it is entirely legitimate to stay in through at least Super Tuesday, for all candidates, and anything really could happen. Some things are far more likely than others, but I don't think we need to be calling the race this early for or against anyone.

It's legitimate to stay in the race up until Super Tuesday to see if something magic happens for Edwards.  But Super Tuesday consists of 21 states this year.  It's entirely possible that the race is over after that.  If Edwards sticks in on that day, all he does is aid Hillary Clinton.  And judging by the debate in NH, I think he'd much rather see Obama as President than Hillary.

I would say that to call this race for Obama or Hillary is wrong.  But Edwards is out.

If he does well at all and there would have to be a brokered convention, why would he want to drop out?

I mean, as much as I like him that's just the hard reality, given that he put everything into that state.  He certainly can stay in, and his message is important, but he's not going to be the nominee in 2008 barring a truly bizarre set of circumstances that's hard to even imagine.

if the people who believe he is the best candidate vote for him, instead of jumping on the bandwagons of Obama and Clinton. That is what drives me insane about the "go to a 'viable' candidate" message--it encourages people to give up hope and vote for a candidate other than the one they think would do the best job...the one they truly believe in most.

It's not just in this election that this upsets me. But it's what is happening now, and I think it is a mistake to further encourage it.

Life isn't fair, Aimee.  This kind of thing happens all of the time in the real world.  

If you can tell me one viable state that, right now, as of this moment, Edwards is poised to win, I'll reconsider.  The problem is that you can't even tell me one.  And you can't win the nomination without winning a single state.

Sometimes, life isn't perfect.  You can stay and vote for Edwards.  Just realize that such a vote is less a vote for Edwards and more a vote for or against either Clinton or Obama.

I'm all for hope.  That's why I think Edwards should stick around through South Carolina.  He won it in 2004, it should be worth trying in.  But I'm not for hope when it borders on blind faith.  Edwards has no money.  His polls are way down in all of the SupTue states.  He has more influence by deciding who to support rather than by running a race he simply can't win.  

Wrong.  Edwards has raised millions in the last two weeks.  

I got that letter too.  MILLION, singular.  Compared to two $100 million campaigns.  Can Edwards really compete in 21 states at once with his current campaign funds?

Also, the other candidates HAD $100 million.  What remains is a fraction of that.

The other campaigns have $20 Million to $30 Million.  And I bet, seeing as both candidates are in tight competition and have the media's ears and eyes, I would bet that Clinton and Obama are both raising a LOT more.  

And again, can Edwards raise enough to compete in 21 states?

to compete through South Carolina -- he has about $9 million coming from FEC matching funds . . . http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

If Edwards finishes second ahead of Obama or Clinton in South Carolina, I think he may hang on through Feb. 5th.  Otherwise, I just can't see him pushing through to Feb. 5th.  Without the money he can't get the advertising or the organization in place to make a serious showing -- especially in the big states.  He's already going to be a tough spot.  If I was in his position I would be throwing everything down in South Carolina hoping to get some kind of bounce (or if he splits it between the next to competitions that makes sense too -- he's not in a position though where he can hold anything back).  $10 million will give him a fighting chance, but the climb will only get steeper after South Carolina.

South Carolina is must win.  What I don't agree with is the premature speculation regarding his future.  

Just one person's opinion.

I'm one of those people that doesn't like to be blindsided and actually likes to hear speculation -- even if it's completely wild-eyed, or it doesn't jive with what I want to hear (take the race issue regarding Obama which we talked about in another diary.  Your post prompted me to talk to friends around the state about his viability.  I didn't appreciate before just how much of a challenge his nomination will be in Virginia -- now I do).  I would rather hear that point of view and take it into consideration even if it is speculative, or against what I want to hear.  I like to look at all the angles and see what the score is -- not easy to do unless you actually talk to people.  That's where I'm coming from.  I understand your point of view here a little better than I did before I wrote my last comment.  Point taken going forward.

Yeah, it's sometimes hard to swallow bad news about your candidate.  We don't have a candidate on the ticket that doesn't have some huge wall to climb.  Obama is black, Hillary is a woman, Edwards was a trial lawyer.  And the Republican candidate will have their own wall to climb.

Edwards would be doing far better across the board. Why don't you ask Kenton about some of the tactics Obama's campaign used in NH?

This is absurd.  Two small states voted.  I've listened to scores of pundits over the last three weeks who have been wrong on just about everything they said.

First, Hillary was going to win.  Wrong.  Then, Obama was inevitable.  Wrong.  Now, Edwards should just hang up his hat.  Wrong again?

Two states voted.  Two small states.  Like Edwards said, this isn't an auction - it is an election.  Things in elections are dynamic.  

What is to say that we don't have dirt on either Hillary or Obama before February 5th?  What's to say that someone doesn't step on a political landmine?  We just never know.

I'm not saying Edwards will win.  But you of all people watched another man not expected to win, win.  Did anyone see the Macaca landmine coming?  Not I.  If that didn't happen, Senator Webb would have surely lost.  Thank God he didn't lose, but it is clear that anything can happen in an election.

I know you're really like Edwards, but this is a stretch.

Like I've said, we jumped the gun on the Obama train.  But the polls were certainly misleading.  You can't really blame us.

But you can't win a nomination without winning a state.  Which states, relawson, does Edwards plan on winning?  Because right now, I can't pick out a single one.

I DID say there was a possibility for a self-inflicted wound by one of the other two.  But if that is your candidate's plan for victory, I can't see much hope in your future.

"Which states, relawson, does Edwards plan on winning?  Because right now, I can't pick out a single one. "

Very few people were able to pick who would win in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  I'm not putting too much stock in the polls or anyone's ability to pick who is going to win in which states.

Clearly Edwards needs to win SC to be viable.  A strong showing in Florida wouldn't hurt.

"But if that is your candidate's plan for victory, I can't see much hope in your future. "

Both Obama and Hillary have ridden the media coat tails from day one.  Their reporting has been so biased it is discusting.  The media created Obama.  What it giveth, it can taketh.

This is practically a national campaign now. He won't have the resources to compete on Feb. 5. And if he finishes 3rd in SC, his situation will be infintely worse than it is now.

a distant third place finish there means he is officially done. That's his backyard. It's why Richardson quit after looking at the numbers in Nevada. Besides, Edwards is still relatively young. Reagan didn't get elected until his third campaign for President.

Gov. Edwards has a nice ring to it. North Carolina chooses their next Governor this November and they have a history of voting Democratic in gubernatorial elections.

If I'm Sen. Obama, I offer him the Attorney General job in exchange for an endorsement. Not only because I think his endorsement would be worth it, but because Edwards would be an awesome AG. It could help Edwards brand himself as a modern day Bobby Kennedy.

Offer him the VP slot and you have the winningest ticket- Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama).

I talked with a couple of very conservative professors at work yesterday, they all agreed an Edwards/Obama ticket would be the hardest to beat in Nov.
Obama/Edwards would be next hardest....and they all disliked Sen. Clinton.

AG would be a good job for Edwards, although President would be much better.

Go Edwards!

I don't see anyone telling Fred "One Percent" Thompson to drop out because he might siphon off the conservative vote against John McCain, or Mike Huckabee (who also finished third in New Hampshire) to step aside.

The fact that we even have to face this question tells us much about our primary system, that two states can frogmarch everyone in the rest of America into a limited set of preordained choices.

Like Edwards, he can stick around until Super Tuesday to see what's up.  

And the comparison to Huckabee is false.  You know that, Kenton.  Huckabee convincingly won Iowa.  Edwards did not.  Huckabee has a win under his belt.  Edwards does not.

I agree, the primary system sucks.  Maybe we can change it for 2012.  But not this time.

Although in Edwards case, I don't think this system has worked against him.  I think the reason he hasn't gained any additional traction is because his numbers in Iowa actually declined from 2004 to 2008.  If he was unable to beat expectations in a state where he did well in 2004, and where he's spent the better part of the past 3 years maintaining his organization and campaign -- I think its inevitable that questions about his viability are going to be raised.

I think Edwards keeps fighting until South Carolina, but I think he'll take a look at the tea-leaves then and make a decision.

I agree with you though that no one should be telling any candidate to bow out -- in large part because I think it's kind of insulting to the candidate and his (or her) supporters.  In the case of the Nevada caucus, a couple of the union groups effectively sent that message, but the bottom line is that they would have gone with Edwards if they thought he had the better shot at this stage.  

I'm sure that all these candidates are well aware of what the odds are now and what their options are like.  I think Edwards sticks it out until South Carolina, and then looks at his options.  If he decides to drop out, I think he puts his support behind Obama.  If Obama drops out, I think there's a chance he'll throw his weight behind Edwards.

Last I checked, the status quo was Republicans, their corruption and cronyism, and their obstructionism.  Is this the status quo to which you refer that Senator Clinton represents?

What do you mean by the status quo?  What are you referring to?  

Why couldn't she financed her campaign the way Obama and Edwards did - fairly?  She made a B-line for corporate donations and has more corporate $$$ than any Republican out there.  

If it walks like a duck...

There is nothing unfair about how she has financed her campaign.  The majority of her contributions like Senator Obama, and Senator Edwards come from individuals.

By corporate donations, what do you mean?  Do you mean PAC contributions (not all of which are corporate or industry sponsored)?  Or do you mean donations made by individuals who work for corporations?

And is the only status quo the three of you are referring to is taking "corporate money"?

Check where the vast majority of Clinton's money is coming from.  The status quo is the hostage situation in Washington being forced on the American people by Corporate America.

The vast majority (88% as of 9/30/07) of Clinton's money came from individual contributions.  Only 1% ($748k) came from PACs.  And that is a sum of contributions of a lot PACs both issue oriented, party, union and corporate.  It is hard to see how $5,000 from Coca-Cola's PAC controls Senator Clinton in any meaningful way.  Be my guest if you want to dig through the FEC report and point out some damning piece of evidence that shows that she is a "corporate crony" or support "corporate cronyism."

And on PAC, it is not like Senator Obama has never taken PAC money.  He may not have taken much for his 2008 primary bid, but he took in $1.2 (about 10%) of his 2004 Senatorial campaign funds from PACs.  Among them, choice companies and trade associations like: 3M, AFLAC, The American Bankers Association, American Express, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), AON, AT&T, Comcast, E.I. DuPont, Exelon, Exxon Mobil, Verizon and the list goes on...  If $5k makes you beholden to corporate interest, then Senator Obama must have been in the pockets of banks and insurance companies during his current term in the Senate, right?

If you want to pick a part individual donations, then we need to also look at Senator Obama.  And we can certainly find corporate executives, directors, and managing partners at many of the most famous financial institutions of our country not to mention the largest nuclear power provider in the country.

If you want to make and argument that Senator Clinton is in league with corporations due to her campaign contributions, then you'll need to also demonstrate to me how Senator Obama is free of that taint in his campaign contributions.

she's more of a DC insider than any other candidate in this race.  

I am unclear as to why being in the District for 15 years is a bad thing.  If you are here 15 years, don't you get a sense of how things are done and how to get things done?  

Is there some magic number of years living in the District that taint you?  Does three years save you from ills of Washington?

but the more time you spend in Washington, the less chance you have of getting elected President. There's a sliding scale.  

Edwards should stay in it as long as it takes. All the way to the convention.

Obama is pretty much what Bill Clinton said. A fairy tale. We need to wake up and realize that and do it now.

Edwards staying in keeps this thing open and the debate going. We need to have the discussion that Edwards forces upon the race.

Lets be DEMOCRATS for once and stop talking about the horse race and talk about what it means to be a democrat. We need to be the democrats that are best represented by Edwards message, just as Kenton has so succinctly put.

Barack Obama does not have the stones to stand up to Corporate Control. He has proven that time and time again. This is not the time for conciliation and compromise. This is the time to beat the the ideas of conservatives. Obama will not fight that fight.

It is time to stop talking vague bull about Unity and Change and other such pablum. We need MEAT. We need STRENGTH. We need DADDY and not mommy.

I close this with a quote from Shakespear's Henry V. that best represents what should be our attitude towards the GOP and why Edwards should be the nominee (not that he will be) and why Obama's approach will not work.

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect"

I like the idea of Unity, Willie.  I spent my summer in Washington, and I am sick of bickering.  John Edwards is certainly passionate and fiery, but if I learned anything from my time in Washington, it was that fighting never solves anything.  Compromise and coalition buidling is the only way to get things done.

Also, I think it's rather poor taste to question Obama's "stones."  The only time I ever question the size of a man's balls is if I staring him dead in the face.  That way, at least he has the option to swing at me.

We need to stop the bickering and start the ass whipping. (pardon the language Lowell)We need a President that will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to get the right stuff done.

Dems are bickering because we don't have leadership. We need leadership and that person is Edwards.

As far as the "stones" comment. How about "backbone".  

Do you really think throwing fists is better than poking?  Everybody on the Hill has a massive ego.  All that will do is pour gasoline on the fire.

The American people are tired of fighting.  Tired of partisan fighting, tired of Iraq.  They can't fight anymore.

Senator Obama has been in Washington for a while now.  Is his only example of working across the aisle, the one law he passed with Senator "Lesbianism is rampant in public schools" Coburn?  His voting record is in line with Democratic sides of the aisle.  Certainly, I am open to the argument that he bridges the partisan divide, but I have not seen that here in Washington.  Did I miss something?

Americans are tired to fight for their rights, for liberty, and for their values?

Let me get this straight: Democrats fight for 7 years to get back to a position where we can fix all of the problems that Republicans created.

So now we are going to give in now?

Didn't African Americans fight to end segregation for about 60 years?

And we are "tired" after 7?

How many presidential elections have you voted in, Dannyboy?  One?  None? And you're "sick of bickering"?

Sorry, you're going to have to wait a while before the tired and wise act works.

But after nearly three months working for a US Senator, you tend to notice trends.  The trend of the day is partisan bickering.  I'd like it to end.  I would think my age shouldn't matter in such a case.

Or are young people unallowed to have an opinion?

But I do think that you'd be better served with a little less certainty than you seem to think comes with a 3 month internship and the courage of your (still evolving) convictions.

The "trend of the day" is partisan bickering?  Only if you think a day is 15-20 something years long.  What's gone wrong in Congress now started with the leadup to the "Gingrich Revolution" in 1994.  There are some things unique to the present administration's term, but "partisan bickering" doesn't really describe that.

this country pretty much...forever.  And, I'd argue, that's a GOOD thing to an extent (caveat: anything taken to extremes is bad).  No, what's happened the past 7 years is not so much "partisan bickering" as the Bush Administration thumbing its nose at the constitution, the bill of rights, separation of powers, science and reason.  That's what's created the ugly climate, the solution to which is simple: GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE!

And, it's one that can't be made too often, so I'll chime in.

Whenever someone states that the "American People(tm) are tired of petty partisan bickering," I hear the proverbial sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

First, I am an American Person myself and, therefore, part of the American People(tm).  My part of the American People(tm) is not  tired of "bickering," but IS extremely tired of weak-kneed capitulation to radical, right-wing Republicans who represent the views of no more than twenty-five percent of our population.

Second, the phrase "petty, partisan bickering" is nothing more than a Republican Party talking point, designed and intended to create a false equivalency between the extreme, radical, right-wing policies of the current crop of Republicans and the more moderate, more centrist policies of the current crop of Democrats.  Barney Frank makes this point here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Finally, and of greatest importance, the assertion that the American People(tm) are "tired" of "partisan bickering" is demonstrably false.  See:
http://salon.com/opinion/green...  

Right, BP. The last seven years have been ones where a tiny minority of Republicans refused to listen to others, even to their own moderates within the party.

As for me, I want a president that will fight for the regular people like me, for once.

Second, the phrase "petty, partisan bickering" is nothing more than a Republican Party talking point, designed and intended to create a false equivalency between the extreme, radical, right-wing policies of the current crop of Republicans and the more moderate, more centrist policies of the current crop of Democrats.

Absolutely.

I'm playing for a government that is truly of, by, and for the people.  But, in light of the past seven years, I'll settle for any old thing that even remotely resembles a democracy.

lifetime of disappointment and frustration!!!

Come on down!!!

is that, as soon as he's elected, he'll fall to that DC establishment syndrome that demands that Bush, Cheney, et al., be pardoned or indemnified for their crimes. In many ways, we are reaping the horrors that were sowed when the Iran/Contra scandal was swept under the rug -- these Republicans have been breaking the law and mentally shredding the Constitution since Watergate, and they always get away with it.

Unless and until this cabal is held accountable for their dangerous, immoral, unconstitutional, and illegal acts, we can count on them re-appearing every 20 years to screw this country up royally.  

You have not voted in a presidential election!!!!!

All of 3 months....wow you are a wise and learned sage.

And yes you are allowed to have an opinion...Just don't expect much weight to be put to it.

Don't think so.

may or may not be the case.  I can't say that I'm all that familiar with WillieStark (tho' I do dig the username).  But the reality is that some opinions DO matter more than others.    And when evaluating opinions, we don't just evaluate the actual words said, but also take the speakers background, experience, and approach into account.  Does that mean that I think age is an insurmountable handicap?  Hardly.  But I do think that anyone challenged by age has to balance that out by putting extra work into the other factors.  And adopting easy catchphrases and unearned postures isn't doing that.

but by staying in the race and getting crushed in state after state, he do exactly the opposite of what he's intending to do. A series of third place finishes will show the country that Edwards doesn't at all represent today's Democratic Party. And he will discourage other Democrats in the future from adopting his positions.

If he joined with Obama and pushed him over the top, he would then have a seat at the table. That's why Dean accepted a position at the DNC instead of running for President again. It gave him a large stage within the party, without putting him in direct competition with the other factions.

It's from an Illinois kossack, Bob Johnson, who can't decide between Obama or Edwards:

When (Obama) ran for Senate, many hardcore conservatives in the state senate had nothing but nice things to say about him. Maybe that's a black mark, but I don't think so. He got things done.

Barack was a protege of one of my political idols, the late Senator Paul Simon, another liberal Democrat from Illinois who commanded respect from voters and politicians of all stripes. Paul never gave up his liberal credentials. But he wasn't a fire-breather, either. He was just a guy who got things done and won overwhelming margins among liberals, conservatives and people who appreciated his straightforward honesty. Paul loved Barack and, unfortunately, Paul passed away unexpectedly during surgery before Barack won the hotly-contested Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Another of my political heroes, Abner Mikva, a former congressman from Illinois, judge in the D.C. appellate circuit, and counsel to Bill Clinton, is also an Obama mentor.  Abner has devoted his life to serving others. He is another proud liberal who just got things done. Abner believes we need a transformational leader, nationally and internationally, and Barack Obama is such a leader.

I know there has been much debate here about Obama's lack of fire-breathing intensity in taking on Republicans and/or special interests. I can understand that criticism because I have shared many of the same thoughts with the Senator on a number of occasions.

But he is who he is. He has always been an extremely effective legislator and I suspect he would be the same as President. His consistency is to be admired, even if one disagrees with his methods in the current highly-charged partisan environment of D.C.  That said, he managed to get many crucial liberal issues passed in an arena where Democrats were in the minority.

That is a strong statement for Obama.

I have looked Edwards in the eye and had a couple of conversations with him about what needs to be done. I know his heart is where mine is.

I WANT to start a fight. I WANT to breath fire. If I lose, then I lose fighting for what is real and just about the Democratic party. Not some watered down corporate agenda with Hillary or some weak, vague and half-measured nod towards Democratic values with Obama.

I don't think Edwards is going to be the nominee. But I want the discussion and debate that his remaining in the race should bring.

Everyone here should do something. Go on You Tube and watch every single video on Obama they can. Watch every speech he gives and see if you don't start to sense how shallow this is. Watch a lot of them and watch them all in a row, one after the other. It just doesn't get there.

Then do the same with Edwards. See if you don't start to feel the blood pumping and the righteous anger welling up.

in my post just below.  Obama can speak passionately, but I sometimes worry that he's too careful.  He's not letting Obama be Obama - somewhere within him lurks someone who has Edwards's fire and is keeping it hidden because he's afraid of losing some votes if he comes on too strong.  I say let it all hang out.  Take a page from Edwards and dig for some depth.  Tell us that the packagers and the handlers and the advisers haven't stolen your passion and locked it in a box to be taken out once you're elected.  They did the same thing to Kerry.  I remember that miserable campaign Kerry ran, where every single word and phrase was carefully measured out.  Then I saw the young, angry Kerry testifying before the Congress about the Vietnam war.  I remember asking myself where that guy was who asked the committee how you ask a soldier to be the last one to die in Vietnam.  Where was that passion in his presidential race?

My suggestion to Obama?  Dig deeper.  Talk less about great ideals and more about how you're going to fix health care and make things better for the working class.  Reach into your vast knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and tell us what change is needed and why.  Talk about the kind of things you saw as a community organizer and relate it to all those dissatisfied voters out there.  Be passionate.    

I don't really trust Edwards. He was Joe Lieberman in the Senate, now he's Howard Dean. He liked the war in Iraq when it was popular, heck he co-sponsored the IWR. We mock Mitt Romney because he's repackaged himself to appeal to GOP primary voters, and with good reason.

Another reason I have a hard time trusting him is, what I see as, a sense of desperation. He doesn't have a political office to fall back on. And he's obviously not going to accept the no. 2 job twice in a row. Nobody has more riding on this than Edwards does. 4 years ago he ran the most positive campaign among the Democrats. Today, he's clearly gone on the attack more than anyone else. It's not even close.

As for Edwards' speeches... do you have any idea how easy it is to tell pissed-off people exactly what they want to hear? The ability to inspire and lift people up is a rare gift. It's what the greatest leaders throughout history all had in common. Them along with John Edwards circa 2003-04.

Read about Howard Dean's life, and you will find him as a very pragmatic, moderate liberal. The mythical Howard Dean was an invention of the media.

Edwards appeals to the people desperate for change who find Obama attractive but wish he'd take the gloves off and get mad.  

I wish I could say I'm for Hillary.  Long have I thought it would be great to have a woman in the White House, and if she does get the nomination then I will work to get her elected.  But I will feel as if I'm really just backing someone who's too cosy with the status quo.  Yesterday I took that online poll in which you can see how the candidates stack up to your personal positions.  I was shocked to find that the way the candidates stacked up for me was:  Kucinich, Gravel (huh?), Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and Richardson.  A friend and I were discussing it today.  She had very much the same results.  We realized it's because we're die-hard civil liberties fans and labor supporters.  We both believe the middle and lower classes are getting hammered and there's too much power concentrated in corporations, and the federal agencies which are supposed to be the watchdogs against corporate excess and greed are instead lapdogs.  We both believe that free trade is neither free nor fair, and it's time to rethink some basic economic assumptions in this country.

Hillary really lost it with me when she voted for that flag burning ban a year or two ago.  Just what we need, more thought crime legislation.  What my friend and I discussed was not only her seeming lack of fervor for the Bill of Rights, but her malleability in the face of corporate power.  We admire her brains and the many positive aspects of her forceful personality, but we are mistrustful of her, too.  We both believe she is seriously hampered by the kind of pettiness and power-grab mentality that accompanied things like the completely unnecessary travel office fiasco when Bill Clinton was first elected.  She's an effective, competent, and hard-working legislator, but she's got a mean streak, she takes names and retaliates against enemies, real or perceived, and she's too willing to accommodate powerful people who can do something for her.  

This is not to say that Obama and Edwards do not have some major flaws.  Obama's are that he speaks too much in generalities and carefully avoids setting out a concrete plan for anything.  He is wonderfully eloquent, but I find Hillary very articulate, too.  As an attorney I admire the way she has handled herself in the debates.  She has more than held her own against Edwards, who is an exceptional litigator, and Obama, who has vast speaking experience and natural wit.  Edwards perhaps spends too much time telling us he's mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, and not enough time telling us what he's going to do to change things, but he's a relief from the unity theme of Obama, who sometimes seems to be bending over backwards to be the nice guy and the reasonable one.  Get mad, Barack, I won't hold it against you.      

I think that Edwards understands that he's not going to win this thing, but he has enough support to be invited into the room when it comes time to decide how this is going to play out.  We've got a Survivor alliance thing going on here, and Edwards knows he's going to get voted out, but he can bring enough votes to the table to be a factor in the final decision.  Edwards has already started positioning himself to throw his support behind Obama.  He tipped his hand in the last debate.  The key here is that he not wait so long that he becomes irrelevant.  He has to decide now whether he's going to withdraw just before Super Tuesday and throw his support behind Obama so as to get the juggernaut rolling forward again, or whether he'll wait and play sandbag to any forward momentum Hillary has gathered after a strong showing on Super Tuesday.  If he waits too long the show is going to pass him by and his votes will be inconsequential.

Some time in the next few weeks I think Edwards will withdraw and throw his support behind Obama.  

This has been a difficult decision for me.  If Hillary had shown more gumption in defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, if she had less of a corporate flavor to her, if she were strongly pro-union and strongly pro-worker and less enamored of so-called free trade, I would have considered supporting her.  Wes Clark, whom I would have supported if he had run, ended up throwing his support behind her and that made my decision even more difficult.  However, once Clark was out I found that John Edwards matched me politically more than any of the other candidates (sorry, Kucinich, I can't vote for a guy who claims to be a UFO witness and wants to establish a Department of Peace), and it was because of his strong pro-worker message, his strong health insurance proposals, his Webb-esque talk about the two Americas.  Edwards will not win this thing, and when he does withdraw or loses his votes are likely going to Obama.  Therefore, I have decided to vote for Obama in the Virginia primary.  

I think you put it better than I did.

Once again, you prove why you're one of my favorite bloggers here, even though I don't always agree. :)

That's a rotten thing to do to someone with a florid Irish complexion. ;)

I don't tan.  I burn or freckle.

Catzmaw, I agree with much that you say. I, too, was hoping for another run by Wesley Clark and I am trying to decide where I go when Edwards leaves the field. I have a lot of concern that Obama cannot stand up to the right wing assault that will come his way. I recently read about the church he attends. There were claims that his pastor was a black nationalist and Obama was a closet black militant. This kind of assault has already started. How will Americans react to that kind of "swift-boating?" If they will accept the lies against a genuine hero like John Kerry, what will the attack dogs of the right do to Obama. I agree that Obama has a great deal to offer, but Hillary's strength is evident and she has already had the worst of the right wing assault. I think her position in the eyes of the voters is not likely to erode, but it could rise. Because he is new to presidential politics, Obama could take a dive as the nominee because he is vulnerable to the kind of lying attacks he will receive.

We have to win this election. I am not sure Obama is more likely to do than Hillary in the end. That's why Edwards is still my man and I want him to stay in the race at least through Super Tuesday. I believe that Hillary is more progressive than Bill in her policy orientation, and with a Democratic Congress could accomplish great things. The same is true of Obama. Edwards'endorsement will be a factor in may decision as to whom I turn to.  

I see your points and I have question for you.  Do you think that a woman holding those liberal positions could win the presidency at this point in time?  Could they move past the argument that they were weak on national security and defense, that they were too soft, too feminine?

You seem to be saying that being in support of the Bill of Rights and being opposed to a flag-burning amendment is somehow being weak on defense. I can't say that I swallow your premise.

Same goes for being pro-worker. How do, say, safe working conditions and healthy minimum wages contradict a strong military and national defense? They don't. Ask Jim Webb about that.

Flag-burning amendments aren't even remotely an issue in this election.

If Hillary Clinton was a man, she would be facing just as much if not more grassroots opposition than she is presently in this race.  Of course 'a woman' holding liberal positions would win the Presidency right now. But I think this country has made enough progress in the area of women's rights and equality that we don't even need to devote much thought to a question as broad as that. What you should be asking is the same question we'd ask about male candidates, that being exactly which women are going to be capable of winning such elections.  

Jennifer Granholm could be worthy of consideration if she was US born. Kathleen Sebelius has Presidential potential and if she had defense experience then I bet you'd be seeing her on short lists for VP this year.
   

Re-reading, I realize that my question is unrelated to anything that Catzmaw said.  And I could better clarify my questions.  I'm not proposing anything though; I'm just asking what other's opinions are.

My first question was really whether a female candidate could adopt angry rhetoric against corporations akin to Senator Edwards and win at a national level.  The second question was more general and unrelated as I said.  I wonder whether a female candidate who was a dove rather than a hawk could win a national election.  I am personally skeptical of successful outcomes in those cases, but I am open to dispelling that skepticism; thus, the questions.

On the Flag Burning Amendment, I have searched through Thomas.  And I cannot find where Senator Clinton voted in favor of the Flag Desecration Amendment.  So, if someone would like to point out that vote to me, I would appreciate it.  She did sponsor the Flag Protection Act of 2005, but that wasn't and amendment and it never came to a vote.  

I agree with > 90% of what Catzmaw wrote here. But there is one point I want to expand on:

Frankly, we don't know what we'll get from ANY of the candidates once if they get elected. So to me, the question is, who has the most authenticity when you compare their message to their record.

As Chris alluded to upstream, Edwards just lacks the track record to believe one way or the other -- do you trust what he did for his 6 years in the Senate, or do you trust his current message? And I, personally, cannot so easily forgive his voting and co-sponsorship of the AUMF. He is making all the right noises right now, but the question is, what will he do when something comes out of left field. I remain unconvinced he'd do the right thing.

Hillary, on the other hand -- we know what we get. I take former President Clinton at his word -- they were/are a team. Clinton governance is DLC-style triangulation that first and foremost serves the powerful interests. The record is there. They are hawkish on foreign policy, but also have a record of balancing the budget via more progressive taxation.

That leaves Obama. He is running much more on a platform of cultural change and cultural progressivism than on political and governmental versions of these ideas. Rhetoric and words are important; it's impossible to know what he means by them, really. He'll have had nearly 4 years in the Senate by election day, really not much less experience than either Edwards or Clinton. The question becomes, who do you trust?

At the end of the day, I hate to say, none of these people are leaders. Edwards saw the light after all his votes were already counted. Neither Clinton nor Obama show any desire, inclination, or ability to drive policy from the Senate floor. Where were the filibuster attempts to prevent the awful Military Commissions Act from passing? Or to demand, over and over and over, that the Webb-Hagel dwell time amendment be the absolute minimum requirement for more war funding in 2007-2008? Why won't they step up and help Senator Dodd prevent another more complete and final capitulation on the FISA "reform"? If they don't have the numbers, fine, so be it. But fight for something, dammit. Until they do, neither is believable.

So, for me, it comes down to Iraq and accountability. We cannot let this political era eclipse without someone paying a price for their actions with regard to this catastrophe. Let's be clear about this -- Clinton and Edwards enabled this disaster by their own inability or fear to confront what was popular by doing their damned jobs and searching for the truth. And let's also remember that the Clinton administration is the source of the ongoing and continuing lie that Iraq had WMD. They are card-carrying members, Bill and Hillary, of that foreign policy establishment that is an accountability free zone.

And Barack was right. Just like Jim Webb was, Barack stood up and made a political stand when it wasn't necessary and said, "No, this shouldn't be done." You say that's easier in Illinois? Fine, so be it. But he was right.

And that's it for me. That's the test.

At the end of the day, we won't know if he can be that leader unless and until he gets into office. But we place WAY too much emphasis on the Presidency today, especially in light of what the Constitution actually says about where most of the power in our government is supposed to lie. It's in Article I. Unless and until we get that grotesque body reformed, we'll remain a far cry from what American should be. Mark Warner, Judy Feder, Leslie Byrne (or Doug Denneny), and Tom Perriello appear to be good steps in that direction. God knows that Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, Virgil Goode, Thelma Drake and the rest of the goon squad that represents Virginia in Congress deserve to be held accountable as well.  

I followed Edwards career from afar since his '98 Senate race vs. Lauch Faircloth.  After seeing a few of his speeches in that Senate race, I thought he had the raw talent to become President someday.  I thought he would be a moderate, representing a fairly-conservative southern state that was also developing a modern high-tech economy.
I supported Edwards in '04, I liked his work to cross the aisle on the patients bill of rights with McCain and Kennedy, and his message to unify the country.

However, I'm not a fan of the new angry Edwards.  I don't buy into much of the anti-Business hot air.  If there were none of the so-called "evil" corporations, there would be few jobs in this country.  Quite frankly, I'm tired of the false choice between labor and corporations.  We should want both to do well, because it'll be good for our economy and millions of workers.  Economics is not a zero-sum game, unless we make it one with foolish choices that prevent progress.

That said, I think Edwards is done.  After Iowa, much of his balloon was deflated, and he didn't do well in NH.  If Edwards doesn't win SC in his backyard, he's really done.  He was really in a tough situation competing for attention against two heavyweights, and didn't mave much room for error.  After SC, I think he sould withdraw and endorse Barack.

Hillary's greatest hope in this race (aside from victory it's self) is for John Edwards to stay in for as long as possible.   The 'not Hillary' vote is being divided and she has hope of winning with a plurality.

I've been saying since the beginning of 2007 that those of us who don't want Hillary Clinton to be President should all get behind whoever comes out of Iowa and NH with the most support. I would have preferred that be John Edwards but as it turned out, it's clearly Obama. So now I'm right there with you and supporting Barack Obama for President.

No dynasties. No monarchies. No war with Iran. The Edwards people and the Obama people need to come together behind the strongest of the 2 candidates to ensure that there won't be another 4 years of being constantly embarrassed by our own President.

I volunteered for Emily Couric and L.F. Payne when I was in high school. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 when I was 18 years old. Voted for Al Gore, volunteered for Mark Warner in 2001, busted my ass for Meredith Richards in 2002, served as Al Weed's deputy Treasurer in 2004 and had the 5th District primary campaign for Kerry running out of my own office that same year. I gave stump speeches for Jim Webb in the 2006 primary.

Obviously I am through and through a Democrat who has always gotten behind the nominee, has no trouble supporting female candidates and has supported both left and right leaning candidates. But if Hillary Clinton wins this nomination, my streak will be over. I will not vote for this candidate in the general election. Period. She's not a liberal or a conservative. She has no real ideology beyond doing or saying whatever it takes to get herself a little more power.

This is a person who has repeatedly said that she supports a flag burning amendment to the Constitution, has called for the banning of certain video games that I rather enjoy and who voted to declare the part of the Iranian army a terrorist organization. And she voted to invade Iraq, and she voted for the PATRIOT act. I will oppose the election of Hillary Clinton to the office of President just as vigorously as I opposed the reelection of Bush in 2004 and if it means voting for a 3rd party or writing in 'Mickey Mouse' then so be it. I'm not voting for what amounts to a 3rd term for Bush, even if it means bucking my party.  

Whose your daddy:
Contributions to date -- http://www.opensecrets.org...

Hospitals/Nursing Homes --
Hillary Clinton -- $375,151
Barack Obama -- 309,816
John Edwards -- 61,950

Casinos/Gambling --
Hillary Clinton -- $81,925
Barack Obama -- 26,800
John Edwards -- 13,800

Defense --
Hillary Clinton -- $125,583
Barack Obama -- 59,500
John Edwards -- 16,000

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing --
Barack Obama -- $116,650
Hillary Clinton -- 108,055
John Edwards -- 9,900

Energy/Natural Resources --
Hillary Clinton -- $574,658
Barack Obama -- 489,909
John Edwards -- 62,306

Health Services/HMOs --
Hillary Clinton -- $246,480
Barack Obama -- 175,093
John Edwards -- 21,850

Insurance --
Hillary Clinton -- $529,238
Barack Obama -- 401,613
John Edwards -- 129,600

Mining --
Hillary Clinton -- $18,200
Barack Obama -- 12,257
John Edwards -- 1,250

Books, Magazines & Newspapers --
Barack Obama -- $878,353
Hillary Clinton -- 722,153
John Edwards -- 170,115

TV/Radio Stations --
Hillary Clinton -- $183,250
Barack Obama -- 135,449
John Edwards -- 25,125

Clergy & Religious Organizations --
Barack Obama -- $107,350
Hillary Clinton -- 88,910
John Edwards -- 19,600

Telecom Services & Equipment --
Hillary Clinton -- $315,880
Barack Obama -- 167,065
John Edwards -- 11,000

Tobacco --
Hillary Clinton -- $36,600
Barack Obama -- 8,885
John Edwards -- 0

Forestry/Forest Products --
Barack Obama -- $25,444
Hillary Clinton -- 19,600
John Edwards -- 250

Securities/Investment --
Hillary Clinton -- $4,752,580
Barack Obama -- 4,563,849
John Edwards -- 773,600

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products --
Hillary Clinton -- $274,436
Barack Obama -- 266,384
John Edwards -- 15,000

Meat Processing & Products --
Hillary Clinton -- $12,650
Barack Obama -- 2,300
John Edwards -- 0

Food Products Manufacturing --
Barack Obama -- $47,492
Hillary Clinton -- 42,550
John Edwards -- 4,700

Corporate power fears Edwards, Not so Obama & Clinton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feed...