My point: What is the line where we agree to disagree? What do we use as our test for voting? If I stick by all my haughty standards, neither of these two get my vote.

Another nice post Karol. I used to support Edwards, would liked to have supported Kuchinich, and have now come around to Obama for one huge reason and to quote the idiot bush: Obama is "making the pie higher." He is bringing out new voters....the young, the disenfranchised and even Republicans. He will have the long coat tails we need across the country to not only win the presidency, but run the whole table. Bigger majorities of Better Democrats in both the house and senate.

Your friends may think there really isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues. One can pick and peck at healthcare or whatever, but the fact is the better Congress is what will get us better legislation in every area. Either one of them would have to compromise and work with congress, so I really don't care too much about whether Clinton's plan mandates people to pay for it or Obama doesn't.

So to me, it ain't the meat, it's the motion.

There is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE (sorry to shout) between them on how they have set up their past and present campaigns, and how they view people who are members of the Democratic Party.

The Clintons have a long history of putting their own ambitions and tactics ahead of party-building. Clinton may have won re-election in 96 (I voted Nader that year I was so disgusted with NAFTA, his welfare policies, etc.), but the party lost Congress. We've been trying to claw our way back ever since. Terry McAullife prefered to take money from corporations and scoffed at party-building on the local level. He and Bill started the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which has distain for populism and promotes corporatism. The DLC is a completely separate org from the DNC, and yet they have sought to confuse people, even to the extent that the IRS took away their 501c3 status. Senator Clinton remains on their leadership team. Look into them....they are NOT for the PEOPLE of America. They prefer to sidle up to the corporations that are ripping off our country in this illegal occupation of a country that did nothing to us.

Obama long ago disavowed any relationship with the DLC. They tried to recruit him and he said forget it.

Because of her devotion to corporations, the DLC and triangulation, Senator Clinton's campaign is filled top to bottom with those people. Look at how just today Mark Penn got his hand caught in the cookie jar on some trade scam he was cooking up. And no, I don't feel sorry for the Senator. She is the leader of her campaign and she chose these people. They don't have, nor care to have a 50 state strategy. They mock Howard Dean who has been great for our party. Their methodology and tactics suck. And they don't "come from" where I do (in my case rural mill town Oregon). The Goldwater Girl can't relate to me in any way, shape or form.

So mostly I support Obama because of his ability to inspire new voters. We matter more than the corporations.

Finally, there is one specific issue where there is a vast difference between the two: illegal, immoral, unnecessary wars. Her recent vote to hand bush another loaded gun re: Iran was vile.

If your friends are/were always (like me) against the illegal invasion of Iraq, I ask them to watch this video of Senator Clinton meeting with Code Pink before the invasion. I/we.....we were all Code Pink. She dissed each and every one of us and has yet to apologize. As a woman, I would expect her to be a person of peace, not war. Look at how she treats these fabulous female PATRIOTS! They were proven f'ing right. Listen to the woman explain how we'll be tied down into urban warfare, a quagmire, and how much money will be wasted that could give us better health care and education. Look at the utter contempt that Hillary has for them. She has contempt for me, and I for her. Look at this video and you'll see she hasn't changed one bit. She would send my boys to war.

No to Senator Clinton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

What would you say to joining me in voting for Edwards, in a anti-corporate protest vote?

Disclaimer: not trying or wanting to spoil the election results, and I'm more than willing to support whoever wins between Hill and 'Rack against McCain.

But they're not liberals, and the DNC needs to know that Oregon won't stand for having moderates shoved down our throats when a perfectly decent liberal candidate was out there -- Edwards.

You bet Jeff. I was describing a different part of the process....building the party for a permanent majority....but you are right. There is also the process of passing legislation and actually accomplishing something.

So do you place your bets with one who is backed by party insider, Schumer? The guy who kissed the butt of Mulkasey, who is now shaming us on a daily basis with his trashing of The Constitution?

Perhaps. If Senator Clinton is the nominee (possible only if she gives Obama the Tonya treatment), then sure. Place your bets with Merkley, Schumer's pal. Most likely he'll get more done under that circumstance.

But that isn't going to happen. No way will the superdelegates go against the will of the people this time. SCOTUS stole 2000, Ohio was iffy in 2004. It won't stand.

So I place my bet with Novick, the fighter.

I find it remarkable that anyone could even contemplate "agree to disagree" as unacceptable.

I always discuss politics in general and voting choices in particular with my spouse. We do not always agree. And the problem with that is supposed to be what exactly?

I was on the fence between Clinton and Obama until the beginning of February, but leaning towards Clinton. After a couple of long talks with my spouse, I decided to support Obama.

I have perfectly cordial relationships with people who are Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and (gasp!) Republicans. I've also had a falling-out with someone who was harshly critical of Obama and claimed that Hillary Clinton was much truer to Democratic ideals, but then took great offense when I offered some criticisms of Clinton in turn. I wish we could somehow agree to disagree, somehow rewind the clock.

Rokwan With all due respect as a former Edwards supporter.... no, John Edwards is not a hard core liberal. In the olden days I would have labelled him a moderate. He also voted yes on Iraq and the gaii makes him squirm. And there are plenty of other icky/non-liberal votes he cast.

But at least he is a populist....mill town kid. He's sincere and I can relate to him.

But he ain't no liberal.

It's disappointing to see Novick support the death penalty, but it polls really well with Americans, as opposed to humans in general. Is it our "pioneer" history? Our sensationalistic news? Our stubborn strain of Puritanism?

And Merkley opposes licenses for undocumented drivers. Talk about attacking a problem at the wrong point! But again, it's a politically popular position. Americans strike out against illegal immigration in blind fashion, ignoring the dynamic that keeps it flowing: the employer-governmental complex.

So it goes.

Regarding licenses for undocumented aliens:

The actual issue IMHO has to do with the wacky way that drivers' licenses are used as de facto ID. If we had actual ID, there would be no argument about drivers' licenses. Before squawking from so-called civil libertarians, please note that there are many democratic countries that DO have national ID cards.

So, whether or not Merkley and Novick are talking about this "issue" is a non-issue for me, because the debate is improperly framed to begin with.

I'd rather have a candidate with whom I agree on 75% of the issues get 50% of my priorities accomplished than have a candidate who agrees with me 90% who can't get anything accomplished.

On the other hand, you could have more regrets with the "achiever" if he or she gets something done that would be a disaster. For example, Schumer on the Iraq war, Mukasey and helping pass bills for the banks and other corporations on Wall Street that he represents. Candidates supported by Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement didn't get anything accomplished during their first terms in office, but they paid off later.

I was leaning Novick, but his stand on the death penalty has probably pushed me to the sidelines on this race unless and until I hear certain community groups that I watch and respect make pick him. Merkley just has far too many positions that aren't Democratic.

Hillary is another matter. For those of us who grew up in the South in the 60s, what she, Ferraro, and the rest of her campaign did was unmistakeable. She is playing on racial animus latent in a lot of privileged whites and not-so privilege people of all types. What's more, she has also played to un-American supporters of the current adminstration's, AIPAC-friendly racial animus in the MIdeast.

No one who says they believe in Democratic values of social justice and equality can vote for Clinton and not be a liar after what she and her supporters have done and continue to do (e.g. Air America radio's suspension of Randi Rhodes, whore Ferraro's appearances on Fox, Hillary's suckup to Fox and Scaife, etc) without apology. I don't think Obama will really be that good of a president, and I don't believe he'll end the war before there is much more irreperable damage or bloodshed either. After all, it is well publicized that Lieberman was his political mentor and apparently continues to be. But at least he represents the repudiation of some very ugly aspects of our country.

please note that there are many democratic countries that DO have national ID cards.

Yea, but none of them have the specific Bill of Rights and guarantee of privacy that we do (at least in theory until the fascists got in power). And they all have universal health insurance, most of them public insurance or public health care systems.

When Democrats in the pocket of insurance companies like Wyden and now Merkley and Republicans hand me a national public health insurance ID card, I'll have the only national ID card I'll accept.

I have been defending capital cases as a lawyer in Oregon since it passed in 1984. Oregon's aggravated murder statute makes most murders capital, it doesn't just involve the nastiest of the nasty. I think capital punishment doesn't work to accomplish anything positive, and is immoral. I could go on, but that's not my point.

I'm a strong Novick supporter, I've given him a good deal of time and money.

I'm disappointed that he supports (or probably more accurately, doesn't oppose) the death penalty, but he understands that if we are going to have it, the defendant must have a fair trial, and fair trials are expensive. If we are going to have the death penalty, the defense must be funded just as the prosecution is. I'd rather have a senator committed to funding the defense than a senator who shares my moral views but isn't effective.

And, just to be practical, there is not much a US Senator can do about capital punishment. It is generally a state issue. Senators vote to confirm federal judges who ultimately sit on capital cases, but I suspect that judges Novick would vote for for other reasons (that is, they are thoughtful and have a progressive background) would be good for my point of view on the death penalty.

So, Karol (or anybody else), if Novick's views on capital punishment is a potentially deal-breaker for you about him, please let me try to talk you out of it. I'm easy to find on the Oregon State Bar website, or we can discuss it here if appropriate.

I have been defending capital cases as a lawyer in Oregon since it passed in 1984. Oregon's aggravated murder statute makes most murders capital, it doesn't just involve the nastiest of the nasty. I think capital punishment doesn't work to accomplish anything positive, and is immoral. I could go on, but that's not my point.

I'm a strong Novick supporter, I've given him a good deal of time and money.

I'm disappointed that he supports (or probably more accurately, doesn't oppose) the death penalty, but he understands that if we are going to have it, the defendant must have a fair trial, and fair trials are expensive. If we are going to have the death penalty, the defense must be funded just as the prosecution is. I'd rather have a senator committed to funding the defense than a senator who shares my moral views but isn't effective.

And, just to be practical, there is not much a US Senator can do about capital punishment. It is generally a state issue. Senators vote to confirm federal judges who ultimately sit on capital cases, but I suspect that judges Novick would vote for for other reasons (that is, they are thoughtful and have a progressive background) would be good for my point of view on the death penalty.

So, Karol (or anybody else), if Novick's views on capital punishment is a potentially deal-breaker for you about him, please let me try to talk you out of it. I'm easy to find on the Oregon State Bar website, or we can discuss it here if appropriate.

And, just to be practical, there is not much a US Senator can do about capital punishment.

Laura, I find your arguments to be a bit fishy, since this statement is flat-out false. I'll take it at face value and respond though because this matters. I've known two lawyers who defend capital cases in a Southern state where they actually do execute a lot of people. They both have told me at different times flat out that it will take Federal legislation finding capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment, and as result prohibiting it nationally to bring it to an end in states like those where those two lawyers practice.

To be sure, it will also take replacing a lot of Democrats in Congress and a few genuinely pro-life Republicans like Hatfield was, perhaps with a continued string of rulings by SCOTUS limiting capital punishment and revelations of innocents on death row or actually executed, to end capital punishment. But there is a better chance of that happening sooner than a judicial ban because the courts have swung too far to the right with the help of spineless Democrats. Given that reality, electing Novick under any circumstances in view of his support for capital punishment is a step backwards into continued barbarity.

Rather than rationalizing that position to others as you do here, you should think long and soberly about what kind of countries still practice capital punishment so you can accurately assess Novick's position. He's either playing politics, or has a fundamental moral hole in his soul that allows him to condone state-sanctioned murder under any circumstances. I'll vote for Obama since it will have to be him, Clinton, or McCain who appoints judges, but I won't help keep it easy for him to appoint pro-capital punishment judges as it would be if Smith was still there by voting for Novick. (Obama has been equivocal, but appears to support capital punishment.)

I assure you, you'd thank whatever god you worship to get me on a jury if you do defend capital cases. But you are nowhere near wise or skilled enough to make an argument why Novick should get my vote if he unapologetically supports state sanctioned murder in our criminal justice system as he seems to with his one word answer. If you do support Novick for sound reasons and as strongly as you say, for his own good, if not is his very soul, your job now is to tell him that you will work to eliminate his margin of victory --- as I will --- unless he has a come to Jesus moment about capital punishment. I'll willingly accept an election campaign flip-flop on this issue because it would be very hard for him to slide back once he announced he had seen the light and accepted the political support that comes with that.

Well Jeff, tough if you don't like my style. We'll leave it to Kari to ban me.

Schumer is a creep. He's not on the side of the Constitution. Sure I want the DSCC money in Oregon....after we the people select our candidate.

And Jeff if you want to call me names, at least be a bit more accurate. I'm a Goddess, not salf-of-the-earth. I have two beautiful sons who are not going to be killed for Hillary and Schumer's wars.

Karol, single issue candidates rarely go far becuase of the very fact that they tend to be a one-trick-pony.

I can understand some of your concerns and ideals, however you are way out to lunch on the drivers' license issue. Having a license doesn't make you a safer or better driver. It doesn't allow you or force you to get insurance. Just ask my son who had his 72 Dart trashed by an illegal with a license; but no insurance.

As long as a state drivers license is allowed as an I09 ID document and allowed by TSA as valid ID for boarding aircraft, then the person seeking the drivers licens MUST show valid proof to live legally here in the US. There can be no compromise. Driving isn't a right, it is a privlege.

The U.S. War Crimes Act (1996) defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

It requires the death penalty for perpetrators if the breach resulted in the death of one or more victims.

Until we are willing to imprison and execute the elite criminals of the last three administrations for their war crimes, we must end the practice of executing anyone else.

This is not a "purity" issue, it is a baseline for decency.

Karol, have a wonderful soup and sandwich!

Stephanie, I typed wrong. It should have been I-9 document. This is a required document for all employer New Hires. It documents the specific legal documentation that the new employee presents w/in 3 days of employment showing their correct identity and legal ability to live, and work in the US.

The I-9 grew out of the Immigation Act of 1986 that granted amnesty then to those illegally in the country. It is the ONLY means the employer has of compliance with the requirement. The two most commonly proffered documents are a state drivers' license and a SS Card. Both of which are easily counterfieted and at least in Oregon can be obtained w/out showing legal immigant status.

It isn't about driving, its about legal status. Remove the Oregon license as an accepted form of ID for the I-9 and you would have 80%-90% of the new hires in our state crying foul.

Karol, wonderful post, I feel exactly the same way. These candidates are not perfect, your closing line though is. What do we give up? With how hard Merkley and Novick punchers are hitting each other right now, will we be too beat up to go forward in the general election? Cause that is where we are going.