So what - is it ego? Is it history? Is it responsibility? Enlighten me, please.

[JFN1]

Let me preface this post by stating I am undecided.

Which adds to my problem - I cannot figure it out.

Don't get me wrong - I like Obama, alot, and I can tolerate Clinton (though her baggage is bothersome).

I've read a TON of posts on DU about the candidates, both for them, and against them. I've read tons of stuff on DK, on MyDD, and sites too numerous to practically list here.

I've read article after article, I've watched the debates (except one), and I've seen tons of tv reports on Obama and Clinton.

And still, I cannot figure it out.

What is the great attraction? They sound THE SAME to me.

So why such vehement support, for both candidates? Is it because you've "made your choice and you're stickin' to it?" Is it because he's the first African-American truly positioned to become President? Is it because she's the first woman truly positioned to become President?

So while Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are busy throwing stones, I've been watching a quieter candidate, and his supporters, too.

Edwards seems to be the ONLY candidate who is talking about the issues - Obama and Clinton only talk about each other - and themselves.

So enlighten me, please. What ISSUES of Clinton's do you support? What issues of Obama's do you support?

And for Edwards - the overall support for what HE is talking about seems omnipresent - another reason why i don't understand his losses.

I'm not being snarky, I'm not trying to bait anyone - I really, really want to know...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Kicking because I want to know, too

to me, they are both basically corportist candidates. The only thing I know is different about their stands is that Clinton voted and continues to vote for the Iraq War, while Obama wasn't in the Senate for the first vote and hasn't voted for it since he's been in the Senate. Both their health care plans are windfalls for for-profit insurance agencies, and, according to some physicians, are unworkable anyway.

[HughMoran]

2. Either will do for me

They sound the same to me as well. I also like Edwards, but I think his role in this election will be limited to "tie breaker" at the convention - which is an enviable position to be in. Basically all of the arguing here and voting in the primaries will be for naught as Edwards will ultimately pick who our candidate will be. Ironic indeed...

[NastyRiffraff]

3. Edwards supporter here

I'm sure that Obama and Clinton supporters will chime in and answer your questions, as they should. I do hope they won't give you "hope and change" and "experience," though, because you ask real, honest questions that should be answered.

You're right about Edwards. He's the only candidate who consistantly addresses the economic issues that the middle class and poor care about. And he does it even knowing that the media doesn't care about those issues, and refuses to cover them, and consequently, him. In part, that explains his losses.

He's the only candidate who's never taken money from corporate lobbyists. Let's face it; when you take their money, you owe them. Period.

There are many more examples, which I think you already know; for more, see http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

Possibly more importantly, he's walked the walk. He doesn't just talk about helping the poor, he's done it.

Clinton and Obama supporters...your turn!

[ErnestoG]

4. Why Obama is for me -

Hell a book could be written on this, but let me distill it down to a few basics:


1. He pledged to pull troops out of Iraq.

2. He pledged to shut down Gitmo.

3. He pledged to reinstate Habeas Corpus

4. He is not in bed with AIPAC

5. He is not a puppet of corpo congloms

6. He does not have the "Clinton shadow" dogging him

7. He is able to win friends, and change minds

8. He does not display crass nationalistic emblems (like the flag pin) to curry favor with the shallowest sentiment in all of us. He wants us to THINK, not react like Pavlovian dogs to a patriotic stimulus.


There are more, but those are top on my list.

[JFN1]

7. Thanks you

I'd like to see some evidence of your claims 4 - 8, but I really like his pledges.

[ErnestoG]

19. Need evidence of 4 - 8? OK here it comes...

4. Obama is not in bed with AIPAC
"Obama is New and AIPAC doesnt have a history with him..."
from HA'ARETZ, Israel

5. Obama is not a puppet of corpo congloms

99% of Obama's contributions are individuals.
(as opposed to Hillary Clinton who gets 56% of her PAC contributions from big business)

6. He does not have the "Clinton shadow" dogging him
How many times have you heard people oppose him saying "No More Obamas!"?


7. He is able to win friends, and change minds
His ability to make friends with old rivals, and win new converts to his side, is becoming legendary
Obama Makes Friends Out of Old Rivals

8. He does not display crass nationalistic emblems (like the flag pin) to curry favor with the shallowest sentiment in all of us. He wants us to THINK, not react like Pavlovian dogs to a patriotic stimulus.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

(notice no flag pin).

[readmoreoften]

15. Here's some video of Obama speaking at an AIPAC meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FBlspQOgTE

[ErnestoG]

20. Lots of people have done that. It doesn't mean they are owned by AIPAC

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. have you read either of Obama's books?

you really should.

[dkf]

6. Obama has a better chance of passing meaningful legislation than

Hillary does...that is how I see it.

I just remember how it was under Bill. UGGGLY.

If there is just a chance that we can avoid all that I want to take it.

[JFN1]

8. I agree

Also, Hilary has, like it not, BAGGAGE. I wish a few Clinton supporters would add to this thread and explain their support, as at least one Obama supporter has...odd they are so quiet...

[spooky3]

10. the ability to pass meaningful legislation depends on who controls Cong.

The Republicans controlled both houses throughout most of WJClinton's Presidency.

That's the UGGGLY you remember.

[depakid]

18. A good bit of the ugly I remember WELL

Came from the executive agencies- which could have pressed forward with a more rational and progressive agenda, but chose corporatism instead.

Congress would have need a veto proof majority in both houses to over rule admintrative actions (as we've seen all too clearly with Bush).

[no name no slogan]

9. The dirty little secret of Indecision 2008

Obama and Clinton are very very close on the issues-- probably more so than any two other candidates in the race (or formerly in the race) this year.

The differences are all down to style and experience.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, we can already tell what our platform will be like this year.

[Triana]

11. "novelty" candidates are a big story...but they only represent symbolic change...

...and that what has people blinkered. The REAL substantial change candidate - the guy who sticks to the issues - gets buried in all the hoopla and grandstanding of the two other 'noveau' candidates.

[mnhtnbb]

12. Edwards is just the white guy talking about the real problems in the country

wanting to give voice to the voiceless. Yawn.

Woman! Black guy! Racism! Scandal! Sex appeal! Americans want entertainment; don't bother them
with tough issues.

Just my take on the lack of interest.

[JFN1]

13. See? That's what I've been starting to think

and I'm not getting anything of substance from Clinton supporters other than a lot of shouting about how great she is...and at least a little substance from Obama supporters, but not enough to convince me...

[FrenchieCat]

24. What substance do Edwards supporters offer you?

Pray tell.

Each of his speech only talk about the problems.....and only provides small platitudes as solutions.

So I hear Edwards "talking" about stuff, but I haven't never seen him do much about anything.

Here's Obama's record on Election reform and such. Actionables on putting his actions where his mouth is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4225484

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4239757

Where's Edwards or Clintons'?

[sandnsea]

14. The Edwards people keep saying that

and for the life of me I don't know what the hell they're talking about. He was raking in millions when Obama was fighting for poor and working people in the Illinois legislature. You need to tell me why I should go for rhetoric over a proven track record.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sponsor/OBAMA.html

[Barack_America]

16. A lot of people here believe that only their candidate can win the GE.

And that nominating the other one guarantees another GOP presidency.

[salin]

17. While I "lean" Edwards at the moment...

I can't vote until May, and don't see him as being a viable candidate at that time (sorry Edwards supporters, at this point I just don't see it emerging) - so looking at Clinton and Obama - I see things i can live with (and support compared to the GOP candidates) with both, and things that make me uncomfortable with both (though fortunately the positive outweighs the negative - especially when compared to the GOP alternatives.) But I just don't find myself driven towards either - there is so much passion among supporters of the two on DU - and I just haven't caught the passion for either.

But then again, there have been few candidates over the years that I have "caught the passion" for - and most of those that I have, have never made it through the primaries. So maybe for me, this is jsut par for the course.

[Tatiana]

21. Undecided Dems Unite!!!!!

I support Obama's immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

I support Clinton's repeal of the asinine (Every)No Child Left Behind Act.

I support Edwards' end to corporate welfare.

If I could just take the great ideas from all three and put them into one candidate, I would be a very happy person.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Edwards too weak on national security to win. That's why I switched.

[Tulkas]

23. Obama "change grows from the bottom up: Clinton LBJ did what MLK could not do

It is the difference of a point of view.



Obama wants to inspire people to change the nation.

Clinton wants to sit in an office and dictate change.


The LBJ/MLK comments illustrate this clearly.

Billary thinks that LBJ signing a piece of paper changed the country. He/She believes that sitting in the oval office and doing the right thing takes courage

Barack thinks that MLK and his movement changed the country and the legislation simply reflected that change. He believes that risking and ultimately sacrificing your life for what you believe is just took true courage.



Also in Health Care

Obama wants to create a health care plan that all Americans that do not have coverage will want to have.

Clintons want to create a health care plan and force all Americans that do not have coverage to subscribe to it.


Philosophical Differences