probability of Hillary pissing off the black vote so much that they either sit out the election or vote third party? If this happens it could swing the entire election our way and you don't really have to hit that big of a percentage of them to get there. Thoughts?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hard to say.
Clinton's not at all unpopular with black voters, so the question is whether comments perceived as race-baiting will push some voters over the edge. Consider that before SC, she won the majority of the black vote in NH; but those are two different states, and it's not as if there's a monolithic "black vote" nationwide. I really don't know, but I don't see it happening based on already made comments. They still have plenty of time to say something stupid, though.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Pretty clear from the post-Edwards drop out polling....
.....in just about every Tuesday state, Obama is enjoying an "Edwards bounce".
Seems that the Edwards vote was largely a "anti-Hillary" vote and now those folks are moving to the current vessel for anti-Hillary sentiment... Obama.
Realclearpolitics.com has several new polls in various ST states.....
Obama is now ahead in Alabama and Connecticut (he was trailing badly a week ago).... he is now in single digits in NJ (was down close to 30 two weeks ago)....
The poll movement in Obama's direction has been nothing short of incredible.
In the new Fox News national poll... Hillary's 29 point lead of a month ago is down to 10..... and Obama does better in hypothetical races against both McCain and Romney than Clinton does (told ya so).
Hillary needs Tuesday to get here damn soon..... she needed it to get here a couple of days ago, in fact.
Obama has now won 5 of the past 6 news cycles..... she needs some good news in a hurry.
I survived the Bush Administration