The Instigator
dayntwillrise
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Mr_Khan
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,303 times Debate No: 1581
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (9)

 

dayntwillrise

Con

John Edwards is the change candidate of 2008. His positions on trade, on the American economy, and on the corruption and disconnect between Washington and the American people are right on the money. He is one of the few candidates who actually addresses the issue of poverty in the United States, and he does not address it like an abstract issue. To John Edwards, poverty is very real, and while the media and the GOP likes to poke at his house, his own personal success has not made him forget the struggles of others. Most polls indicate that the American public thinks more a long the lines, issue by issue, with someone like Dennis Kucinich, but candidates like him never get any traction. John Edwards on the other hand nearly won Iowa, and got another 17 percent in New Hampshire. His name is too large for major media to simply ignore him, though they do try. With a 70 page plan already composed and ready to build 'One America', Edwards has time and time again forced the hand of Obama and Clinton to present a plan to the American people. John Edwards took the lead in saying no to Fox News, and refusing to participate in their media events, and was then followed by the whole Democratic field. Truly progressive, John Edwards is the best hope to put someone in to the White House who is on the side of the American people, and is ready to fight for us.
Mr_Khan

Pro

All though I do agree for the most part of what you have said about former Senator Edwards, there is a lot of similar aspects that Senator Obama is facing as well. Senator Obama not only is a charismatic person who argues very well in the face of his "enemies". He has the audacity to change as well. If one were to look at what he accomplished while in the Senate in Illinois, as well as an attorney. He turned southern Chicago into a better place by helping the poor and destitute people. I am sure he has seen poverty in his life. He grew up to a single mother who worked hard to get her son where he is today (no doubt any mother would). He lived in Jakarta, Indonesia. Indonesia, while growing extremely fast, he had to have seen a lot of poverty while living there. Mr. Obama even saw poverty while growing up as a child (even though he did also live in a middle class area).

At the 2004 DNC Mr. Obama said, "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America--There the United States of America...We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us Defending the United States of America." According to Obama, "The Audacity of Hope," is "God's greatest gift" to Americans.
Debate Round No. 1
dayntwillrise

Con

While I completely agree that Obama is a very charming and persuasive man, with incredible oratory skill, he lacks substance. Politicians historically almost never do anything that they have not promised, and Obama is promising very little. He promises hope, he promises working together, and he promises change, but there must be questions asked that he has yet to answer. What are we going to be hopeful about? What, exactly, is Obama promising he will get us all to work together towards? He talks tough on China and globalization on NPR, but then he turns around and promotes Free Trade on MSNBC.

While Edwards does not have perhaps the 'feel good' message, he is very clear as to what he thinks are the problems in America, and how to solve them. Corporate power in Washington is one of our greatest problems, but only John Edwards dares say it. The vast majority of Americans feel that the whole system is corrupt, and again, only Edwards dares to criticize his own party.

I will concede that Obama is a step in the correct direction, away from Clinton, but there is a reason why over 10 percent of the Democratic party is siding with Edwards. I believe America needs a fighter, not for the left, not for the right, but for the people, for the health of our democracy. Obama's got the charm, but not the plan, and the proof is in the details.
Mr_Khan

Pro

Well as I said before, and if I didn't then here you go. All though I do agree with you for some of the argument, I do still disagree. Is it possible to agree to disagree in the USA with politics? I doubt it? I do realize that Fmr. Senator Edwards has pushed against lobbyist and special interest groups in Washington, but Obama was the one to endorse it and co-found the, "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act." Not only did he endorse and co-found it he did it in the 2nd part of his term. Understand though, it is merely impossible to receive money from anyone outside of public donations ie., next door neighbor, friend, family, generously giving people, and even from private donations for example (only example, not truth) lets say Microsoft or someone from another government. It is just impossible for anyone to run for any elected official spot and win, without receiving money. Gifts, yes, I understand, and Senator Obama said this in the NH Debates when asked about this, in fact, both he and Edwards agree on quite a few things.

I believe Obama has a lot of "good hope" despite what most nay-sayers say. Most people believe he is going to be like any other Presidential Candidate and give "false hope". I hope and pray he is not like this, and I believe he isn't.

*****FYI, since 1967, every president running on the "Anti-War" Campaign, and who has won the Presidency, has "beefed up" military operations and has extended stays in war zones and has even spent more money on defense....*****
Debate Round No. 2
dayntwillrise

Con

I'm still not hearing hope for what, exactly. Reform in election finance? Because Edwards dominates that issues in this campaign already. And what's the point in saying this:

*****FYI, since 1967, every president running on the "Anti-War" Campaign, and who has won the Presidency, has "beefed up" military operations and has extended stays in war zones and has even spent more money on defense....*****

Both Edwards and Obama are peace candidates...so that's not good for both of them. On the record, however, we do have Obama who already offered going into Pakistan without permission to presumably find Bin Laden. On the other hand, John Edwards said that fighting terrorism is an issue of fighting poverty, because its only poor, desperate people who are willing to carry out terrorist acts. Once the US image abroad is not one of invasion and military might but one of a government that builds schools in foreign countries for the simple good of humanity, terrorism will stop. In his plans, Edwards outlines how the US will spread aid and education across the world and into poor countries.

And I stand by what I say that you should only expect so much from a man (or woman) by what he promises. Granted, John Edwards may not pull through on his promises, but what else can you go on? Prayer? Well, arguably, you can pray that George Bush will come to his senses and bend to the will of the American people, but he won't. If Edwards was elected, he would know exactly why, he'd have a clear mandate from the people. Obama has yet to really promise anything, and he keeps putting on a different face depending on who is asking the questions.

And lastly, Obama has picked a team of foreign policy advisers that are all linked to very things that got us in this mess in the first place. This is from a report that came on Amy Goodman's show a little while ago:

"Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, "Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?" And Brzezinski replied, "Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.

and....

Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti."

Hardly champions of peace. They are the imperial Democrats, and they are advising Barack Obama.
Mr_Khan

Pro

My point in the FYI was literally, for your information, just kind of a tidbit. it had nothing to do with this debate. Anyway, Obama gives young people hope for a brighter future with a president who will not lead us down the path which we have already gone down, war, horrible economic settings, having the USA as literally everyone's worst nightmare as well as enemy, no one agreeing with us on any issue anymore, our allies not even allying with us, our enemies still taunting at us and flaunting what they have, and above all he gives the hope of a new, fresh, young president who sees the future of an America where everyone is united, rather than what our current president has done and divided the nation.
That is incredibly correct what Obama said about offering us to go to Pakistan for the war. But you cannot say that this war on terrorism is a war in which poverty is the issue. If you take the example of the horrible atrocity of 9/11. The men who hijacked the planes and flew them into the towers were not poor people at all. They were doctors, scientists, engineers, get my point? They were not poor people, and they actually lived in nice areas of the country they lived in. And not all terrorists are poor people, some of the richest people are terrorists (not saying there are poor terrorists). If you take the example of Imam Nasrullah (leader of Hezbollah), he is a rich man who is educated and does not live anymore in Lebanon, he had lived in Paris for a while.
With Edwards spreading aid across the world, that is the duty of the State Department's USAID program. Simple as that, USAID gives our foreign AID to places where they need it the most.
Obama's foreign policy advisers are also advisers not only who have served previous presidents, but have seen how foreign policy was 20 years ago, which, in my opinion, is repeating itself, so would it be better to have people who are knowledgeable of the area we are in? or not?
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by langman26 9 years ago
langman26
The real truth is, who will be your candidate? I hope Thompson wins S.C. and Guiliani wins Fl., that will just make your better more indecisive, sadly, like most dem.
Posted by langman26 9 years ago
langman26
why don't you like Huck......I'm a Dem. and watched him in Iowas....very good candidate for Rep....honestly he scares me the most in the general election. Very much like Bill in the 90s, also, he can defend his "liberal" policies that had to be enforced while governer of Arkansas.
Posted by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
confused about Thompson being a Republican? I don't think so, maybe you are confused my interesting friend.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I think you are a bit confused, my friend
Posted by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
Oh Great! Another era of Republicans? They messed us up for the passed 8 years, what more can go wrong? Hmm let me think, continuing this war on terror that really has not factual backing anywhere, the war in Iraq, which was a complete blunder, high tax rates that make us go into recession, fed rates lowest they have ever been so people who cannot afford to buy a house, car, or luxury item can... I think I make my point, vote for someone who is electable and has charisma, Thompson is an old fart who has no charisma and is just unfortunately not electable
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
why not?

I believe he will get the nomination and take the election

mark my words

the REAL conservatives LOVE him

see the poll at the PREMIER CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE

www.freerepublic.com

he gets like 70+ % of the members opinion

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
Lol Rudy Guliani is a good leader? All he had going for him was reuniting New Yorkers after 9/11. He attacks Islam like crazy, even though, he lived in one of the most populated city's where Muslims live. He has horrible marital issues. Thompson is okay, but he is not electable.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
look at who I am voting for and then try to throw something at Fred- I think you will have a tough time

MY ticket is Thompson - Hunter

that is IT

Romney is OK

I really dont like Mclame or Hucksterbee

Rudy is fine, good leader

my 3 c
Posted by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
Solarman not only do you just bash someone, lets see the others he is against in both parties.. Republican, John McCain who is a washout senator who is a flip flopper for his party, in the begging allegations about torture he gallantly supported this, but lets remember, he was a POW in Vietnam for 6 damn years! WOW! Great person to elect. Huckabee is another George Bush, without the idiocy. Guliani has nothing going for him now. Mitt Romney unfortunately is Mormon (I have no problem with that) of all the republican candidates I would vote for him, he is the least militant and fascist in any way. Democrats, Hillary who cried on national TV, wow.. I do not want a man or woman running our country crying.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Enter Obama. We still know almost nothing about him. But that's the point. The less you know the better you feel, because Obama is a projective figure, a human Rorshach test. The Dems don't want to know any sobering facts. They don't want to know, for example, his relationship with the Chicago Democrat machine. They don't want to know that he voted against saving the lives of infants who survive a botched abortion. They don't want to see his minimal competence in foreign affairs. This is just a mass craving for a Good Parent. You don't vet and check out your Good Parents to see if they qualify. You might do that for a new baby sitter, but never a Good Parent. You are just born into that endless cloud of love.

Hillary's fall from grace has been amazingly quick, because the Dems -- the Party of the Needy, those who Crave to be Cared For, the Emotional Victims -- they have all found a new fuzzy toy to cling to. Hillary Clinton is now yesterday's toy, lying discarded on the floor. And she knows it.

This is the candidate as Rock Idol. It is purely instinctive. The thinking part of the brain has nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, the United States still needs a real adult to lead it through the next four or eight years.

The nation is at war -- though the infantile half of our population lives in denial. Benazir Bhutto was just assassinated in Pakistan, where the throw-back jihadists are eagerly looking for dirty bombs or worse. Ahmadi-Nejad just challenged the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz with five suicide boats. Forty percent of the world's oil goes through the bottleneck of the strait. Europe is in decline. The United Nations is hopelessly sleazy and corrupt. Almost twenty years of jihadist genocide in the Sudan continues today, with African victims galore. Kenya just exploded in an orgy of violence. Vladimir Putin is running a KGB state in Russia, threatening oil and gas cutoffs to our feckless allies in Europe.

We need ADULTS
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by vxd9772 9 years ago
vxd9772
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by langman26 9 years ago
langman26
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ZedLoch 9 years ago
ZedLoch
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mr_Khan 9 years ago
Mr_Khan
dayntwillriseMr_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03