What makes Obama a better choice than Edwards?

[begin_within]

I'm strongly for Edwards, so I'd just like to hear from people why Obama is a better choice for President than Edwards.

[kurth]

1. The hip factor

[begin_within]

4. Does Obama have better hips?

[aquart]

6. Yep. He's just so ...whatever the current word is for "cool".

And the white Christian Iowans voted for him! Which means he's inevitable. Which is a good thing when it's Obama. Just so we're clear.

[glowing]

2. Using policy and platform as the only base.... I can't think of one reason

especially when Obama is stealing John's material.

[Little Star]

3. Hope, Faith & Change. Can't you read? n/t

[begin_within]

8. Edwards represents all 3 of those, to me

[man4allcats]

5. Re: "What makes Obama a better choice than Edwards?"

Nothing.

[begin_within]

12. As a matter of fact,

I donated $150 to Kucinich and $100 to Edwards this last week. But it's obvious that the commercial media are not going to let Kucinich in the door at all.

[Rosemary2205]

7. They are nearly neck and neck for me -- but I'm going Obama

I like them both for totally different reasons - but what made me decide was the fact Obama is just a little bit corporate. In my dream world this is a bad thing. But in the world I live in, IMHO it takes a player to get anything done in Washington.

Edwards certainly understands the game. And hates it enough to want to destroy it. I'd like to believe the other Dems in Washington will join him in that goal but the post 2006 lack of action by Democrats tells me this particular group won't. IMHO Edwards is the right man but this is not the right time.

I believe Obama will play ball just enough to get a few decent things done. I doubt he can get it all - who can? But enough to make a difference for the little people.

As I said in another post, I'd like to see us get an Obama/Edwards tickets and work on getting a change in Congresscritters so Edwards would have the backing he would need to make sweeping changes.

[aquart]

9. LOL!

So you like him for his triangulation?

[Rosemary2205]

13. I wouldn't exactly say "like".

It's more a matter of given what the next president will have to work with in Washinton, I think A LITTLE BIT of it is a necessary evil. Not my dream world though.

[begin_within]

10. Thanks - that's interesting

[dailykoff]

11. Mainly the war, but Obama also has a long list of legislative

accomplishments in Illinois and his positions have been consistently progressive. Not so Edwards.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. Obama will win.

I love John Edwards but he couldn't win in a state where he practically lived for the last 3 years. The most telling result was that Edwards lost among voters in union households. He got 23% of them while Obama and Clinton both got 30%. If you can't even win among the very voters you were courting the most, it doesn't look good for your chances.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

Scroll down to find union households.

[begin_within]

17. Why isn't he talking up unions more?

[kurth]

22. Unions are for low tech and old folks

We're in a new age now. All we need is HOPE.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Sorry, but facts are facts. Unions didn't go for Edwards. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. Obama?

If it's him you're talking about they must have assumed unions were going to go for Edwards or Clinton so he didn't campaign with them much. That should change because Iowa showed there is a clear opportunity for him there. Apparently some unions endorsed Clinton because she was the presumed frontrunner and are now reconsidering in light of the new developments.

[begin_within]

28. No, the other poster said Edwards did poorly among union households in Iowa

and I don't recall the word "union" being spoken even once at the debate last night.

[DemGa]

15. Yes, I'd like to know too

:popcorn:

[ginnyinWI]

16. I think Obama is a better campaigner

He's a better speaker and debater. He shows an ability to hear a criticism, pivot and return fire without missing a beat and without looking like a bad guy. I'm not saying anything in particular to criticize Edwards in this area, but I just see Obama as being more skilled. In a one-on-one with the Repub nominee, I'd expect him to demolish his opponent with both the facts and the moral high ground.

But there were a few times at last night's debate where I was disappointed to see Edwards fall back on his stump speech to answer questions. He could have used the time with more original statements but chose not to. Obama seemed to more naturally interact with all of the candidates than the other three did. He seemed relaxed and able to take criticism in stride, where Hillary and Richardson did not.

We need to have a candidate who can win the debates in the general, and I think Obama is the one who can.

[scarletwoman]

18. Because people like shiny objects that they can project their desires onto.

Substantive discussion of real problems are a bummer. Much more pleasant and easy to just go with the feel-good flow. "We're on a WAVE! Wheeeeee!" attracts alot more people than "We have a serious battle ahead of us with serious consequences."

We live in a culture where the superficial wins out over substance pretty much all the time.

sw

[cali]

23. how unsurprisingly condescending

I suggest you read my post in this thread about why I support him.

And the dismissal of Obama as superficial is simply lame. He's got plenty of substance. You may not like it, but it's readily apparent to all but the biased.

[scarletwoman]

35. Wow! Being called "condescending" by Cali! Won't that cause a rip in the space-time continuum?

I was referring to people in general -- you know, the people out there in the world outside of DU.

Can you honestly look around you in the U.S.A. and NOT notice that our culture is in love with superficiality over substance? How big an audience share does "Bill Moyers Journal" get compared to "Survivor"?

Conversely, can you honestly say that all those first-time late-teen and early-twenties caucus goers piling in to vote for Obama were there because they'd studied his record in the Illinois legislature?

No, they were there for the buzz. They were there for the feeling. It's not surprising, that's what actually DOES work. Works the same for all those young and clueless Ron Paulites, too. A chord is struck, it's not intellectual, it's a vibe.

Obama offers an attractive vibe, sort of like a pheromone. Edwards doesn't have that, unfortunately. Edwards is basically Jimmy Carter, up against "Morning in America" Reagan.

[Lorien]

30. True. When I hear his supporters praise him it's mostly for his style

his "electability", his "hip factor", and the fact that he runs a good campaign. What I don't hear are specifics about policy; what does he propose to do about climate change? The Iraq war? The deficit? Unemployment? Does he support single payer universal health care? How will he deal with our broken educational system? Social security? The Patriot act? Will he roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy? I'd like to hear specifics, not just dreamy sound bites about "hope and faith" (I'm short on both, frankly).

[robbedvoter]

19. More believable. Didn't sponsor a war and try to start another. Didn't hide the

2004 theft (my own vote included)- and now asking for another one as if nothing happened..Doesn't run against his own record.
Pretty much the same answer from the other identical thread in GD-politics.

[cali]

20. Obama has walked the walk, and not just talked it.

It's not just that he was against the war, or that he had a strong list of solid progressive accomplishments in the State Senate. It's not just his liberal/progressive voting record in the U.S. Senate. I really admire that upon graduating from Columbia he went to work in one of the most deprived and gritty neighborhoods in the country as a community organizer. And he spent almost 4 years doing that before law school. I admire his brains: He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and was the first black editor of the Law Review. Instead of going for big bucks upon graduation from Harvard, he returned to Chicago and practiced law for the disenfranchised. He taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

I like the down to earth quality I sense about him, and his clearly fantastic managerial/organizational skill. He's running a top notch campaign.

I like his ability to inspire and motivate. You can't be an effective president without having the American people backing you up. The changes that need to be made require the active participation of as many Americans as possible. He knows that.

Most of all, I like that he's a canny fighter. He doesn't broadcast that he's coming. He seems to have internalized Roosevelt's "talk softly..." maxim. When the Clinton came after him, he swiftly neutralized them. And he's done that with criticism from other sources as well.

I think he has judgment, intelligence, maturity, humor and a rare ability to reach out to people and get them to follow.

Hope this helps you understand why I'm supporting Barack Obama.

Oh yeah, I think he's absolutely electable.

[XemaSab]

27. Thank you

:)

[begin_within]

29. Good answer

[skipos]

21. I like them both equally but one difference

Obama has been much more consistent about the war and many other issues.
I like Edwards and will be delighted if he is our nominee, but Edwards 2008 doesn't have a lot in common with his senate record.
I really feel no need to argue this with anyone, because there is enough mud going on around here.

[sendero]

25. Nothing..

... at all.

[XemaSab]

26. Obama could have been a high powered lawyer making millions after law school

but he chose instead to be a community organizer doing voter registration in the poorest areas of Chicago. In his 3-year law career he represented voting rights cases and nonprofits. He then went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago until his election to the Illinois senate.

I think this shows a man who deeply, deeply cares about the poor, about justice, about the law, and about all the things the Bush administration has trashed in the last 7 years.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[begin_within]

34. Ok thanks

[frazzled]

33. Foreign policy expertise, ability to get lesgislation passed, style and tone, electability

Taking 'em one by one:

1. Foreign policy expertise. I thought last night's debate was a stark dramatization of how much more in command of foreign policy thinking Obama is than Edwards. (Also, if you look at their FP advisors there is no comparisons: Obama has the best in the field, and the most progressive; Edwards has a bunch of military guys you've never heard of). Edwards has put all his eggs in repeating one line: the corporations are screwing us. Although that is true, and I believe all the candidates will work to dampen the influence of corporations and to re-regulate them, Edwards seems unable to speak to anything else. He was especially embarrassing on the FP questions (a fact matched by his poor past judgment in this area), and didn't contribute anything to the discussion of carbon emissions, either.

2. Obama has a record of having gotten opposing parties to come together on surprisingly progressive legislation: in the Illinois Senate his ability to get the wildly opposed bill requiring the videotaping of prisoner's confessions is legendary. In the U.S. Senate, he got a pretty decent (meaning better than anything there has been since Watergate) ethics legislation passed. Edwards last night was asked about his legislative accomplishments: he pointed to the Patient's Bill of Rights, but that never was able to become law. I'm not saying that's all his fault, but clearly he could have led a stronger and more savvy fight to see it got past roadblocks in the House. That is all he could point to: one failed bill. It didn't get done.

3. The country seems to be screaming out for a new tone and style in Washington: they are sick of politics and sick of nothing getting done on the same issues for decades. But rather than saying we want a more aggressive tone, or saying we're dropping out, they are standing up and saying we will participate, in greater numbers than we've ever seen, and we will demand comity. It not only explains Obama's rise, but--oddly, and despite his whack conservative ideas--the rise of Huckabee. They're both outsiders, they both can speak unthreateningly and can bridge different viewpoints. Street-fightin' man tone is not going over.

4. Electability. I think the numbers of Independents breaking for both Democrats and Obama seems to speak for itself in this matter.