ALL this Obama-Edwards-Clinton fighting on DU over policy positions, and that's IT?!?

On Sunday, I posted a poll asking, "What weighs most heavily in deciding which candidate you support?" The overwhelming answer at 80% was "Policy Positions, Proposals, Plans on Issues."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3565296&mesg_id=3565296

On Monday, I posted a thread asking, "Clinton, Edwards, and Obama: What are the MAJOR differences in plan/proposal/position on issues?" I got ONE answer to that question (identifying mandatory vs. non-mandatory health insurance, and state vs. federal laws for civil unions -- both of which Congress would need to hammer out).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3568581&mesg_id=3568581

Now on Tuesday, my question is: ALL this Obama-Edwards-Clinton fighting on DU over policy positions, and that's IT?!?

I can guess what's next: something like, "It's not really about policy positions after all, because it's about trust and judgment to implement them and we can't trust Candidate X because of the terrible thing he/she did or said or voted for back when... (Fill in the blank) is obviously (choose several): corrupt, corporatist, opportunistic, dishonest, arrogant, conceited, inexperienced, vain, hypocritical; also laughs too much, blinks too much, gaffes too much, appeals to too few, blah blah blah..."

Maybe this is easy to say from the outside looking in (I'm neither wild about nor fiercely opposed to any of them), but I think there's some lack of perspective here. In the broader sense, there's little if any difference among the top three candidates and their proposals. All have served in the Senate, all have their strengths and weaknesses, none are perfect, and get this: none are the devil incarnate!! All have similar positions on healthcare, the environment, taxes, energy, diplomacy, civil rights, reproductive freedom, education, religion, and yes, the occupation in Iraq. They're all Democrats, and they'd all be competent presidents.

I just had to say that.

:toast:

and you said it very well. :)

Edwards does not take money from lobbyists. Clinton and Obama do.

Corporate America is largely responsible for some of the abusive legislation forced upon us during the Bush Administration, as well as other previous administrations.

Corporate America is responsible for the outsourcing of good American jobs, just so they can save a few bucks.

The banking and credit card industries have pushed through bankruptcy legislation that places additional burdens on Americans fighting to make ends meet, allows ridiculous fees to be charged, and allows all creditors to charge higher interest rates if you're late on just one payment.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We need to get corporate America out of the political process, and that won't happen as long as our candidates are indebted to them. All that money "given" during campaigns comes at a cost...to you and me.

Corporate America is worried about an Edwards Presidency, and that just makes him all the more attractive to me, because corporate America has done nothing for the American people lately, except give them grief.

A response to the op:
Look... I only have so much time. If you want to see what John Edwards plans and policies are please go to his website. Compare that with the other candidates' websites.

Doesn't the $233,000 from Fortress execs, relatives and employees count as corporate money? How about the use of Fred Baron's private plane for his campaign stops at way below the standard rates?

Was about to post the same. I am tired of this country being held hostage by the 'personhood' that is corporations while people are going without healthcare.

Hillary's plan to mandate that we all have to purchase health insurance just throws us further down that hole. It is no different than what Romney is proposing and the disaster that is his MA plan.

You know that Edward's plan has the same mandate. No matter who's offering it, the plan stinks. But if Hillary gets criticized, so does Edwards. What's good for the goose...

Waiting for the GE is TOO LATE! Then the corporatist party has won if the wrong choice is made in the Democratic primary!

but it has to be across the board in order for it to work. There also needs to be a cap on spending.

Planned parenthood lobbyists?
Environmental lobbyists?
Trial lawyer lobbyists?


Why not?

Did I miss something yesterday. Are there only 3 candidates running now? :sarcasm:

we pretend to give them the status of enacted laws already on the books. We pretend they are a done deal and the candidates hate to bust our bubble.

Proposal are just that, "proposals" that may or may not go anywhere in Congress.

That is the bottom line for me. Hillary will unite the Republicans to come out and vote, not only against her, but for down ticket Republicans. This is a real possibility, but hey, as Terry McAuliffe's insists, "It's Hillary's turn!"

It is about who the best candidadtat is for the fall to stack up against the GOP.

are trying to hammer out a) what is best for the country and b) how to achieve that good. My problem with Hillary is I think she is simply too cozy with corporate interests, and that her strategy for achieving her good intentions relies too much on those relationships. She is not the queen of darkness. She may well prove to be the one best able to manage the down and dirty necessary to get things done ... the best Executive. But my sense is she is too quick to sacrifice idealism in the name of pragmatism, and her policy stances reflect that in my opinion.

Edwards and Kucinich both, in my view, steer a better but more difficult course. One must wonder if either has the wherewithal to accomplish their worthy objectives. But in my view, both have a more clear vision of the difficulties facing the nation and have their priorities more correctly ordered than Clinton. I really like both of these guys. I don't have a lot of spare cash but have sent some to the Edwards campaign, but will probably throw Kucinich 50 bucks or so on the next pay check. Not sure either one of them can win but their presence in the primary race forces certain issues to the table which might otherwise be given only lip service, and that is worth some money to me.

Obama interests me, but has not closed the deal with me yet. He seems awful tentative on a great many matters. I think this largely a matter of not having had time to contemplate the entire range of issues a Presidential candidate must face. But this is a very bright and intellectually honest human being ... give him a minute.

That is the quick summary of where I am with respect to these candidates. I haven't made up my mind yet.

** On edit **

But I must add I will vote for no person who does not have a clear plan for getting us out of this stupid fucking war. Not one more cent, not one more bullet, not one more innocent bystander ("collateral damage") than is absolutely necessary to extract ourselves from this mess.

One has to agree with the policies promoted by the candidate - and trust that the candidate isn't just blowing sunshine up our asses.