Obama for the Heart, Edwards for the Head?--UPDATED

One spoke to the heart. One spoke to the head. But both presidential candidates had the same mission: to prevent Senator Hillary Clinton from claiming the soul of their party.

On Tuesday, at the annual Take Back America conference--a three-day gathering in Washington, DC, of thousands of progressive activists--Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, each an aspirant for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, delivered back-to-back speeches that delineated the stark difference in their political courtship styles.

Obama went first. He started with his own story, talking about his days as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, when he was paid $12,000 a year by church groups to help establish job training and after-school programs in a neighborhood hit hard by a steel plant closing. He described his subsequent entry into local politics and decried a Washington dominated by special interests where "all you see...is another scandal, or a petty argument, or the persistent stubbornness of a President who refuses to end this war in Iraq." Blasting lobbyists for oil and pharmaceutical companies, he exclaimed, "They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we;re here to tell them it's not for sale."

That was a good applause line. The cynical ways of Washington, he said, are of no use to an Iowa couple he met who own a small business and cannot longer afford health care coverage. Pay-to-play politics in Washington, he pointed out, does not help the workers of Newton, Iowa, who lost their jobs when Maytag closed their plant and shipped their jobs overseas; nor does it do much for the still-homeless in New Orleans, the 45 million Americans without health insurance, and the 15 million American children living in poverty. "The time for the can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try style of politics is over," Obama proclaimed. "It's time to turn the page."

And to turn the page requires..hope. Obama, jokingly referring to himself as a "hope-monger," maintained that hope gets results, and he pointed to his accomplishments as a state senator in Illinois: passing legislation that tightened government ethics rules, that reformed the death penalty, and that expanded health care insurance for children. His big message: hope can cause transformation. Washington can be changed; the nation can be changed. He knows that because his own life marks a transformation in America. "On paper," he said, it is impossible that I am here--a U.S. senator running for president." It was obvious what he meant: a black U.S. senator running for president.

Obama touched the right policy points. He promised to sign into a law a universal health care plan by the end of his first term. He called for more money for education. He vowed to place a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions and raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. He voiced support for a minimum wage that is a living wage and for legislation that would help unions organize workers. He urged the shutdown of the Guantanamo detention facility. Noting that he had opposed the Iraq war from the start--"we knew back then that it was dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th; we knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences"--he highlighted his previous proposal to begin the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

But his appeal was not his policy shopping list. He was promoting himself foremost as an agent of change who can bring about "a new kind of politics." He offered the crowd "a simple truth, a truth I learned all those years ago as an organizer in Chicago...that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

And he connected. The crowd was jazzed by the combo of personal story, progressive policy proposals, and message of transformation. For an audience member looking to be inspired--to be wowed--Obama made it easy. I am your man, he proclaimed. He was convincing.

Moments after Obama was done, Edwards took to the stage. He said little about himself. But he opened by stating he had been wrong to vote to grant George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Congress, he insisted, must display strength and conviction and shut down Bush's war. (This was a slight dig at Obama and Clinton, who recently voted against Iraq war funding but who have not been vocal leaders in opposing funding for the war.) But his primary theme extended beyond the war. America, he said, is currently regarded with disdain throughout the world. Instead, it must become a global "force for good."

He went through the litany. The United States has failed the world in its weak response to the genocide of Darfur. The United States has failed the world by not doing enough to spur economic development in the poorer regions of the globe. (He hailed micro-lending programs.) The United States has failed the world by refusing to limit its carbon emissions. But imagine, he said, if the United States would change its energy policies and reduce its oil consumption. Oil prices would fall and Middle Eastern autocrats would have less money in their pockets. And imagine, he said, if the United States and Europe turned toward biofuels. Africa--a continent full of cheap land and cheap labor--could become a source of such energy supplies. "Millions of children," Edwards said, "would be lifted of poverty."

From global warming to biofuels to poverty in Africa. This was a bit Clintonian--as in Bill. Edwards was displaying his policy wonkishness, while offering himself as a man who knows what must be done to lead the United States in the post-Bush world.

Next, he turned to domestic matters. He referred to his antipoverty policy work of recent years. He called for a national housing policy that does not "cluster poor people together." He proposed a "College for Everyone" program that would provide students money for tuition and books if they worked ten hours a week. He promoted his own universal health care proposal, suggesting it was more universal than Obama's. "I will speak for the poor," he said. "I will speak for the uninsured. I will speak for the disenfranchised. This is my life." Paraphrasing Gandhi, he remarked, "You have to be the change you believe in." The audience applauded Edwards, but he had not rocked the house as much as Obama had.

Edwards, who became wealthy as a successful trial attorney, was arguing a case. Obama, the former organizer, had delivered a motivational speech. There was much overlap between the two presentations: America has to treat its less-fortunate citizens better; it must repair its relationship to the rest of the world; and all this depends on you. There were no apparent policy differences. (Only health care experts can argue how the health care plans of these two candidates vary.) Yet each speech was a different experience. Obama spoke as if he was addressing people looking for love. Edwards spoke as if he was before people about to make a hire. Either man, though, will have to win votes of both affection and confidence to best the woman in the lead.

UPDATE: To see how Hillary Clinton tried to out-populist Obama and Edwards at the Take Back America conference, see my report here.

*****

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (56)

1. Between the two of them, sure seems they are trying to outdo each other to see who can double or triple the size of the Non-Defense sectors of our wonderfully capable and efficient Federal Gov't! Not a peep on how to finance their respective visions! Why am I not surprised?

   Posted by Happy at 06/19/2007 @ 5:15pm

2. Obama is certainly more progressive than Edwards, but not in the same league as Kucinich!

   Like a lot of politicians, Obama knows the "pay to play" culture in Washington is out of control, but what does he plan to do about it? And how can he do much if he is courting the same monied interests as Hillary?

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2007 @ 5:36pm

3. The $$ comes from reversing the idiotic tax cuts that Bunnypants served up to the wealthy. Cut the insane trillion dollar military by about half as they can't win a war OR defend us from attacks. Cut big oil company welfare and charge them a windfall profit tax.

   Thank all that is good in the universe for the progressive thinkers and liberal doers.

   Tee Hee!

   Posted by CaptainKirk at 06/19/2007 @ 5:38pm

4. I thought it was interesting that Obama singled out big oil and pharma lobbies, but "omitted" defense lobbies and AIPAC.

   Someone put a bug in his ear that he can't win the presidency if he rebuffs the defense and AIPAC lobbies. This was probably good advice, but it is telling about the limits of how progressive Obama can actually be.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2007 @ 5:46pm

5. Sounds like a touching article on two govt hacks who have no chance at winning a bake sale muchless the Presidency. God help our nation if these two are put in charge of the govt.

   Hillary has a wider lead on both than before ...and this will continue. Edwards is pushed in the peoples faces by groups on the left and he can't win a southern state..and Obama, as great as a guy that he is, will never win the presidency with his lack of resume. Bitching about oil and drug companies may work in select parts of the blue states, but with thinking voters is becomes nothing more than a knowing smile.

   These two need to keep their day jobs..

   Posted by john maasch at 06/19/2007 @ 5:55pm

6. Posted by METTEYYA 06/19/2007 @ 5:36pm

   Just curious . . . how is Obama more progressive than Edwards? On what issues specifically? Not disagreeing outright here. Just seems that many seem to assume this, but I haven't seen the basis spelled out.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/19/2007 @ 6:02pm

7. Either of them offer any specifics on....

   How to pay for it?

   As in how money "rolling back the Bush tax cuts" gets you, and how much their new programs cost compared to it?

   Posted by Mask at 06/19/2007 @ 6:19pm

8. Send them all to the wood shed. If they're not smart enough to figure out that they've been scammed big time by big media, they're not smart enough to be president of anything.

   Three, three and a half years of endless polls, speeches, appearances, debates and who wins? Big media. Zillions of dollars in their coffers courtesy of warring candidates when voters, in the end, will cast their votes based on what they heard the night before the polls opened. Hell, there are just so many fires, kidnappings, celebrity jailings, traffic accidents...

   We're all being suckered big time.

   Posted by felicity at 06/19/2007 @ 6:25pm

9. Just curious . . . how is Obama more progressive than Edwards? On what issues specifically? Not disagreeing outright here. Just seems that many seem to assume this, but I haven't seen the basis spelled out.

   Well..where do we start? Let's see...there is the new 28,000 square foot mansion that Edwards is building that seems excessive even by Republican standards. Just curious, how many rooms would a 28,000 square foot mansion have? I didn't know he had such a big family! Excess, says a lot about what you really value, especially for a place you call home!

   I like Edward's pledge to not take money from lobbyist or pacs (this time around), but with a net worth of about $40 million, he may be able to afford this.

   His "very recent" anti-poverty work seems to be contrived, as if it were part of the "presidential plan" rather than a heart-felt desire to help the poor.

   His biofuels retort in his "green statement" seems to show a favoritism toward large agribusiness, although without the specifics it is hard to say for sure. I do know that advanced solar technology is probably more effective at generating power, but this technology is being spawned by small entrepreneurial firms, not big business.

   Also, in general, through my experience in law school (I am not a lawyer) and with lots of "trial" lawyers, I have come to distrust slick, smooth, presenters. It's like another case you're trying to win rather than something real. So it really is difficult to know whether we are just getting another slick, prepared closing argument designed to persuade others, or is this where Edwards really stands.

   Obama, other other hand, who spent a good portion of his childhood in dirt poor Indonesia, and who is black growing up in America, probably is more grounded in the ideals that make one a true progressive because he has had to fight for these issues his "entire" life, not just when he thinks he wants to run for president.

   Nothing cast in stone, but those are some of my thoughts.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2007 @ 6:58pm

10. "who spent a good portion of his childhood in dirt poor Indonesia, and who is black growing up in America, .."

    I don't think this will sell...

    Posted by john maasch at 06/19/2007 @ 7:20pm

11. What a spectacle, Barry Oh! and John Boy fighting over who's more progressive.......we can't make this stuff up!

    How 'Bout this, Barry OH! for the heart, John Boy for the hair, uh, head, and Bloomie for our wallets (heh,heh)

    Posted by davebarlett at 06/19/2007 @ 7:57pm

12. Left out of course is the unannounced candidate that's in 2nd - 3rd place, depending on the poll and moving up every week.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2007 @ 7:58pm

13. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/19/2007 @ 7:58pm

    Manbearpig? [en.wikipedia.org]

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2007 @ 8:06pm

14. Aren't those the guys that made fun of US terrorist fighters too?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2007 @ 8:13pm

15. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/19/2007 @ 8:13pm

    Let's see....Obama for the heart....Edwards for the head....Hillary for the back-pocket....

    what parts does that leave for Al?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2007 @ 9:09pm

16. You folks are going to upset Frankgrits with all of this attention on Edwards and Obama.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/19/2007 @ 9:59pm

17. And Mike for the pocket? Well, herad of Mike Bloomberg leaving GOP to run at independent in 08? Smart guy, no doubt about it. People say he could spend up to several billions of his own money to lock up the WH. Awful Mike. Where are the Nation's reporters? Jump on him.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 06/19/2007 @ 10:03pm

18. Al is the lower lumbar? Kundalini? Higher-conscienceness? Over-soul? Oh I see, he's the winner of the dem primary and general election and thus the face of the nation!

    Oops sorry Mask...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2007 @ 10:08pm

19. Al is the lower lumbar?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/19/2007 @ 10:08pm

    Close, bit lower....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2007 @ 10:35pm

20. Masky, I think you have that one covered.

    Ooops.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2007 @ 11:48pm

21. DAVID: "On paper," he said, it is impossible that I am here--a U.S. senator running for president." It was obvious what he meant: a black U.S. senator running for president.

    On second reading, I think the Magic Man has flawed thinking! Else, he doesn't know our Constitution or is already delusional thinking he IS the POTUS!

    "On paper", it is and has been (Jesse Jackson) totally possible for a black to run for the WH. And up to and until a black man/woman is actually voted into the WH, one could plausibly say that it is only "On paper" that a black can become the POTUS.....uh, I believe "All men are created equal" was written "On paper"...or was it on a CD?

    Posted by Happy at 06/20/2007 @ 12:28am

22. "Only health care experts can argue how the health care plans of these two candidates vary." There are no health care 'experts'. A progressive paper wouldn't concede such an absurdity.

    Posted by zebra1 at 06/20/2007 @ 06:42am

23. Well, herad of Mike Bloomberg leaving GOP to run at independent in 08?

    premature, to say the least.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2007 @ 10:34am

24. Neither.

    Posted by delbs at 06/20/2007 @ 10:55am

25. Posted by HAPPY 06/19/2007 @ 5:15pm

    Hmmm...Operation Desert Debacle costs us like $1000/second. Wonder what else we might do with such a cash flow aside from pissing it into the desert winds....?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2007 @ 12:10pm

26. Posted by METTEYYA 06/19/2007 @ 6:58pm

    OK - so "certainly more progressive" to you is based on the following: (1) Edwards has a big house; (2) he is a lawyer and "slick" presenter (even though Obama is a lwayer too and a good presenter); (3) he has more money; and (4) his anti-poverty work seems contrived; (5) he is white; and (6) he did not grow up as poor as Obama.

    Sorry, but I kind of thought you might draw this conclusion based on the actual policy positions of the candidates (apart from a slight mention of Edwards' environmental policies), rather than gut feelings.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 1:18pm

27. Posted by HMAN23 06/20/2007 @ 1:18pm

    HMAN, something you need to know about METTETTYA--

    BLOG | Posted 06/05/2007 @ 4:25pm Comments for "Opposing Occupation" by Peter Rothberg

    Israel's position is simply ridiculous, and it is truly amazing that the mainstream press continues to pretend that Israel is justified in its actions. I'm not a big Farrahkan fan, but his statement about the Jews controlling the mainstream press appears to be accurate.

    When the funniest guy in America, Arsenio Hall, can no longer get a job after inviting Farrahkan on as a guest on his talk show, then we know Jewish power over the media is way out of control.

    Posted by METTEYYA 06/06/2007 @ 2:38pm

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2007 @ 1:43pm

28. Anyone read Obama's essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs? I gave up after a few paragraphs, it was so contrary to my philosophy. No way will I vote for him. It will be interesting to read Edwards' essay when it comes out.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2007 @ 2:18pm

29. Oh, and did I mention that Republicans are a bunch of warmongering, deficit spending, civil liberties crushing, evil shitbird fuckwads??? No way could I ever voter for the Re-pube-lickers. I will at least consider Bloomberg now that he has exited the party of greedy evil assholes.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2007 @ 2:20pm

30. Posted by MASK 06/20/2007 @ 1:43pm

    ooooooooookay then . . .

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 2:55pm

31. Come on, ILP, tell us how you really feel...

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2007 @ 4:25pm

32. I wish that these two men would get together and decide which one of them is going to run for the big office and which one will be VP. I think that at the very least they'd be better than the current occupant of the White House (which isn't really hard)and would be better than the woman they're running against at the most.

    When I say that I can't see myself voting for Hillary, I'm totally serious. I must get into one argument a day about that.

    Posted by edwriter at 06/20/2007 @ 4:39pm

33. Sorry, but I kind of thought you might draw this conclusion based on the actual policy positions of the candidates (apart from a slight mention of Edwards' environmental policies), rather than gut feelings.

    The problem with "policy positions" at this stage of the game, is Edwards has DLC "centrist" roots, and knows he has to run to the left to get the nomination and back to the center after getting the nomination.

    Obama has "never" been a DLC centrist!

    This should give you a clue to who is a sheep in wolves clothes and who is really the sheep.

    I know you don't like the point about the 28,000 square foot house, but you really should consider what sort of values one would have to have to engage in such excess.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 5:40pm

34. Posted by METTEYYA 06/20/2007 @ 5:40pm

    So, policy positions are irrelevant. You basically trust Obama more than Edwards.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 5:54pm

35. I meant "This should give you a clue to who is a wolf in sheep's clothes and who is really the sheep".

    Sorry - typing way too fast!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 5:58pm

36. "Policy postitions", at this stage of the game, are "calculated" as part of a winning strategy, especially if you have a background like Edwards, who has basically done this his entire career.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 6:00pm

37. After consulting with the jury consultant, Edwards develops a strategy to win the jury over based on their profile.

    Talk to any successful trial lawyer and they will tell you the same thing - the strategy always changes based on what you need to say to win.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 6:03pm

38. Tell me, HMAN23, what sort of values do you think one would have to have to build a 28,000 square foot house for a family of 4? And how do you square this with progressive calls for lessoning the gap between rich and poor and creating a more equitable society?

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 6:11pm

39. Posted by MASK 06/20/2007 @ 1:43pm

    Stupid question for Mask; How many gigabytes of saved commentary do you have on your hard drive?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/20/2007 @ 6:32pm

40. America has moved a big step down from the great country it used to be, thanks to the Bush administration. Bush has forgotten about diplomacy, foreign aid and humanitarian causes that benefit all involved. To restore those values should be a top priority for our presidential candidates. Imagine what the $340 billion spent in Iraq could've done for the world in terms of poverty reduction. The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually ends starvation and $23 billion annually reverses the spread of Malaria and AIDS. America definitely needs to be taken back to how it used be when it came to important issues.

    Posted by ellec at 06/20/2007 @ 6:54pm

41. Metteya -

    Almost ALL canidates are calculating in the way you describe Edwards. Including, sorry to say, Obama. You have a grudge against trial lawyers (and people with very big houses) - that much is clear. Beyond that, I am not sure you have made your case.

    I could really care less how big Edwards wants his "home" to be. From what I have read, this square footage of his "house" includes things like a guest house, basketball court, and sure, some other luxuries. John Kerry has about a half dozen houses; Bush too. Big deal. If you want to point out something in Edwards' Senate voting record that cuts against the rich/poor gap issues, I am all ears. Or if you want to point to something Obama has done in this regard, I could be persuaded. Sure, Edwards is talking a big game now when it comes to these issues, and maybe he will not deliver on all or even many of them, but you cannot tell me that the same risk is not there for Obama either.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 7:30pm

42. John Kerry has about a half dozen houses; Bush too. Big deal.

    This IS a big deal because Edwards is trying to persuade us that he is a "progressive" and NOT like Bush or a Heinz heir! Emulating the Bushs is exactly the wrong thing to do if you are trying to sell us on your progressive values.

    If you can't lead by example, then you can't lead at all!

    We don't want to hear speeches, we don't want photo ops with poor kids, we want a "real" leader who has embodied progressive values in every aspect of his or her life, and Edwards has not done this.

    Edwards is simply following the advice of his advisors to spin his background the best way he can to "appear" to be progressive to get the nomination, and then move "with light speed" back to the center where he has the best chance of winning a general election, and, quite frankly, where he is most comfortable (in the center).

    Trying to fool progressives is a very dangerous game, because most of us are very well educated and savvy in politics; which is nothing like the the evangelicals on the right who can be fooled with promises of prayer in school, bans on gay marriage, and promises to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    If you can't be who you really are, then most of us will see through you, despite your legal training, trial experience and "calculated" positions!

    Do you really understand why Edwards flirted with the centrist DLC? Once you understand this, then you will understand the game Edwards is playing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2007 @ 8:49pm

43. Posted by METTEYYA 06/20/2007 @ 8:49pm

    So, why do you trust Obama so much to not play to middle if he gets the nomination? Look, I am not huge Edwards supporter, nor opposed to Obama. But, they are all opportunists to a great extent. Just not sure why you are so sold on Obama, yet assume Edwards is playing games. And you have still failed to put forth any policy positions on Obama vs. Edwards.

    Iguess we will see how savvy progressives are if Obama gets the nomination, and maybe Obama truly is the best candidate, but I would not bet on Obama making the different "calculations" than any other candidate.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 9:03pm

44. Sorry, should read:

    I would not bet against Obama making the same "calculations" as any other candidate.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 9:04pm

45. So, in sum, Metteya, you may be right on Edwards, but I fail to see how Obama is any different.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2007 @ 9:05pm

46. I would like to see the the capacity of all presidential candidates of supporting international affairs. Problems like global poverty are affecting each and every one of us on a daily basis. The U.S. should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (an international pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty

    Posted by aileench at 06/20/2007 @ 10:08pm

47. Iguess we will see how savvy progressives are if Obama gets the nomination, and maybe Obama truly is the best candidate, but I would not bet on Obama making the different "calculations" than any other candidate.

    Obama is NOT going to get the nomination, Hillary is! Hillary has the organzation and the "right" money all locked up, and she learned from Bill that this is what it takes to win the nomination.

    Obama is NOT the best progressive candidate, Kucinich is. But Kucinich has no chance of winning the nomination, much less a general election for president of the United States.

    Edwards is neither the best progressive candidate nor the best financed or organized. This is why he will lose, but he may have enough staying power through the Super Primary on February 5th and then drop out.

    Hillary, absent a major blunder, will also win the general election. No Republican has any chance of beating her, especially the leading candidates, Giuliani, Romney, McCain and now Thompson.

    Giuliani has no credible experience to be president (Mayor of New York and a US Attorney do not prepare one to be president). Romney is much worse than Edwards and will "say" anything and flip-flop any position to get elected. McCain backed the war and the surge, which will prove to be a collosal failure in the voters' mind. And Thompson just can't be taken seriously as a Senator-turned-actor who "promises" to pardon his friend Libby who lied about WMD in Iraq and lied to a Grand Jury to cover for Cheney.

    Newt may make a run, but I think it is too late in the game for him to gain much traction and there is no way he can raise enough money if he enters after Labor Day as planned.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/21/2007 @ 12:53am

48. Barack likes to talk loosely about getting out of Iraq, but here's a direct quote from BarackObama.com, 'Plan to End the Iraq War':

    "The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."

    That is not a plan to end the war; that is a plan to continue the war forever. Barack has lost my vote.

    Posted by WRoss at 06/21/2007 @ 09:01am

49. Thanks for the brief synopses/analyses of their speeches, Mr. Corn. And it is upsetting to read that Obama is first, writing in the notoriously imperialist "Foreign Affairs," and second, arguing for a continuing US military presence after we "withdraw." What part of NOT getting embroiled in "foreign entanglements" do especially progressives not understand!?!

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/21/2007 @ 10:34am

50. Does reality matter to democrats at all?

    Fact: Exxon, Chevron and Conoco's 2006 income taxes of $52 billion were 43% of their pre-tax income and they financed 1.5% of the total federal budget. The domestic drilling incentives encourage reduction in foreign oil dependence and are less than a rounding error in their total taxes. Total income taxes paid by the US domestic oil industry in 2006 more than paid for the Iraq war effort in 2006.

    Fact: Exxon made $36.5 billion in net income in 2006 and paid $100 billion in total taxes. That means that governments got 73% of the Exxon pie in 2006. Increasing taxes will only reduce funds for development of the energy sources America will need for the at least 40 years it will take to eliminate America's foreign oil dependence.

    Fact: In 2004 after the Bush tax cuts were in effect, the top 25% of wage earners in the USA paid 85% of the total personal income taxes. The bottom 50% only paid 3.3% of the total income tax burden. The middle 50% paid less than 15% of total personal income taxes.

    It is a complete demagogic fantasy that you can massively increase the income tax burden on the top 25% from their current levels to finance universal health care, to balance the budget, to give tax cuts to the middle class, to pay off teacher's unions, to subsidize ethanol, to finance carbon tax credits for the bottom 75% of wage earners, to eliminate the emerging social security/medicare budget crisis, and to finance every other hand out in dead end investment the democrats can dream up. Investments by the top 25% drive the economic growth engine that drives the American way of life. Exhausting those capital investment funds on government giveaways will ultimately reduce jobs, income and taxes while destroying every American's dream of wealth and prosperity

    The list of shameless democrat demagoguery goes on and on, so if facts matter, visit the link below for the full picture.

    http://www.politicalrealityonline.com/Hillaryworld.html

    Posted by Reality101 at 06/21/2007 @ 11:21am

51. When I say that I can't see myself voting for Hillary, I'm totally serious. I must get into one argument a day about that.

    Posted by EDWRITER 06/20/2007 @ 4:39pm

    Unlike yourself I can vote for Hillary, or Obama, but prefer Al Gore. When he enters the race I'll look forward to reinvigorated debates.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2007 @ 11:27am

52. Hey Reality-- get real, it wasn't the dems that were using the oil industry to score political points last year. And BTW are you part of a grass roots campaign fianced by the oil industry?

    Lastly, it's been reported that several millios of gallons of crade continuously end up missing in Iraq-- Considerring the oil industry says crude accounts for 50+% of their costs for producing gasoline, free (secretly negotiated with cHeney) crude for some of the oil industry and that 10% profit changes to some 60+% awfully quick. If so wonder how they're hiding it? Camen Islands?:

    Senate panel seeks oil firms' tax records

    The Senate Finance Committee says it is investigating the tax returns of the major oil companies and has asked the Internal Revenue Service for their records, the Associated Press is reporting.

    Saying the panel is concerned about high profits and executive compensation, chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" on the oil giants' record profits last year.

    Finding itself about as popular as ants at a picnic, the industry is doing what big business does when its image is under attack: launch a multi-million-dollar public-relations counter-attack, which is exactly what the oil industry is about to do, according to The Hill. "The American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry's main trade group, plans a yearlong grassroots lobbying push that could cost in excess of $30 million to explain how the industry works and what has caused pump prices to jump," writes Jim Snyder. "The campaign would follow a national advertising effort that has cost around $25 million so far. ..."

    Senate Committee demands oil companies' tax records

    By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee Wednesday announced an investigation into taxes paid by major oil companies and asked the Internal Revenue Service for the companies' tax returns.

    The Senate Finance Committee promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" by the oil companies on their record profits last year.

    Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said the panel was concerned about high profits and executive compensation at oil companies.

    "I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley in a statement.

    With gasoline prices soaring and oil companies announcing record profits, "it's relevant to know what the real financial picture is for this industry," Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said.

    It's highly unusual for the Senate committee to seek corporate tax records. The last time it was done was when the panel asked the IRS for the tax records of Enron Corp.

    The committee announcement came as Congress showed increasing concern amid political fallout over high gasoline prices and oil industry profits. Lawmakers began moving on various fronts to eliminate loopholes and some tax provisions that save oil companies billions of dollars.

    In a letter to the IRS, Grassley and Baucus said the tax records of the major oil companies are needed to conduct "a comprehensive review" of the companies' compliance with tax laws.

    "As pressure mounts to address extraordinarily high gas prices that consumers are facing at the pump, we feel we should better understand the federal tax posture of the industry," the two senators wrote IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.

    Posted by Michael Winter at 06:28 PM/ET, April 26, 2006 in Money, Nation, Washington | Permalink

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/04/senate_panel_se.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2007 @ 12:26pm

53. er, not crade-- crude, cayman islands...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2007 @ 12:29pm

54. Posted by MALCONTENT 06/20/2007 @ 6:32pm

    Just enough. My favorite is this (and reason why PLUNGER is so absent lately....note the date)....

    BLOG | Posted 03/28/2007 @ 02:14am MoveOn Launches Online Townhalls by Ari Melber

    "Time is up. World War III starts Friday – and it will coincide with conditions inside the US that lead to Martial Law, through either an Anthrax attack or a phony Bird Flu Outbreak. They are doing this to SAVE THEIR OWN HIDES from the imminent disclosure of their own criminality, including their direct role in 9/11 to serve as the pretext for everything that has resulted.

    Posted by PLUNGER 03/28/2007 @ 7:46pm

    Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 12:34pm

55. Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/20/2007 @ 11:36pm

    As opposed to the far right who pour dead soldier parts on people and beat others to death with Bibles?

    So whats a little feces between friends, eh? Scatalogically speaking tht is!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2007 @ 3:25pm

56. All candidates have their flaws and strengths. I would like to see all the candidates address the United States' commitment to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.

    Posted by Jessica09 at 06/21/2007 @ 8:47pm