Are TN’eans/All Progressives Falling for the Symbolic Vote, or Do They Want a Real Leader?

 So, the democratic candidates are coming to Tennessee. And someone decided it was time to commission a poll on presidential voting in TN. But, as GoldenI notes:

On the Democratic side, I wish they’d do this again after South Carolina. The poll says what we already knew–Hillary’s winning, but there are a large number of undecided voters.

Except, when we look at the delegates awarded, Hillary doesn’t have the lead the media outlets would lead you to believe. Let me clarify, Hillary doesn’t have the lead in delegates when we discount the Michigan and eventually the Florida delegates, which she is now fighting to get seated. There are two very important issues involved in this. First, Hillary was the only democrat listed in the MI primaries — she ran against “uncommitted,” and I’d wager her awarded delegates would go down significantly had all the dem candidates been included on the ballot. Second, Michigan and Florida forwarded their primaries against Dem rules and are being stricter than the GOP, by saying that no delegates should be seated, as opposed to seating half of those delegates by the GOP. And finally, the media has been pushing Hillary, as powers-that-be (media owners) really want a Clinton/McCain match-up this fall.

What we do find in this poll, as with many other polls, is the large amount of undecideds. So let me take this opportunity to tell you why dems around the country, and TN dems in particular, should ignore the media-driven desire for a Hillary win, ignore the race/gender controversy and vote on the candidate that is most focused on the American people — that’s you and me — John Edwards.

Looking at the SC dem debate, we find that both Hillary and Obama were playing the “fast-and-loose-with-facts” game, in other words, they lied. Granted, factcheck.org says Edwards was missleading on a poll result — but the fact is he didn’t LIE.

And, just as recently, Hillary and Barack, who supposedly support not giving the telecoms retroactive immunity, could not find the time to tear themselves away from the campaign trail to PROTECT YOUR civil rights. That, I find particularly negligible in a potential president of the US that also is currently part of the US Senate.

When we speak of Barack and Hillary’s voting record in Senate, most people speak about the war votes, or the votes that they share. The Guardian shows us the other side, the differences in their votes. (via)

The US political establishment has spent considerable energy focusing on the policy similarities between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The choice of a Democratic nominee is often depicted as stylistic – between pragmatic expertise and a vision for change – rather than substantive.

That portrayal nicely underscores Democratic unity on pivotal issues during a presidential season that finds Republicans adrift. But it’s not entirely true.

During Clinton and Obama’s shared service in the Senate, they have disagreed on multiple votes that may not have made headlines at the time but do shed light on how they would approach the presidency. In fact, the two self-styled progressive senators often diverged on policies that are particularly important to Democratic liberals.

As this article goes on, reminding us which of them sided with liberals on various issues, what is striking is that neither of them should be appealing to true-blue liberals. Sometimes Clinton takes the liberal stance and sometimes not. Sometimes Obama takes the liberal stance and sometimes not. And these are on issues like energy, ethics, gun-control, and defense spending. It is very much worth the read, and personally, when I finished, it solidified my growing support of Edwards.
as Super Tuesday comes close, and assuming you haven’t already voted early, it’s would behoove TN’eans and all potential voters to take a closer look at the differences.

Now, as a woman living in a uterus-idolizing state, I am sick and tired of the wishy-washy statements of “abortions should be legal, available and rare.” It’s the rare that gets me. As Hillary continues to utter this wishy-washy notion, John Edwards, issued this statement on Roe v. Wade anniversary, that would make all pro-choice advocates proud to support.

I strongly support a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive choices. That right has been under attack though — by President Bush and his anti-choice agenda and by the Supreme Court, which has been moving the right-wing’s agenda faster than we’ve seen in decades. The hard right turn of the Supreme Court is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with a woman’s right to choose

Hillary’s opinion is the same as most people’s — legal, available and rare. Let’s face it, it is that idea of “rare” that has placed significant hurdles for women that want an abortion (regardless of why), and that I believe is wrong. (I highlighted Frances Kissling on that here)

Now that Hillary has come out and said that she’d turn to Bill, in times of crisis, I am even more afraid for this country. Hell, others aren’t too happy either. Many progressives do not want a Hill/Bill redux.

Time to face an inconvenient truth: Bill Clinton is running for a third term.

as this relates to the undecided voters, I’d guess that many of those votes will go to the repugs.

As much as I don’t want to see another Hill/Bill term, I also don’t trust Obama. I honestly have nothing substantial to base my opinion, other than the experience of a friend during his senatorial campaign, and as I read through his platform, I feel he leaves the people short changed, particularly when you take into consideration the work he did prior to his government service, ie civil rights, employment discrimination.

When I look at Barack’s platform next to John’s platform, John Edwards takes the bigger step.

 Because these groups are disproportionately poor, the quickest way to make a real difference for them is to reduce class inequality. And only Edwards is making class inequality a central part of his platform. So, ironically, the best choice for blacks and women may be the white guy.

Barack is right, we need change, but he isn’t really offering big steps towards change. I am sick and tired of baby steps, which all too often get derailed by the obstructionism of the GOP. In Washington today, you have to take a giant step to achieve a baby step and neither Hillary or Barack seem to want to try taking giant steps, and that, in a nutshell, is to the detriment of the majority of people suffering from stagnant wages, no health care, massive job cuts (Ford most recently), and companies that have left the US for cheaper pastures.

I realize that the media has far more pull than I, but I have to be very upfront here. The current state of our union does not afford voters the luxury for a symbolic vote. Voters should be considering the state our country is in, and which candidate has the most progressive platform to lead us out of the dire straights the previous administrations have placed us. And if you look at all that, the conclusion I believe you should be making is that Edwards is the best choice.

I’m sorry that this turned into a long, rambling post, but I needed to try to state my opinions.