The Blue State '08 endorsement nears

Yes, posts on this site have slowed a bit because I am literally working two other jobs at the moment that occupy about 50 hours of my time per week.  But as primary season heats up, we will escalate our coverage significantly.  This is the most important primary election in a generation because we are entertained with a fundamentally basic question: do we nominate someone from inside the Washington establishment, or do we look for a progressive voice from the outside who is capable of bringing about major change?

Clearly, on the inside we have people like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who are continuing to take money from lobbyists.  Barack Obama and John Edwards, however, do not.  The latter two rely on individual donors to fund their campaigns.  It's a bottom-up mentality, which means Edwards and Obama will not be indebted to the forces in Washington.  Instead, they will be indebted to all the small donors that contributed a few dollars here and there to a cause that is much worth the fight.

Unfortunately, to the benefit of Hillary Clinton, both Edwards and Obama cancel each other out.  The Blue State is preparing to endorse a candidate, and is stuck on which of the two to support.  We would like your input on which of these two we should support, and why?

Comments

[Matthias]

although I am a german, I decided to write down my oppinion. But, of course, I know it does not count as much as the one of an american citizen in this question.

This is my oppinion, not about the specific issues, but about the whole situation:

I would prefer Obama, because he brings a fresh wind of hope and a common sense. He could be the person to reunite the USA and he is the person who seems to be able to mobilize a younger generation to take part at politics.
I think a society can benefit if it handles to combine the experience of the older people and the energy and innovative mind of the younger ones. And at the moment there is, I think, to less innovative mind of younger people in the societies.

With Obama, I think, the USA has a big opportunity to fullfill this goal, a opportunity germany will perhaps never have with its politicial system.

[crshedd]

i am leaning heavily toward obama. his stand on most issues are close enough to mine for comfort.

i think the biggest assets he will bring to the table are two fold. one, being so young, he brings a freshness and hope to the office, much like jfk. two, being a minority, i think americans will again feel anything is possible, for our country and our people.

i miss that feeling.

[Arlen]

I think judgment matters. Edwards is right on the war and right on universal health care now, but in when it really counted in the past, he hasn't been right on either issue. When he was running for president he was against universal health care in 2004, and he voted for the war in 2003 and didn't renounce his vote until 2005. Edwards was afraid to attack Cheney in 2004 and now he's reinvented himself.

Obama was against the war the entire time, since before it began, and has had a consistent stance on universal health care and how he wants to get it done within his first four years in office. Edwards wasn't even able to carry his own state in 2004, whereas Obama is taking about redrawing the political map in ways most other Democratic candidates can't.

[Arlen]

By the way, I might add, Edwards (like Clinton) voted for the war in Iraq without even bothering to read the crucial document that justified it-- the 2002 NIE-- which Senator Bob Graham read and decided to vote against the war because of. It was only 90 pages and instead of reading it, he decided to trust Dick Cheney about its contents.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Wow, looks like a lot of us are pretty strongly in favor of Obama. He does have his upsides. I do worry about some major verbal gaffes if he became president. But he would probably be the BEST uniter we've had since Jack Kennedy...and that is what our country needs more than anything.

[Steve]

... what do you feel about Kucinich? I'm curious because you don't mention him being on the inside or the outside.

[george]

In order:

1. Obama: I trust him and his judgment. I actually believe in him.

2. Kucinich: why he gets caught up answering questions about UFOs, i have no idea. He's a smart, tough guy. He'd be an awesome President. His policy ideas are right up my alley.

3. Edwards: I love him in the debates but compared to Obama, he has no more experience and his original judgement on Iraq was wrong. I can't look past that. He may be a good man but he's just not smart enough.

4. Richardson: Should be the next secretary of state. He's no President though.

5. Dodd:

6. Biden: why does he bother? he's brings nothing unique. I have no use for his blabber.

7. Anyone else:

8. Clinton: I don't see anything in her experience that tells me she will succeed as President. Or even win the general election. She failed with her health care plan in the 1990s and she's never had to win a competitive election. Bottom line, if her name was not Clinton, she'd be no where. What does that tell you?