There are a lot of folks in the Democratic Party who don't want either Obama or Clinton,  Neither is electable.  And it isn't because of race or gender.  Each has substantial flaws as a candidate--- and as a potential President.  Edwards has a right to think he should fight on --- McCain looks like he'll be the GOP candidate.  Edwards would do well against McCain---- Clinton and Obama would not.  The country doesn't want the Clinton style, baggage, or soap opera.  Obama would seem even younger and more untested next to McCain.   I liked Edwards before--- but with each passing day I think he looks even better.  Maybe the Democrats will wake up.  

If the Democrats plan to try and win the White House, John Edwards is the only candidate that can win the country. Obama is unproven and Clinton has too much baggage. I hope and pray the Edwards message finally starts resonating with the Democrats. The Republicans are scarred to death Edwards will get the nomination. If he doesn't get the nomination, any of the Republicans could win.

The message that John Edwards carries, that America is declining because of our Economic Policies, not our religion, not our work ethic, not our stand on social issues, that our Economic Policies of the last 28 years have intentionally hollowed out opportunities, is bound to take hold. We have shipped jobs, created tax havens in mailboxes, injected a habit of oil, sold our assets overseas, and spent tax money to support Big Box stores and Corporate profits, and let mom and pop   businesses and jobs go extinct, all to create more billionaires in the Fortune 500 list. Edwards asks, forcefully, what about US! What about US?
Edwards is right, and Republicans are correct to fear him the most of any Democrat.

When is Edwards gonna get it? I mean, does he really want change? He is a spoiler at the moment!

Statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe...

We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion.  This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations.  These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.  

We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008.

Senator Feingold was right about John Edwards:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

John Edwards is the Democrats version of Ron Paul.  He becomes illiterate when he tries to read the writing on the wall.  Expect them both to be in the race all the way to the convention where they can rely on the support of their 6 delegates.

Going into NH, John Edwards was everyone's 2nd choice but he blew it by turning from populist to bully. Now he doesn't come in on anyone's radar. Good guy;bad campaign. Say "Goodnight", John.  

Edwards is quickly becoming irrelevant. Besides, he would be a poor candidate to run in the general because of his voting record/changed views on Iraq war, NCLB, and patriot act.

Time to quit John.  You're not going anywhere.

Clinton on Vegas.

Obama won the whole state.


She got 12 delegates.

Barack got 13.

I would have to say:  BARACK OBAMA WON NEVADA!

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the
Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns
against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the
Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had
the opposite voting record.



"I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was
the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam
Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and
that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution".

- Attributed to John Edwards as a quotation from 2004.

THE TWO CLINTONS PLAY DIRTY IN NEVADA. THE RACE, GENDER, AND ETHNICITY BAITING BY THE TWO CLINTONS NOW INCLUDES VOTE SUPPRESSING.

THE NYT WILL NOT COVER IT.

WILL FIRST READ COVER IT?

READ HERE:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

John needs to stay on message and not get caught in the Obama-Hillary mess. Neither Obama or Hillary are change candidates. They are both proteges of the establishment and will govern that way. John does not need to support either in any way. Show Obama what a party regular he is and how his change candidacy is false. Show Hillary what her changes really are ( weak copies of your positions). Keep going and stay with your message of being the only who truly knows what change is and why it is needed.  

Yes, Edwards is the Dem's best candidate to fight against a Republican opponent in the GE. Energetic, speaks for the middle class. Hey, trial lawyers are the ones who fight for you when your kid gets injured by some lead-soaked toy that big business didn't care about. Edwards is not afraid to say he's changed his mind, like on Iraq--that takes guts. He doesn't take money from PACs. His positions  specify change; the others' just talk about it.

I'm worried the Dems will think just about the nomination process and not the GE, which is where it counts.

Did I read correctly that Obama got 13 out of 25 delegates and "lost" the caucus?  If the point of the primaries is to win delegates, didn't he "win?"  What happened to the culinary union?

Here's my concern:  Clinton is using every bit of political muscle and every political tactic to win the nomination.  This includes unprecedented involvement by a former president.  

The problem is that a HUGE segement of the population just doesn't like her (or ANY Clinton - right or wrong) and she will bring out the Republicans to the tune of +5 to +10%.  This will not only make a Clinton victory very difficult, but also put congressional seats at risk.

Remember when McCain was down to one bus travelling from one campaign stop to another? Anything can happen (and often does) in politics. Edwards has the right message and presentation to win in the General Election. IF Hillary and Obama sink, Edwards will be in position to make a run at the Dem Nomination. He is not going anywhere.

Edwards is the most electable and, by far, the best choice for the Democrats.  He is being pushed out of the picture by Big Media who feel threatened by him.  Obama, Clinton, McCain - all very friendly to corporate ownership.  

Corporate pigs (MSNBC indluded) successfully diminished Edwards by taking him out of the picture.  Obama lost the Union vote when he sucked up to the fake Reagan legacy.  Clinton prevailed.  Corporate greed prevailed.  America is sick and dying.  

Marbw already starting to whine! If any of what Obama says is true it will come out. How do you know they were not Hillary supporters kept out! Do you have a crystal ball. Of course Obama is whining because he thought he would get union workers. If you look at breakdown he didn't get union votes he got votes from rural areas. So what you say doesn't hold up. Go Hillary!!

Edwards is a visionary. Back in 2004 he talked about the division in America (the two americas) Back then he talked about jobs going overseas and the economy. Talked about the real problems in america.

Isnt it funny that Obama and Clinton today in 2008 are copycats of Edwards message and the general media like a herd of cows follows them and call them candidate of change because they say so.

I wish the Edward campaign would pound that message that their candidate is a leader with a great vision while the other two are just followers. This country needs a true leader not someone who looks at polls to decide what the message will be on any given day or week.

January 18, 2008 at 12:12:12

Hillary Clinton's Sleaze Parade

by Paul Rogat Loeb     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com
 
Politics can be a rough game. Candidates need to hold their competitors accountable and challenge distortions and lies. And God knows, we need a Democratic nominee who's willing to fight. But Hillary Clinton's campaign has included far too many cheap shots, sleazy manipulations, and unsavory players.

New questionable actions emerge daily. You're probably familiar with many. But it's the broader pattern that disturbs me--how much the Clinton campaign seems to nurture questionable actions from her operatives, supporters, and surrogates. And how the campaign's actions go beyond drawing legitimate political lines to an all-too-Rovian instinct to do whatever's deemed necessary to take down those blocking Clinton's potential victory. Here's a representative list of actions that, taken together, offer a troubling portent for her candidacy and presidency.


Start with the hiring of chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. He's CEO of a PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is advising the giant industrial laundry corporation Cintas in fighting unionization, and whose website proudly heralded their union-busting expertise until it became a potential Clinton liability and they removed that section. B-M has historically represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

Then there are Clinton's campaign donors. Any major candidate has some dubious supporters, but Clinton's gotten money from particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who's given to no other Democrat. Add in massive amounts of money from Washington lobbyists and from industries like defense, banking, health care, and oil and energy providers (though Obama's also gotten a lot from some of these industries). Then there's Norman Hsu, who brought in over $850,000 to Hillary's campaign after returning to the US following his flight to evade a fraud conviction (Hsu was subsequently rearrested, sentenced to three years, and is facing further federal charges, and the campaign eventually returned the money he'd raised). There's the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses. Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs recently canceled a major December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill Clinton headlining) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge. Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. That doesn't even count dubious supporters from the past, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2,000 election. Taken together, it's a pretty tainted constellation of backers.

Like most candidates, Clinton spends the bulk of her money on ads and mailings, and she's taken some pretty problematic approaches there too. I wonder how many of the New Hampshire women who voted last minute for Clinton were swayed by a mailing claiming that Obama wasn't really committed to abortion rights because he'd voted "present" on some abortion-related legislative votes. Except that Obama had done so as part of a strategy devised by Illinois Planned Parenthood to protect vulnerable swing district representatives. New England Planned Parenthood's Board Chair strongly refuted Clinton's letter, pointing out that Obama had a 100% record on all the votes that really mattered. But the mailing may still have damaged his support.

The distortion of Obama's position on abortion echoes Hillary's audacious argument that Obama really wasn't against the Iraq war and betrayed his promises by failing to vote against war appropriation bills after the Democrats couldn't override Bush's veto. I wish Obama had bucked the Democratic leadership and taken a stronger stand. But it's a gross distortion of history to equate his positions with Clinton's overt support for the war authorization, refusal to apologize for her vote, and claim that she was really doing it all to promote more diplomatic solutions.

We can find further distortions in a mailing sent out before the Iowa caucuses by the independent expenditure committee of a key Clinton ally, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The AFSCME mailing attacked Obama on his health care plan by using a John Edwards quote that was featured so prominently that recipients could assume that his campaign was the source of the attack piece. This and other actions so disturbed a group of seven AFSCME International Vice Presidents wrote a public letter to their union president, saying that although the union had endorsed Clinton on a split vote, the political committee had no mandate to attack Obama. They demanded the committee stop what they called "fundamentally dishonest" attacks.

Other surrogates have attacked Obama's character. Twice they've tried to raise Obama's early drug use as a campaign issue--despite his having addressed it directly and frankly in his book Dreams From My Father. Hillary's New Hampshire campaign chair, Billy Shaheen, mentioned it first, claiming that he was only worried about how the Republicans might use it. Sheehan resigned from the campaign after a storm of criticism, then Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (who's backed Bush on issues like the estate tax) raised it again, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. After Johnson's words drew major heat, Clinton belatedly distanced herself from them, but the smear still stands, along with the disingenuous claim that those making it were just neutral participants, only trying to serve the Party's best interests.

Clinton's campaign also attacked the John Edwards campaign for appearing in New Hampshire with the parents of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old leukemia patient who died after CIGNA refused her a liver transplant. Clinton press secretary Jay Carson claimed that the US needs to elect "somebody who's actually going to help people and not use them as talking points." Never mind that the Sarkisyans had initiated the chance to speak out by contacting Edwards about appearing at a Manchester New Hampshire town hall campaign appearance. To the Clinton campaign, their appearance had to be suspect, because they were supporting Edwards and his ideas.

The campaign has also attempted more directly to discourage participation by voters who might support Clinton's opponents. A judge just shut down the lawsuit filed by the pro-Clinton leadership of the Nevada teacher's union, which sought to prevent long-scheduled caucuses from being held at central locations on the main casino strip, where workers largely represented by the Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers Union would find it easier to attend. When asked, Hillary Clinton claimed to have "no opinion on the lawsuit" and Bill Clinton overtly supported it.

New Hampshire saw parallel voter suppression tactics, as the campaign encouraged the New Hampshire Democratic Party to evict Obama get-out-the-vote observers from the polls. In Iowa, the Clinton Campaign tried to discourage out-of-state students from returning to their campuses to participate in the caucuses. In the Michigan primary, Clinton kept her name on the ballot after the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary ahead of the Feb 5 "Super Tuesday" vote, while Edwards and Obama took theirs off.

Campaigns can have either closed or open information styles. Clinton's comes far too close to the Bush-Cheney model, as when the Clintons successfully killed a major story in the national men's magazine GQ about Clinton campaign infighting. Author Josh Green had written a long critical previous piece on Clinton for The Atlantic, and campaign press secretary Jay Carson threatened to deny the magazine access to Bill Clinton for a separate cover story on his international foundation work. GQ acquiesced and pulled the critical piece.

The flip side of trying to stop negative coverage is manufacturing praise. Clinton's campaign did this when they gave planted questions to Iowa student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, and according to Chasanoff, to other students as well. After being driven to a public event by Clinton interns, Chasanoff was introduced to a Clinton staffer who showed her a list of suggested questions to ask, one of which she used at Clinton's forum. It's not quite like Bush inviting the softball inquiries of former male-prostitute turned right-wing blogger Jeff Gannon. But it isn't so different either.

Taken together, these examples echo the Bush's administration's tendency to attack anyone who challenges them. They echo Clinton's refusal to apologize for her Iraq war vote or for an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." They hardly bode well for reversing the massive erosions of transparency of the past seven years.

The list could go on, but it's the pattern that's important. It's true that one person's cheap shot artist is another's fierce competitor. Obama himself has called politics "a full-contact sport," and used legal maneuvers to block a long-time state legislator when he first ran for office. And Democrats will need to be fierce in their campaigning if they're going to defeat the right-wing Swiftboating machine that gave Bush the last two presidencies. So maybe I'd be more charitable if I didn't disagree so strongly with Clinton's Iraq and Iran votes, and utter failure to take leadership in standing up to Bush when he was riding high in the polls. But I think I'd still have a problem. I look at the actions of her campaign, and see an ugly example, a ruthlessness not remotely equaled by either Obama or Edwards. I'll vote for the last Democrat standing, because the Republicans will continue the current administration's disastrous priorities. But Hillary's scorched-earth approach threatens to fracture the party if she does get the nomination, and to leave a trail of bitterness even if she wins. We can do better for the Democratic nominee.

Edwards did wrong by aligning with Obama. If he had exposed Obama , he would have got Obama's votes and won more delegates.

John Edwards has more chance of being hit by lightening than being elected President. I like the guy, but the truth is there comes a time when game is over and you have to admit defeat. To continue playing even when its obvious to a dead donkey that you cannot win the nomination is beyond being a fighter, it says that you are sore loser. I believe that Barack Obama should be the next president, however if and when it becomes clear that he cannot win, then Ill be first to say he must end this. I have been a true believer in Barack Obama for President. However I am also a realist and I believe Senator Barack Obama have one more shot at wining the Presidency. The problem we have had over the last two contests is that he has fallen down with women in general and older women in particular as well as the Latino community. I believe Senator Barack Obama need to immediately come out and announce his Vice Presidential running mate, and I believe the winning dream ticket is the Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano. She is obviously a woman and a mixture of Latino and Italian. She would immediately give Barack credibility with the Hispanic voters in the upcoming super states such as California and New York as well as the western states. She would give confidence to democrats who are concerned about border security, that we have someone willing to fight for immigration reform. Women want to know that they are also breaking the glass ceiling and woman and a Barack Obama sends a strong message of change and strategy that can win.

Edwards slides again, yet he holds HRC, from commanding. Is Edwards a ringer, if so he will support Obama!

The power from the clouds gave B.C a thrashing, was told to shut up! B.C might be the puppet master , but when the power comes from above  ""T.Kennedy"" B.C better take the warning as serious!

Was this not a real display of power or more of the Washingtons self serving paper hangers power!

He had the most field offices, he had the big endorsement, he had the big rallies.

He lost.

He was so arrogant in defeat he flew out of NV like a child before the final results were in.  He is going home to sulk.  He couldn't even drum up an Obama speech to thank his supports and the union that stuck their neck out for him.

Now he and his supporters are revisting their strategy after New Hampshire.   After Obama got lazy and blew a huge lead in NH he cried racism.  He sent Jessie Jackson Jr. out to attack Clinton on race, and to make a bizarre connection between losing NH and Clinton not crying for victims of Katrina (she didn't?).

Now Obama and his dirty Chicago style campaign is pulling Obama / Rezco style sleaze and trying to attack a fellow Democrat.  I guess those Reagan Democrats didn't carry Obama  to victory and he is angry about that.

Edwards may very well be the second best man to never become president. The first being Al Gore. Poll after poll shows he fares the best beating out every single republican candidate but as usual the democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating one of two highly flawed candidates. prediction: neither clinton nor obama can win in a general election. they carry too much bagage thus dooming us to at least four more years of republican rule.

was the article correct that stated less than 45,000 republicans caucused in nevada? If so, that is hardly a crushing win for romney!

"John Edwards is the Democrats version of Ron Paul.  He becomes illiterate when he tries to read the writing on the wall.  Expect them both to be in the race all the way to the convention where they can rely on the support of their 6 delegates.
Political Realist, Los Angeles (Sent Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:02 PM)"

A cute little smartass remark, but their delegate counts could not be more different right now...

Sun-Times Exclusive: Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case
Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko
January 19, 2008

BY DAVE MCKINNEY, NATASHA KORECKI, CHRIS FUSCO AND TIM NOVAK Staff Reporters

For the first time, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.
The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.

The allegations against Rezko that involve Obama are contained in one paragraph of a 78-page document filed last month in which prosecutors outline their corruption and fraud case against Rezko, who was also a key money man for Gov. Blagojevich and other politicians.

Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama’s name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn’t need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party’s nomination for president.

Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.

"Obama is unproven"
Obama has discussed his years of service to the senate and the MAJOR bills he has pushed through legislature along with numerous OTHER achievements that well defines his ability to do a VERY good job as president.  Problem is, if the media strategically misprint or air these things at a time that would be to the disadvantage of the candidate, that automatically makes Hillary's claims, the narrow claims of the media or rumor the facts about the candidate?  Wow!  You people are dumber than I thought!

In a side-by-side comparison, here is a candidate that has done things that has NOT been done by a Jr or U.S. Senator in U.S. History and because Hillary say "he has no experience" as a competitor, Every idiot in United States will take her word for it?  As a native American, you people are TRULY dumb!  This is a competition; automatically you should ALWAYS question that spoken from a competitor!  Barack Obama has served MORE years collectively than Hillary in the Senate!

As far as the white house, you pale faces write a history, Declaration and, a Constitution you yourselves are NOT familiar with?  How can Hillary gain ANY useful experience in the White House as "first lady" if the president does NOT need her AT ALL to do the job as the President?  There is NOTHING in the amended constitution that defines his working obligations that involves his WIFE!  I would imagine this is so because a "spouse" is NOT part of the President's occupational definition.  With that said, I would imagine that important matters of the President are rightfully discussed with the Vice President and the appropriate heads.  None of which are usually the "first lady."  Then just WHERE did she get ALL of this wonderful experience?  If she COULDN'T get it as the "first lady" and she DIDN'T get if from the Senate (because she is a baby Senator - with LESS experience in the Senate than most ALL of the candidates) then, WHERE in the world did she get this experience?

As far as Edwards, and the Republicans, lets see; Obama has served a total 10 years to the combined senate.  There isn't one candidate thus far that has come close!  In his Junior senatorship he has made History by being one of the youngest/earliest Senators to tackle some of the most controversial and competitve bills on the floor that even some of your veteran Senators are yet to push!

I think he is too busy trying to make sure is doesn't incriminate himself!  Hell if I were him, I would have NO problem letting "America" know that I am smart AND I've proven myself to be better than the rest."  He needs to throw caution to the wind and be the intelligent, aggressive, individual that got those things done for the american public.  He need to BOAST about his character; yes he needs to do a little belitting and he should because his intelligence and capability DESERVES and has the RIGHT to belittle!  What he has done NONE of them has accomplished as a Jr. Senator nonetheless, some of the U.S. Senate is STILL useless!  Again, Hillary has a lot of ideas but she doesn't have  the management skills to make SIGNIFICANT changes happen.  For crying out loud, you don't have to be a senator to get a little funds and open up a center for assisting single moms or whatever... ANYONE can start a non-profit and make that achievement!  But to do something that is significant for our ENTIRE society is where many don't have much of a background.  Even Kirk Dillard, a republican Senator had to admit that Obama has a lot of what it takes to do a DARN good job!  He said that the guy definately has the potential.  But I guess only idiots can relate to idiots and intelligence is TOO far above the head of idiots to relate to and I would assume that this is the reason why an idiot only appeal to a many other idiots; they are idiots in common...

So Susan, we must wake up to the fact the only Edwards is perfect, all others have flaws, come on, we are awake, awake to the fact that all humans have flaws, the democrats are speaking loudly, we want experience and a good politician.
Marbw, you are also mad that things go wrong because Clinton is dirty instead of facing the fact that things always go wrong when humans are involved, perhaps new election people who made mistakes or just misunderstanding or partisanship, either way it is human to make mistakes. This is far from a dirty election season. Your man lost the popular vote pure and simple. perhaps it is because of his praise of Ronny Raygun, perhaps it is because he slipped up and said someone would have to hold his papers so he doesn't lose them, either way he is slipping up.
Blaming the process in another state sounds like sour grapes.

Martha C., you say Feingold was right about Edwards. Well, I followed your link and I noticed that every single comment was a strong rebuttal of what the article said!

Edwards was a senator from a conservative southern state and he had to represent his constituents. Go read the comments at your link.

For some strange reason the Democrat power elite are pushing for Obama, even Feingold. But Obama's a Liebercrat and I won't vote for him if he's nominated.

I don't know upon what Edwards' supporters are basing their selection criteria.  They need to look more closely at his record and how he gained his wealth.  He says he became wealthy by taking on the "big industry" companies to help the "little guy".  The fact is he gained his wealth by "taking" from the little guy".  If his intent really was devoted to helping "little guys", he would have left more of the legal settlements with them instead of pocketing 30% and building wealth well beyond what any "little guy" could even imagine. Who among us sincerely believe that wealthy Trial Lawyers are primarily devoted to helping  clients instead of themselves???  If they had their way, there wouldn't be any industry in this country- nor jobs many of us depend upon for family income.

the media wants edwards to go away and go away now...they want the end result now, but the fact of the matter is, that this is not an event it is an election process...only a handful of states have spoken so far and mathews and olberman are already picking obama as the winner....my goodness they don't even like to mention a hillary win- they would rather call it an obama loss!!....hillary and obama come with too much baggage for the democrats and its starting to sink in that edwards is the real choice to beat the republicans..there's too much at stake here,..you are taking a very big chance of losing to the republicans if you pick either of these two big money candidates...stick with the real democrat-go edwards!!!

Edwards has 52 delegates as of January 20th, out of about 400 delegates awarded so far, and out of the 2025 (IIRC) needed to clinch. As long as he keeps pushing his message, picking up a delegate here and there, he can be in a position to decide a horserace at the end. This assumes Obama and Clinton keep it a horserace, and Edwards has the delegates to make the difference. So far that is not an awfully long stretch of the imagination.
I want him to keep pushing the message that we'll never recover our country until we get big business out of government. God knows the Bush Republicans have been bad enough, but real change won't happen until the government reflects the people instead of corporate interests.

Edwards did wrong by aligning with Obama. If he had exposed Obama , he would have got Obama's votes and won more delegates.
Simon, IA
****************************************************
Agreed!  That was possibly a fatal mistake.  Should havve helped take out the phony Obama first, then turned to Clinton.

the next president needs to implement three chages before the end of the first term and any other chages will be icing on the cake...but, three real changes are a must:
1- bring us home from iraq and repair our reputation globally
2- national, completely free health care for every American-period
3-remove big business and special interest from government while implementing campaign reform

the best we can get from hillary and obama is one out of three- the iraq one....you won't get totally free health care what you'll get is quality affordable health care...affordable by whom/..and is everybody covered?.....and you certainly won't get big business and special interest removed from this government

the point is this- edwards is the only cadidate to really stand a chance of getting the real changes implemented by the end of term one...this country needs real change or we'll be in bigger trouble than anybody can imagine and it needs to be done in term one because there is no guarantee of re-election...let's give edwards the chance we deserve!!!!

the next president needs to implement three chages before the end of the first term and any other chages will be icing on the cake...but, three real changes are a must:
1- bring us home from iraq and repair our reputation globally
2- national, completely free health care for every American-period
3-remove big business and special interest from government while implementing campaign reform

the best we can get from hillary and obama is one out of three- the iraq one....you won't get totally free health care what you'll get is quality affordable health care...affordable by whom/..and is everybody covered?.....and you certainly won't get big business and special interest removed from this government

the point is this- edwards is the only cadidate to really stand a chance of getting the real changes implemented by the end of term one...this country needs real change or we'll be in bigger trouble than anybody can imagine and it needs to be done in term one because there is no guarantee of re-election...let's give edwards the chance we deserve!!!!

Edwards is despeate and pathetic and his campaign is on life support if not in a coma!

Gee, the Obama supporters are extra crazy today - I guess they are starting to see that hype and hope don't equal votes.

Boy, democrats put up candidates that can't win the general election.  Obama and Clinton can't win Ohio a must to be elected.  I hate to say that if McCain is the Rep. nominee.  Both my husband and I will vote for the first time in our lives for a Republican.  Obama is now linked to Resko. What did he promise to Resko in order that he could buy his house.  What neighbor would purchase a property so that you could have part of it? They purchased that part for full asking price? Also, it was Resko's wife that purchased it and sold part of it back to Obama.  What did he promise for the favor?  Let me remind you of "White Water".  No one does that it without a implied favor at a later date.  Resko is also a Syrian-born.  Won't that be great in the election when Obama has been acused of being Muslin. Then we have Hillary that will enerigize the Rep. Think people we have to have someone beside these two or we won't win again.

Thank you, the unauthorized fourth branch, the 24 news cycle, for overlooking the most viable, intelligent candidate and instead promoting the most controversial Democratic candidates.  John Edwards was first to reseach, first to promote and first to lead the agenda the other candidates have adopted.

Get real!

The Peoples candidate, therefore the Unions candidate is John Edwards, keeping the promise to America!

Real change on Real Issues, John Edwards for America.

The first to stand with the strikers and proclaim he wouldn't cross a picket line, even for a debate. That's huge, considering he isn't the Corporate candidate like Clinton and Obama, so they aren't pushing him at us, like Obama who has received record breaking coverage and the most positive coverage since the studies have been conducted.

Vote for the peopless interest, voter for the workers, John Edwards has the most backing by Unions. He doesn't just talk. He walks a great walk. He was in NOLA rebuilding her. He campaigned state by state to increase minimum wages. He fights against injustices and spoke out against the injustices of Jena 6...not claiming he was too busy.

VOTE for the American promise.
Vote for John Edwards!

John Edwards stands the best chance of winning against a Republican.  Not just because he has the policy for the people and that he is electable by besting in the polls on head to head match ups.  But because a majority of people like character and one who stands proud for what he believes and doesn't pander.

Global Warming
Iraq (out within 10 months of being elected)
Health Care (for ALL-unlike another)
Jobs (in OUR country)/ Poverty

Keeping the promise to America,
John Edwards
 J

no, all y'all edwards haters, you're the ones who have it wrong...

McCain won SC.  that means he'll prob be the GOP nominee.  

Only Edwards can beat McCain.  Hillary gets tanked by McCain in match-ups!  Edwards beats him handily.  Even results with Obama are shaky at best.

Democrats, either vote Edwards or say hello to President McCain.

TALLEST CANDIDATE-with shortest name-USUALLY WINS.
(WAR HERO TRUMPS ABOVE, HOWEVER).

-OF COURSE 'NOT UNATTRACTIVE' A GIVEN-

MALE attributes necessary for leadership. sorry.

I still do not understand why Dems love Hillary and Obama. John Edwards represents the Democratic base and all Americans, for that matter. John Edwards this country needs you! Go John go!!!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):