EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Beware Capitalist Tools
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
Popular content
Today's Top News
John Edwards to Quit Presidential Race
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning - Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.
Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.
Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.
Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.
With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago - with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.
Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas - he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.
The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates - and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.
Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.
Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives - the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.
Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour, the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier, also was an effort to remind voters that a rich man can care about the less fortunate. It came as Edwards was dogged by negative coverage of his personal wealth, including his construction of a 28,000-square foot house, his work for a hedge fund that advised the superrich and $400 haircuts.
But even through the dark days of summer and as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.
The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004. But Edwards performed well enough to pick up 58 delegates.
© 2008 Associated Press
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

205 Comments so far
Show AllWhat a d--m shame....I've cursed yet another candidate, to copy a previous post, first Dennis K, now Johh E., leaving two usual corporate hacks from the DIMMO Crap side (corporate war princess HC and ultra cool BO) to run against the usual war mongering Mega christian patriots from the re-thuglican side. Time to slap another one on - bumper sticker on my car that is. I no more of the liberal MSM, the major network shut out Kuchinich and Edwards, heaven forbit GE and Westinghouse allow the true anti war candidate have their voice. My donations to DK re-election and Sheehan to shake up House Enabler Pelosi (aka Corporate War Princess PT 2).
How can everyone go over 100 comments with no mention of the best candidate? You don't have Kucinich anymore, and there's no need for Nader.
MIKE GRAVEL
MIKE GRAVEL
MIKE GRAVEL.
Has anyone bothered paying attention to his platforms or the National Initiative? How much more courage and truth do you need? Here's a guy who put his own neck on the line, risking prosecution and imprisonment by Nixon to release the Pentagon Papers.
www.gravel2008.us
www.nationalinitiative.us
Amazing, today, I listened to an NPR pundit who could not understand why none of the candidates ever raised the Iraq War as an issue?!+@####@!
Paul Bramscher January 30th, 2008 9:12 pm
Indeed, why do the Dems allow Liebermann (basically a Republican at this point) to caucus with them? Would they allow a Green to caucus with them?
Okay Paul, what's the difference between the Dims and the Repugs?
I certainly hope Nader runs, it will basically pull votes from Hilary, and cause the Dems to loose again. Our challenge at that point will be to insure the repubs don't gain control of the house or senate.
In 2012, then have more of the larger and diverse states of ethnic and other demographic variances going first. In the primaries our candidates will never get a fair chance if primary matrices are all of the same ethnocentric group, i.e. Iowa, New Hampshire, and S Carolina. We need states with progressive populations to have an equal start.
If Hilary is the candidate, I'm convinced Ralph Nader will run.
wonderful.
besides kucinich, john edwards was one of the only candidates offering what the people actually want. a government that works FOR THE PEOPLE.
i gotta get the hell outta this country.
Nuts! Take your money with you for safe keeping.
Wow. No Edwards, no Kucinich. No real need to vote now. It's hard to imagine how much more depressing this presidential campaign could get.
Every day, it gets a little worse. The "frog and the pot of water".
I went digging around for some information, and I discovered that there is in fact a Green Party in the US. Whodda thunk? It would appear to me that the time for talking about the un-electability of any individual who is not a corporate operative is over. Can you support the Green Party? Can you convince others to do so? There seems to be zero sense in bickering about anything else at this point. Stack the Congress, the Senate, and the White House with Greens. Or put forth some other rational alternative.
There is an underlying flaw in the way the US government has been set up by our founders.
Under a parliamentary system there would be a place for political parties like the Green Party.
A leader like Bush in a parliamentary system would have been recalled very quickly and it would not have caused the kind of disruption an impeachment causes.
Our system is dependent on a news media that will uncover corruption and will give all points of view. That news media has been compromised by the vested interests that own it. (Thank God for the internet..which has preserved freedom of the press)
It's not to late to support a candidate who can accomplish some of your goals.
Ron Paul support bringing home ALL American troops
He supports ending corporate welfare
He supports civil liberties
He has stood up for what he believes in so many times they call him crazy
Now he's not progressive perfect
He's against universal healthcare
He's for federalizing a number of issues that would put abortion and gay marriage questions in the hands of some very unprogressive states
So which is more important fighting the imperial MIC or Hillarycare if the former is a bigger issu then Ron Paul is your guy if the latter Hillary or Obama but either way you should support the Greens in the general. They ARE more progressive perfect than even you think you are. Greens however have very few contested primaries and generally don't garner attention until the general so use the primary election to fight the system from within and the general to fight it from without.
A revolution a day keeps the tyrants away
P.S. sorry about being a Paulbot. I really do enjoy less blantantly partisan discussion but what can I say, I got bit by the freedom bug bad.
Colleen, if you're suggesting that there's no place for Greens in the current system, I'd say you're being overly pessimistic. And, a parliamentary system would not necessarily get rid of bush, especially if his party had a majority of seats. However, with this utterly mad "Super Bowl Mano-a-mano two teams winner-take-all model", well you see what happens. Get the Greens in there, for heaven's sake!
This will give an over view of the Green Party in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)
Losertarian - I really wish people could hear what Paul has to say. He speaks the truth - and he's the last one in the two major parties that will. Support him, and the Greens!
"Status Quo's Gotta Go!"
Yes, there is a Green Party here in the US! www.GP.org
Our candidates do not accept ANY pac or corporate funding - ever. Nor do any of the state parties, or the nat'l party.
To all the liberals that read this message: No party owns your vote. Cast it how you wish,and support what you want. Do not let any party or candidate coerce you into supporting them. They don't own your vote -you do.
www.GP.org
Big_Money
I like the greens a great deal and hope they will gain power, but it is more difficult in the US than in other nations to get them into power on a national level imo.
There are Republicans who are concerned about environmental issues and that may be a way to reach them.
Its going to be difficult...but its the right thing to do..to support the Greens.
By the way, Greens already hold hundreds of elected positions across the US:
The information can be accessed at http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/Elections-2007-01-27-08.xls
Please note, you will need Open Office or Microsoft Office to view the file.
A revolution led by Ron Paul, who is only libertarian so far as property questions are involved and reactionary everywhere else? Don't make me laugh.
right now I'd consider voting for ANYONE who wasn't part of the machine/cabal currently running this country (and I consider Hillary, Obama, McCain and Romney all part of the current problem)...just to throw a monkeywrench in their plans....cleaning up behind a reactionary wouldn't be any worse (and probably easier)than cleaning up the mess we've got now...
Ron Paul is a right wing mole. No "libertarian", once having taken office, does anything but vote along republican lines when it comes to foreign policy. Paul's stance on immigration is flamingly reactionary, his attitude toward public health is 16th century. He represents people ("libertarians") who think capitalism works if it's just run correctly. Like vulgar marxists, they haul out their little schematics, and conveniently ignore what the system has always been- that is to say, a social system that uses the state to subsidize private interest. An administration run by Ron Paul will just be Ronald Reagan over again- Paul himself has never rejected Reagan's legacy- and people who support him need to do not only their homework on him, but on the Ayn Randian utopian crap most of his supporters represent. Capitalism has no "unknown ideal", its ideal has been trumpteted for centuries now and it's a wash. 500 years after its inception and it still can't keep its hands off of other people's cultures. The market is the senior partner in any state dictatorship of the last 500 years, it's too bad libertarians have never understood that.
colleen - we have an expression in Canada (where, thank heavens, there are more than two parties) we say "The Balance of Power". If the major parties hold 45% of the seats each, and the mini-party has 10%, either major party has to woo either the other major party or the party that holds the "balance of power" to achieve a majority. Without that going on, our neo-conservative wing-nuts would have led us much farther down the path of destruction than they have. Our "French-Separatist" party has been more help to this country in the last couple of years than they could ever have imagined.
Um... the best example of how to gain political power in a nation of millions and a nation of corporations is what the republican 'revolution' did and later the 'values voters' did.... start local! get out in touch with as many people in your community that share your views or can be forced/pursuaded to share them- then start running for small offices, school boards, pta's, neighborhood associations, trade associations, am radio jockeys, local editors and the like. Then move relentlessly up through city, county, state and national offices and media outlets- all the while building up an army of voters who will actually show up to the polls.
I'd be happy to talk with any greens on the how-to's. Anyone in Chicago?
It's a race to the final collapse of the empire, and the devil take the hindmost. Bit of irony, though, that the most progressive "candidate" remaining in the party pulls the plug in the city that best represents the domestic effects of modern U.S. fascism.
Goebbels sez: "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
- Dresden James
Big_Money
I am in the throes of living in Canada. I love you guys. And its why I now think a parliamentary system is better.
I still vote in the US and I am involved with the political system there..I don't quite understand Canada..but I am very impressed with what you have done with your nation...and you did it without a violent revolution. You are just so much more civil to one another...(a heavy sigh for my nation...the US)
eshu -
All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.
----
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
----
In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
----
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
----
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
----
War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
**************
Know who said these things, eshu? Can you imagine mainstream red-state Americans having to hear these things? You'd like the guy who said these things to quietly disappear, like Edwards? I guess you would. I'd say, that's kinda foolish and closed-minded.
I'm sorry John has to leave the field. He was among the best for truth-telling. Now that we're down to Barack, Hillary, Mitt and John McCain, we still have an obligation to try for a result that does not put more conservative judges on the bench and does not give the power of law enforcement and veto to the Corpublicans.
I can't believe this. What about California and the northern states that might vote more progressive and pick Edwards?
F*cking idiot, wait till Feb 5th. I guess I shouldn't have expected much from Edwards, given that Kerry and him bent over for the Republicans even after it was clear there was election fraud.
I think the whole point of the Democratic party is to make people who know the issues feel disillusioned. F*ck the DLC.
colleen - one bizarre thing in Canada's favour is that we are completely owned by the Queen of England. She is our head of state. Our government only exists at her pleasure. And she's a nice lady! Not a sociopath, not an MBA (is there a difference, I ask?) The Monarchy and the French Separatists are a great boon to our freedoms.
Goodbye, Johnny, we hardly knew ye (thanks to the MSM).
As for Ron Paul and libertarians in general, they are the "dog eat dog" candidates. Selfish to the point of not caring about anyone but themselves. No concern for the "common good" only what suits their own needs, and to hell with anyone else. The so-called "Fair Tax", like Bush's "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" is nothing but an oxymoron. It's a boondoggle for the rich, and puts undue burdens on the poor and middle class. Thank goodness Ron Paul has as much chance as Dennis Kucinich to be elected president .
After volunteering for Edwards in NH, I'm now supporting Hillary. She has the experience, and she has Bill. She's far from perfect but at least the right wing will go ballistic if she's elected. Obama can earn his chops, and wait his turn.
I scorned the "Mod Squad" of Democratic "top-tier" candidates when they were put forth by the Powers in the Democratic Smoke-Free Back Room, but I kind of warmed up to "Pete" in recent weeks.
By this time next week we'll know if it's pro-military, pro-Zion, exceptionalist, pro-corporate, centrist moderate Uniter Linc or Julie.
this makes no sense
just got an email yesterday from joe trippi imploring us to continue to setting an on line fund raising record
and
an email from JRE the day before saying he was in the race to the end
what is up?
Well, there goes the effort to bring the Democratic Party back to its roots.
See you in 8 years when we try again with someone else.
another 8 more years of neo liberalism from Obama or Clinton, the political twins, should make the country a bit more receptive
I half hoped it was a play by John to get a little press...He's got more press today than he has the whole campaign...what if he showed up in NO and said...Oh..my aides were wrong...I was just checking who was leaking things in my campaign...So much for pipe dreams...I agree with formernadervoter...I got those same emails ..what IS up? Had he stayed in he could at least have been a king maker with ALOT of leverage...has that power scared someone??...
DAMN! I was hoping he would at least wait until "super Tueaday." Now there is really no one to vote for. Barring an alternative candidate, I can't see bothering but then, we can't really expect a legitimate election anyway.
Big_Money
It seems like people still need to have a single person who is their leader..like a king or a queen..and there seems to be a need that that leader in some way carry the values of the people they lead even in their personal life. In the US many are looking for a Christian leader and your Queen is the head of the Anglican church. People seem to need a philosophical motivation like the kind of motivation that is given by a belief in a God.
I support human rights and think it is a basis for political motivation with or without a belief in God.
The Greens are an international political party which also appeals to me. I think we either all start to back human rights or we will kill one another..with war or with economic inequities or with the ravaging of the environment for the economic gain of a few.
In the current political environment in the US it is not possible to know where the politicans really stand on some important issues. They can not say their true positions because any revealing will set them up for attacks and there are only some ideas which are permitted by the people in power. I am hoping that Obama will be a step in the right direction and I am influenced by the endorsements he has received from people like the Kennedys'. Imo they have a track record of supporting liberal causes and they have more inside information about what the candidates are like.
This sucks.
Still on the other hand it means that it's up to the repugs to clean up the mess they made instead of having the dems do it. Then take the credit for it later.
So, thanks to Trippi I think we are going to see alot of dems going independent after 08's over. Which may force the dems to do a lot of soul searching and reorganization to keep this from happening. Which means it may have to kick out the DLC-and it's supporters ad go back to it's roots.
But hey I could be wrong.
You guys are joking, right? I like Edwards and Kucinich along with everyone, but are there this many people who don't see a difference between Obama and Clinton?
If you think there's a snowball's chance in hell of getting a better president than Obama in this system, prepare to live a long life of bitter disillusionment.
No need to vote now? How f*#^ing ridiculous! If anything, there's more reason, because the anti-Billary vote can now consolidate and knock the Clintons off stage. Choice is pretty clear now: your choice of one of three neocons or Barack Obama.
And whatever he says about Israel/Iran or the like, you are all aware that the second a candidate says anything AIPAC doesn't like, s/he's a goner. Don't blame him for the system we have.
To those of you who declare Hill and Barack are one in the same, I'd recommend removing your heads from your hindquarters.
The primary system and Corporate Media let just a few hundred people -- in just a handful of states -- winnow the Democratic playing field down to two candidates almost a year in advance. Did anyone honestly expect otherwise?
Jaded Prole - "Now there is really no one to vote for."
If democracy is doomed, it's not because of what the corporate master have succeeded in doing. It's because folks like you can't see the Green Party, right there, in real life, under your nose, not some vague conspiracy theory, but an actual political party you can vote for and support.
Or am I missing something?
I am a Green, recently converted to Dennis' campaign, now considering Ron Paul or Cynthia McKinney.
If Cynthia doesn't look like she's going to win, please read up on Ron's positions, many of which are excellent. He will bring the military home, stop Wall Street's takeover of the US, restore our civil liberties, and so on. People, believe me when I say the biggest issue facing the US is not gun control or abortion rights, it's the secretive Federal Reserve folks' stranglehold over our government and the media, and the same's control of the media to prep us for a police state and a collapsed dollar economy. Ron and his people tackle this HEAD ON.
Here's a link, but please check out the "issues" button" at top also.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/705/violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act/
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
by Ron Paul, Dr.
Summary:
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
by Ron Paul, Dr. December 6, 2007
Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the U.S. government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization.''
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension'' bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view H.R. 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial.''
There are many causes for concern in H.R. 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process'' in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward U.S. government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization''--a claim for which there is no evidence--there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization.'' Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.'' I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
Keywords: Government Surveillance
BM and Colleen, the queen is the symbolic head of state. Were she to try and disolve self rule in Canada, the monarchy would be abolished.
Shame about Eddy lad, then again only a fool would want to take over the shitpile that gomer bush has left for someone else to fix.
This is depressing news. I'm surprised. I wonder if there's more to it than we're being told (as usual).
It's a choice now between a rock and a hard place.
Just interested in what the Edwards faithful have to say?
Is it now time to jump on the Obama band wagon, is he the guy to save us now?
And then a little further down the line Hillary.
I mean we all saw this coming right?
Are we completely disillusioned yet?
What a dark day. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi:
"I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and then, suddenly, silence."
May the Force be with you.
eshu,
The libertarians are hilarious. They argue that because of human nature all humans are self-interested and so only a capitalistic sort of system can work well. They fail to follow through with that line of reasoning, and observe all the accumulated evidence, and recognize that because of that self interest the powerful players in a capitalist system (and over time powerful players always emerge) rig the system, including by controlling the government, in accordance with their self interest.
They convince themselves that individuals who follow self interest in everything will somehow magically ignore that self interest when it comes to making sacrifices (e.g. passing up opportunities) to preserve the integrity of the so-called "free market."
The amount of Ron Paul material on CD still somewhat surprises me.
1. Ron Paul is pro-life, whereas most progressives are pro-choice.
2. Ron Paul still apparently favors the socialization of law enforcement, the courts and military (which ultimately serve to protect private interests via coercion against the poor). Either he's a Libertarian or not.
3. Does it matter whether it's autocratic capitalists in office, or out of office, that call the shots, control the bulk of the wealth, wage wars to meet their goals, etc? Ron Paul's Libertarian notions aren't fully fleshed out for the modern era. The issue is monopolization of wealth and power. How does Paul suggest we flatten it out better, give middle- and working-class people a fighting chance again?
Maybe Edwards will become attornery general and he won't have a problem with declaring water boarding a form of torture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html?
"I sure would hope there will be a role for him," said Gibson Vance, a Mongtomery, Ala., trial lawyer who has been a longtime friend and supporter of Edwards. "He would be a heck of a tough attorney general. Think about it."
......................................
There will have to be small increments towards changing the US imo.
Maybe it would be good to pressure both Hillary and Obama to say they will choose Edwards as attorney general.
I am so sick! I think Edwards was done in by lack of adequate coverage by the corporate media who quickly ordained Clinton and Obama as the race they preferred to cover. It didn't help that they saw him as a threat. It was also hard for him to run against the first woman and first serious black candidate in a national election. I hope he quickly comes out and endorses whichever of the remaining two that he thinks will come closest to implementing his more professive agenda.
Well, CHANGE has died and HOPE is on life-support ......... all before February of this election year. Odds aren't even very good now of whichever compromised corporate "Democrat" we hold our nose to vote for beating a senile nutcase in November.
Turn out the lights ...
rmax___ I am with you on this election farce. We have wasted too much time supporting candidates that never had a chance anyway, though Edwards should have stuck it out until the big primary day. I agree that Hillary is our best bet to combat some of this rot we have seen for seven years although she will disappoint us like all the rest would. Who cares whether Bill likes the women or not, that is Hillary`s problem, not ours, and she did not run off and cry about it but handled it, which is to her credit. Obama is a fine man, but may need a little more seasoning to take on that enormous mess Bush is leaving for someone else. Forget this dragging Hillary and Bill through the mud, the Repugs are better at it than we are anyway.