Just curious as to what you hope Obama or Edwards would acheive for labor.

Both have stated their desire to limit or abolish money from corporations - this alone levels the playing field when it comes to supporting pro-worker legislation.  You can't be friendly with anti-labor companies like Verizon, and expect at the same time to state you will fight for the workers represented by my Union, the Communications Workers of America.  It's like oil and water.  It's double-talk and insincere.  

Hillary takes more corporate money than all of the Democratic candidates, and remarkably, the Republican candidates too.  This, to me is reprehensible and is in direct conflict with any hope for helping the people.  Obviously, this is just my opinion.

The one thing you expect for Edwards or Obama to do for labor is to abolish corporate money in politics.  I would note that donations are already limited.

For clarification, I would just like to see where this argument ends.  Are we just talking about direct donations from corporations or from corporate PACs?  And does this extend to industry associations?  And would this extend to management at corporations, people employed by corporate PACs, and people employed by industry associations?  How many people must be banned from giving donations?  And if you do this, aren't you excluding a class of individual from participating the process?

Also, what constitutes friendly?  Can a politician never meet with a representative of a company?  Are they forbidden from hearing their concerns?  And does listening to both sides prevent an individual from making the right decision?

I have no problems with any candidate taking money from any lawful source, as long as they are willing to defend their donations - that's all - nothing more, or nothing less.

The weekend before Wellstone's unfortunate death, I heard him strongly defend why he took Union PAC money, during a debate with Coleman.  He stated he was proud that thousands of ordinary workers felt they could count on him for helping them live better.  Wellstone then asked Coleman if he was proud of taking money from the pharmaceutical industry.  It was a beautiful and honest moment.  Coleman was crushed.

I can tell that your mind is completely behind Hillary.  That is your opinion, and I hope that you are half as satisfied with her positions as I am with either Edward's or Obama's.  

I am really just curious as to what your expectations are.  And then how you think those candidates can meet them.  

On your point about defending contributions, Obama has taken a lot of contributions from executives at Exelon Corp (the largest nuclear power provider in the country).  He has never bothered to defend those contributions.  Is Exelon Corp. the friend of unions?  Does IBEW love Exelon?  And he has taken contributions from execs and managing directors at Goldman Sachs?  Is a large investment bank a friend to unions?

I would just make a logical connection.  Why would tons of people who work for investment banks invest in Obama's candidacy if it was not in their interest?  The things that labor wants are not the things that make the brokers and managers at Goldman Sachs and others wealthy.  If Obama was truly going to be a revolution in regards to protecting labor's interest, why would employees at investment banks line up behind that?

As long as everything is out in view for the electorate I'm fine with hearing all the facts; are you fine with hearing everything about Hillary?

I can beat up on Hillary (more so than either Obama or Edwards), if you'd like, but I don't think it would be constructive, and unity is what needs to prevail in the fall.  People turn out to vote when positive stories are told, and nothing keeps voters home like negative campaigning.

I'm sorry that you are not happy with Obama.  I'm always willing to change my mind with productive debate and still am open for Hillary - are you equally flexible?

You put forward more thoughts, and I am just asking questions about those thoughts.  And then applying them to the candidate you are edging toward.  in the earlier case, you said you thought candidates should defend their contributions received.  Obama is not free of corporate money; so, should he not defend those in your eyes was my question.  

I am absolutely fine with hearing anything you have to say about Hillary, though I think of any of the candidates on the Democratic side she has already been fully critiqued.

I am also certainly flexible.  I have not made a decision as to who I will vote for on February 12.  But I want to make sure too that we don't give a candidate a pass on something.  We should be skeptical, critical observers of them all.

Finally, I don't think any of what I am saying is about discord.  I am for party unity.  But that does not prevent us from evaluating each candidate in a thoughtful, critical manner.  On top of that, the critiques we make now strengthen the candidates for the general election.  If they can effectively respond to the critique now, then they will be able to handle it when the Republicans regurgitate it in the Fall.

All three candidates have spoken to my Union and each passes our low threshold for appearing worker-friendly.  Still, Hillary has never defended her role on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors.  I'd also love to know why she voted for the "flag amendment."  You may not find this an issue of concern (and that's fine), but I put civil liberties high on my list of priorities.  The flag amendment was bowing to politics above principle.

Still, for the sake of argument, let's say Hillary, Edwards and Obama are all even on "my" issue of labor.  Obama would be the one I'd vote for because he is fresh, and because he is a person of color.  I am a white male, but inclusiveness means a lot to me and inclusiveness will make our country stronger than any military force ever can. He will make all of us look good in the world's eye.

Why go back to the '90's?

"Many of my friends of color are in disbelief that they may live to see the day when a bi-racial candidate may wind up in the White House."

I don't believe you should vote against someone because of their race.  But using the same logic, you shouldn't vote for someone because of their race.

If somebody thinks Obama is the best person for the job, I respect that.  He is definately my second choice.  But the race for President isn't a popularity contest (or at least it shouldn't be).  

I'm not sure your friends are voting for Obama just because he is a minority - but if so that is very short sighted.  One would hope they have better reasons than that.  There are certainly valid reasons to support Obama - I see the appeal.  But race isn't a valid reason.

I don't think you disagree with that, and maybe I read to much into what you posted.

I do not see an issue here.  Obama is where he is now because of his success with white voters.  His discussion of race is focused on healing and making the country stronger and more united.

I didn't mean to imply that I'll support him because he is bi-racial and nothing else.  I meant to suggest that all things being equal, people like me (always in the majority) won't stand to gain as much by electing another white male, as a person of color would gain by seeing that they can accomplish anything regardless of what their parents looked like.  To me this is extremely valuable for the good of the whole.