A Biden supporter - my next choice after Iowa

[LVZ]

The top three Dems each have significant strengths and vulnerabilities.

IMO, Hillary Clinton represents the battle-tested, organizationally strong, politically-connected ready-to-govern candidate. That may also be her main weakness to voters: along with Bill Clinton, too much "old school" politics, too ready to manipulate to get her way, and a bit too machiavellian. Like it or not, fair or not, Hillary's perceived television personality is also a big negative factor in terms of "electability".

Barack Obama represents a break with the past - very appealing, especially for younger folks. Unfortunately, the under 30 group rarely shows up in big numbers when it counts - at election time. In Iowa that pattern was broken but we'll see what happens down the road. Obama's lack of direct experience, to some degree, is a fair criticism. However, this can be greatly offset by good judgement selecting good people as advisors and implementers - just ask Warren Buffett. Obama's "can't we all just get along" appeal, however, is not at all realistic since the other side has no intention to "get along".

John Edwards represents more traditional Democratic Party values, a strong advocate against corporate greed, corruption and exploitation of the working class. As a very successful trial lawyer, Edwards should be especially effective putting forth his visions to the nation and attending to the practical craft of making law to implement that vision. The question for me is whether he is tough enough to counter the inevitable smear campaign that the GOP will launch against any Democratic nominee. The "trial lawyer" resentment attack is inevitable - you even see it by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

To simplify:

Hillary Clinton: readiness, connections
Barack Obama: symbolic change agent
John Edwards: issues advocacy

I think all of these facets are important and I have been going back and forth about which is more important. Just before the Iowa vote I had basically shifted to favoring Obama. This is not because he is better qualified (he is not) and not because he is better on the issues (IMO, he tends to be fuzzy on issues). I now favor Obama because that is what would seem to be best for the nation at a time when the world either hates or distrusts us and for good reasons. There are times when symbolism and a spirit of optimism can be overall more effective in achieving one's long term goals than all the best plans and intentions.

[skipos]

1. I was a Biden supporter, but I have been pretty opposed to a Hillary nomination

I like Obama and Edwards equally, but don't think Edwards has the resources to surpass Hillary.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Didn't Edwards just surpass Hillary with a fraction of the money she spent?

maybe if he can do that in Iowa he can in the long haul too. I'd like it to be so anyway.

[skipos]

3. Yes, but he put almost all of his resources into IA

Why do you think he is a distant 3rd in SC right now, even though he won it in 2000?
Edwards is a distant 3rd in about every state right now, 2nd place in IA and 3rd place in NH won't turn it around.
If he comes in 2nd in NH, unlikely imo, he has a much better shot.

[napi21]

4. I was also a strong Biden supporter. I'm still trying to get over his

quiting. Right now, I think I'll support Edwards. Although I agree, both other candidates have reasons to vote for them, Edwards finally showed me the side of him I hadn't seen before. During one of his last speeches in Iowa, I finally saw the attorney o won so many cases! I hate to admit it, but there's still a lot of racism and feminists in this country. I see it every day. The MOST IMPORTANT THING is for a Dem to be elected in November! I'm simply not willing to risk alienating any groups that I can already see could be a problem.

[bdamomma]

12. I almost wish Biden stayed in until New Hampshire and if he

wasn't doing well in New Hampshire then concede. He had all the right answers.

[elleng]

18. ALMOST?

He sure did have the right answers.

[medicswife]

5. All good points

And these are the things that I struggle with. Obama has a refreshing quality that can really energize people. In my estimate if he could bring them out in Iowa, he'll bring them out Nov. 6. However.....I am scared, literally, that there might be something hanging out there that will be jumped on by the brutal Repub. machine. Edwards was virtually attack proof during the last election cycle....I mean, they called him an ambulance chaser, yada yada, but that's not really a cogent argument. They can't attack him on family values....I don't think they can attack Obama for that either.

Yeah, I'm confused alright!

[FrenchieCat]

6. Welcome, and You won't be sorry!

The feat accomplished in Iowa showcases Obama's leadership qualities, and how ideas can mobilize a nation, if an important message is framed and approached in a way that a multitude of people can understand it. Obama read Lakoff, and his big ears listened.

The Obama movement will change politics as it currently stands. I'm on board, cause I hate to have sat on the sideline as history happened, and I've never missed an opportunity to be there as it happens.

Obama didn't just say it could be done, he did it.....by pure motivation, organization and perspiration where it counted.

If Obama is this good at something that has failed so many other politicians in the past, then why is there any questions that he will govern in a way that other politicians have failed to do in the past?

Obama is authentic, and that's why people believe what he says...which is why he has mobilized so many in numbers.

And so again,
Welcome!

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. That's the kind of President we need right now, a symbolic change agent!

[elleng]

19. Surely not merely symbolic;

real change, back to the REAL U.S.A.

[LVZ]

21. No, all three are quality candidates but ...

the "symbolic change agent" significance in a national image and international context is the tipping point for my own preference.

[Mike03]

8. Excellent Analysis!

I'm in the same boat. As you so eloquently posted, all three favoured candidates have strengths and weaknesses, which you enumerated so very well.

I'm very torn between Edwards and Obama, giving the slight edge to Edwards because of the emphasis he has placed on Universal Health Care.

But the truth is I'm still undecided. The vital symbolism of Obama's run and success really resonates with me as well.

[Cha]

9. Pretty good analysis, LVZ~

It's those "connections" that I don't like about hillary ..among other things such as enabling bush on his agenda for 5 years.

[Didereaux]

10. I reflect both your history and your opinions with the exception that I will not back a primary now.

(edited to add that this was meant in response to the OP)
I will work my butt off to do what I can to get a democrat elected in the general. And for what it is worth to point out what I see as flaws in an individuals tactics, as I see them. We represent the largest actual voting demographic and it would behoove the supporters and even the candidates to pay a bit of attention to us and less to fervent supporters or paid aides and sychophants. In that respect both the Clinton and the Obama campaigns are seriously flawed.

[LVZ]

11. non-American living experience is important

One additional personal thing that tipped my preference to Obama was his experience living in a foreign nation. I have traveled extensively throughout Europe, Asia, and Australia. I lived for ten years in Germany and, like Obama, I also spent many years in culturally diverse Honolulu.

You get a different, in fact, "much different", perspective on America outside of this country. While Clinton states that she has visited 80 nations, it is not the same as living there and, at least to some degree, being immersed and part of a non-American culture.

Americans have to be the most insular of western democracies. We so often ignore the successes and lessons of other nations. In fact, we are mostly ignorant of them altogether.

We have health care at twice the cost and half the coverage for our citizens. We worship guns as if they are sacred - not the enablers of crime and violence that they are. We say we are the guardians of "democracy" while we effectively limit political participation to two "money-dominated" political parties. Almost all western democracies except the USA have some sort of proportional representation where smaller parties not only keep the other parties honest but provide the freshest ideas.

Germans and other Europeans I met are often baffled by the paradox of our often-viewed-as-childish social and political insanity versus our dominant economic and political power.

What clearer signal to the world could there be that the USA is ready to rejoin the rest of the the world and reform itself than by having a dynamic mixed-race leader and spokesman personally familiar with both American and non-American diversity?

[petepillow]

13. I was Biden all the way, but now

I have no choice but to go with Edwards. Hillary just wants to win for winning. Obama is too vague and general for me believe in fully. Edwards talks with details, to actual issues, about why something is wrong and how it can be fixed. Edwards it is. Sigh.

[davidwparker]

14. Two of the three together are unbeatable. For your simplification, my

response is this:

For Hillary, any president will have connections. We are still the superpower and the other world leaders would be interested in working with us, and welcoming us back, after the White House has been fumigated. Smell of sulphur. Etc. For readiness, a lot of that depends on who is in the cabinet and those tend to be from previous administrations. Any of the three that you mention would have access to the same pool.

For Obama, I agree he passes on good vibrations in the same way Bill Clinton did. The speech today in NH is a good example. I've heard that speech so much that I can almost repeat it. He is definitely charismatic, in the same way I used to see Clinton. It would be a mistake for Obama not to be on the ticket in 2008 in one of the slots.

For Edwards, see my avatar. I think a good trial lawyer in the WH is needed to battle the corporatocracy. He was out with the health care plan that seemed to be copied. At this time, we need someone who will break the link between corporations and the media. This trial lawyer aspect of John, along with others, and the plan that he has outlined in his PDF from his website, is why Edwards is my #1.

[Kahuna]

15. Of course. The pro-IRW voters will band together. nt

[LVZ]

16. No idea what you are saying - what is IRW ?

[AtomicKitten]

17. We'll take it!

welcome

[LVZ]

20. "This is personal to me" - John Edwards

This is a good theme for Edwards. At the moment, he would be my second choice - and who knows, since I see a lot of positive and negative aspects with all three top players, I could eventually change my preference again to any of the three later on.