edwards told hillary in a pre-presidential debate that they should do something about the maginal candidates (kucinich & gravel), which means that he would like to keep me from hearing what the two best candidates have to say and that means that edwards is not my friend. good riddance to him and on to the BUYING OF THE PRESIDENCY - MAY THE BEST FUNDRAISER WIN!

there are many reasons why john edwards could have chosen this moment to exit.

1 the poor showing in SC coupled with poor showings in the other three contests IA NH NV.

2 dwindling resources needed to publicize his campaign (yes corporate media time is very expensive - and campaign reform is sorely needed in tis country).

3 the upcoming race on 2/5. by exiting now he actually is doing both the other dems a favor by letting the voters see w/out illusion who the two probable candidates will be (voters in NY CA IL NJ etc.. no longer have to ponder edwards harboring their votes on their behalf at the election either clinton or obama. if you listen to his concession statement he says he's glad his platform (class inequity, poverty) has become part of the others discussion/policy.

4 the upcoming debate in california tomorrow will reflect this reality, 2 candidates on the stage. and i suspect it will be an excellent way, for the voters in the 22 states voting on teus, to see how these 2 fare w/out a moderator (like in SC where edwards could - legitimately siphon attention to his ideas- move the candidates away from confrontation).

5 edwards may have his most political strength now with less then 100 delegates, teusday 2/5 over 1600 delegates will be allotted. by leaving the campaign now his perceived victory (i was 3rd before super teus) will be enhanced at the convention in denver. because the obama/clinton race is so raucous, i doubt neither will be on the same ticket, edwards has a chance with both as VP. although i agree w/ others that edwards probably won't be on ticket.

the polls are not encouraging. mccain is leading both obama and clinton. it isn't the end of the world (the polls) it merely reflects the intensity of the dem race which is showing serious divides w/in the dem party. now that mccain is the established candidate the repubs will start joining the attack against clinton and obama. i'm certain obama will prevail on this score. clinton(s) is a magnet (like the fridge magnets you can buy at walmart) that attracts controversy.

obama is amicable, and is preaching a message of unity towards repubs (even in the primaries,though his voting record /like clintons/ is considered left of center, more progressive then edwards. obama did not initially endorse/create the war (as kennedy observed in his endorsement, feingold observed on these pages). obama is running right early for the general election. i know this sickens many, but the reality is (ugly word right REALITY) 1/2 the country voted for bush2 (metaphorically, diebold machines and all) these people don't like clinton(s), they don't like bush as an individual (noted by approval ratings), there not necessarily supporting the war and may appreciate an easier out (a dem pres vs. mccain). these people live here and just because they haven't treated us well doesn't mean they also shouldn't be considered americans (war criminals should be prosecuted, appropriate social programs enhanced) when the economy collapses we'll all be effected (prog's and corp's).

but we can't be too overreaching in our conclusions about mccain/obama in the general because obama's strategy (like jackson, like dean) has been to bring new registered voters into the fray, like in SC (as nyt's observed SC could be in play in the general b/c of high voter turnout), all 4 dem contests so far have generated enormous voter turnout (especially among youth and minorities) these voters are participating (maybe not on alevel high enough to comprehend mr naders essays, or the intracicies of green politics) but their voice is being heard and if if obama is the candidate this support in the general will swell. obama is the insurgent dem candidate.

vote your conscience in the dem primary, please encourage edwards to pledge his delegates to obama before 2/5.........

vote for cindy in CA, kucinich in OH and please ralph run for public office you can win so your voice can be heard............

see ya on the streets of denver
peace...

John Edwards as Vice President would be the only thing that would give me hope at this pint.

Obama can't crash through against Hillary.

The Country was mis-led in NOT being informed that Edwards was the strongest candidate against John McCain.

This was corporate-dominated media.

The women and blacks were fooled into mindlessly supporting their own, and probably giving the Presidency to the republicans.

vote 3rd party for local elections (mayor, county commissioner, st sen, st legislature, congress, US senate). voting for a quadrennial pres candidate like nader i believe is a mistake. mr nader made his political ambitions clear years ago, but did he ever choose to run in an election he could have won?

the best third party candidacy in all of american pres politics occurred when a former sitting president ran as a third party (the progressive party actually) candidate in 1912 creating a split in the republican party, he garnered less then 30% of the vote and came in 2nd.

but how was this party created (by educated elites) and what was it's message ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1912%29

"The party was funded by publisher Frank A. Munsey and its executive secretary George W. Perkins, a leading financier. The platform called for women's suffrage, recall of judicial decisions, easier amendment of the U.S. Constitution, social welfare legislation for women and children, workers' compensation, limited injunctions in strikes, farm relief, revision of banking to assure an elastic currency, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes"

there are two reasons to vote for a 3rd party. to draw attention to legit social issues ignored by existing parties. often these ideas percolate into the mainstream 20 years later (FDR's policies for example). also a national campaign draws attention to local campaigns increasing greens chances of being heard in community.

if you want you want to imagine the election as a mandate on your conscience do so vote. you may believe (as our experience has dictates) the dem or repub will win, so be it, support the best candidate from your choices. a or b will still oversee our government.

John Edwards for Secretary of Labor?

Or Health and Human Services?

John Edwards was a very good candidate and he presented his arguments forcibly without any of the gutter tactics of the Clintons. I respect him for that and I hope he will help prevent her from winning so we are not faced with two candidates in the next election who will guarantee more wars.

Is this the magazine that said it wouldn't endorse any candidate that wasn't for full troop withdrawal from Iraq? (that's a serious question by the way) If so that leaves Ron Paul in the primary and McKinney in the general( Nader is soooo yesterday and the greens have been dying to nominate a woman or person of color for years). I figure with too centrist candidates third partiers could do well this year but it will require the support of the ENTIRE anti war movement one way or another. END the war and end the supports to the corporations and that is more than half the progressive battle.

Thanks for saying the right things, Mr. Edwards, even if you didn't even do them. Since it's down to Clinton vs Obama (Coke vs Pepsi as another poster has said), I'll be sitting out the presidential primaries this year.

John Edwards will still be on the ballots in Super Tuesday states and I encourage people to vote for him.

The best comments on Edwards came from Senator Russ Feingold. Feingold, while explaining his suspicions with respect to Edwards, basically said, "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."

In politics, it ain't what you say, it's what you do, that counts. And now, the choice is between Billary-O-Bama--which is to say, no choice at all. Man, am I ever glad I moved to Canada.

"In politics, it ain't what you say, it's what you do, that counts. And now, the choice is between Billary-O-Bama–which is to say, no choice at all. Man, am I ever glad I moved to Canada."

Says the person who either a) left the fight behind or b) is a right-wing shill trying to get people to feel demoralized. Either way, what have you done lately other than blog?

The Corporate Media's Obama-as-Airbag-For-Hillary strategy has worked. The hit was much less obvious than the one on Dean in Iowa well before the scream.

The elections are over.

The corporations have won. Any lesseroftwoevilism now can only worsen our problems.

Can anyone explain to me why Sen. Feingold doesn't run for President? He's always appealed to me, even though he is from a neighboring state (the great state of Wisconsin!)

A shame, but I think it will have one benefit -- Edwards voters will switch to Obama and Hillary is really going to start to take a beating in these races.

I would expect Obama to seek out Edwards as his running mate. Seems like a natural fit.

Lots of us here in WI were pushing for Feingold to enter the race. Lots of homemade signs all over the place about a year ago. I think he likes being a Senator and saw that the establishment was gearing up to support Hillary. I don't know if he saw Obama on his radar, but I think Feingold thinks he is best suited to be active and effective in his role as Senator. We'll keep trying to convince him.

We will get corporate spokespeople as president until we have publicly financed elections.

Feingold would have been a great president. As it is we will probably elect a president who will repair most of the damage that Bush has done, but will continue to pander to large corporations.

John Edwards for Attorney General.

Get used to thinking "President McCain"...

Anybody advocating progressive legislation for the common people wll be marginalized and ridiculed, period!

The ruling elite pick and choose the candidates for the duopoly, knowing the willfully ignorant public falls for it every time. This procedure might as well be in 'The Farmer's Almanac,' or the 'Guiness Book of Records' for the record-breaking (thirty year) confidence game in D.C. politics.

If I may modify the old saying, "the more things change, the more they remain the same," to, "the more things change, the worse they become." Does it make any sense?

I'm afraid daveg may be right about an eventual President McCain. Edwards was the last progressive candidate.

Someone give me the 3 top reasons I shouldn't shift to Obama as opposed to casting a symbolic Green or other vote or just staying home.

skeezyks

"Can anyone explain to me why Sen. Feingold doesn't run for President? He's always appealed to me, even though he is from a neighboring state (the great state of Wisconsin!)"

Feingold imo would be one of the best presidents that the US has ever had...BUT and its a big BUT...the American people would not vote for him.

The US is a right wing nation and change will have to be incremental...The problem is not the political leaders ..The problem is the people who are unaware and are being manipulated and don't care...

It would be great if it were an Obama/Feingold ticket with 8 years for Obama and 8 years for Feingold.

Edwards for attorney general
and let him attack from the court room...his strength

Well peaceman we can either enlighten the public or turn to coercive methods. Strikes, unauthorized protests that jam commerce and transport or my favorite violence. It's not hard or expensive to build fertilizers bombs. Just sayin.

My candidate, The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, dropped out a week ago.

My second choice is Cynthia McKinney http://www.runcynthiarun.org/node. You can find more information also at http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/node.

Even though I was not persuaded in the least bit by John Edwards talk due to the undeniable reality of his past record, I am sorry that it is now Obama and Clinton, at let us not forget Gravel.

I am reading numerous blogs expressing dismay and pessimism. While I admired the progressive Edwards, I still see major differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in their perception of the issues. Also, Clinton would seem to be much more beholden to the corporations than Obama. He is realistic about the need to work with business, while she is likely to be an extension of big business practices. Change brings discomfort to some, relief to others. Obama may have that special capacity to bring us together for the good of our country. Clinton represents little change over the past 20 years of the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

peaceman

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Even many Republicans realize what a mess Bush has created...this is an opening...Unfortunately our adversaries the neocons and the Bush suoporters do not give way even as they lose...but its an opening...keep pushing and keep informing people...

Since the corporate media told us who the front-runners were a mere four weeks into this campaign, those who were not one of the top two or three AS MEASURED BY MONEY RAISED IN THAT FOUR WEEKS from big-money donors like corporations and their lobbyists, were marginalized by that same media. Both Edwards and Kucinich, but especially Kucinich, were ignored as far as possible during the debates organized and moderated by these same media and Kucinich was actually excluded from some.

We desperately need (1) full taxpayer funding of all federal campaigns so character and ideas count for more than money raised and so the power lobbyists exercise by having earned "access" is destroyed, (2) neutral debates on real issues moderated by the League of Women Voters and broadcast on public TV and radio, (3) free TV and radio time on the airwaves that belong to us for all candidates to present themselves to voters.

Here's a live feed to John Edwards' speech in New Orleans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201240.html

The backdrop behind his podium is priceless — ramshackle homes that are the legacy of Katrina. Kudos to you, John Edwards, for this powerful visual statement.

dmac sez: "As it is we will probably elect a president who will repair most of the damage that Bush has done, but will continue to pander to large corporations."

With all due respect, these two outcomes are mutually exclusive. "Bush" did not cause the damage. Corporate governance did.

While most Americans are sedated with endless Brittney speculation, politically aware Americans are sedated with the endless Clinton/Obama drama.

In the meantime, the murder of Iraqis goes on, Bush sells off theAlaskanwildernesforfree,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6648/
the spying on americans continues, millions of children are starving, etc, etc, etc.

Well, you dumb, bleeping Democrats, there goes the only person who could've defeated John Endless War Reinstate Conscription McCain, or Willard The Only God Is Money Romney. Au revoir, auf wieder sehen, adios. And why wouldn't you support him?: because he was part of a losing team in 2004 and in the world of contemporary American politics we always shoot our wounded. Brilliant! So enjoy another four years of brutal Republican rule and spend those years grumbling bitterly about how Hillary lost because she's Hillary and a woman, and Obama lost because he's black.

"Says the person who either a) left the fight behind or b) is a right-wing shill trying to get people to feel demoralized. Either way, what have you done lately other than blog?"

I did leave the fight behind, precisely because there isn't one. If you think this quadrennial "election" is anything but a diversion from a real fight, then you should probably pay closer attention to how things really go down in your country. By the way, I work in politics, sometimes 12-14 hours a day. How about you? In fact, I work for an unabashed pro-working class mainstream political party. Of course, no such entity exists in the US. One must move elsewhere to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy. Best of luck.

Barring illness or an accidental death, Hillary will be our next president. I guarantee it.

It is very doubtful Edwards or Obama will be her running mate. Bill may be, but I doubt that also.

Good people having progessive views and opinions have little to say about it.

"The 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate will continue to seek to influence his party and his country to recognize and address the painful reality that there are "two Americas — one rich and one poor."

I believe that the widening rich/poor gap is a real danger to this nation. I hope Edwards can exert some influence, but given the big money behind political campaigns and lobbying efforts, it frankly appears doubtful.

Anne Faith, I thought those "ramshackle homes" you refer to were new and under construction habitat for humanity type homes...? Perhaps the rich poor divide is closer to home than we think?

"I did leave the fight behind, precisely because there isn't one. If you think this quadrennial "election" is anything but a diversion from a real fight, then you should probably pay closer attention to how things really go down in your country. By the way, I work in politics, sometimes 12-14 hours a day. How about you? In fact, I work for an unabashed pro-working class mainstream political party. Of course, no such entity exists in the US. One must move elsewhere to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy. Best of luck."

Thanks for the clarification, just testing the waters. I work my butt off too - and you're right, there is no party that represents what you're talking about. There is a growing movement though, or at least a growing sense of discontent that may manifest itself as such. I think the part where you say "to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy" is key here - it's precisely because there is no such thing here that I think it's important to stay, at least for now. None of which is to say that there isn't important work to be done elsewhere - in fact, the transformation that needs to occur here is global, not just isolated to one country (although clearly there are countries that are more democratic in practice than the US). Best wishes and good luck to you as well.

ps: For anybody who dares to make the assertion that the US is the most democratic country in the world, please wake up! If you are foolish enough to assert such a thing, I'm not even going to bother responding; the evidence to the contrary is sufficiently clear to provide its own answer. I would hope that people reading here would be sensible enough to see through the façade of a democracy in the US, but you never know.

Now we are stuck with four to eight years of neo liberalism.

Very sad day for America.

:-(

thinkingmom, LOL. You're absolutely right! After I looked at them more closely, I realized they were brand new homes (some unfinished). So no, they're not ramshackle, just humble. Nothing wrong with that. My bad.

countess January 30th, 2008 11:51 am
John Edwards was a very good candidate and he presented his arguments forcibly without any of the gutter tactics of the Clintons. I respect him for that and I hope he will help prevent her from winning so we are not faced with two candidates in the next election who will guarantee more wars.
.......
speaking of gutter tactics, Countess, ahem. How does one obtain such a selective memeory stream anyway? Seems to me that your guy has voted for as many war spending bills in his time in the Senate as has Senator Clinton.

I am sorry to see John Edwards exit from the race. Both Obama and Clinton are corporatist candidates and he (Edwards) was the only one speaking for the working class in this nation.

I suppose Ill write in Nader's name, third times the charm they say.......

Edwards for Attorney General.

Edwards for Attorney General- Give them hell!

what i've not seen mentioned here, granted i'm skipping through these, but if obama really wanted to make a difference, and put to practice his speech of hope, then he would announce, tomorrow morning, that edwards will be his v.p. that highly intelligent, yet simplistic act would/could prevent us from spending the next 10 months discussing an upcoming election, it would, for all practical purposes, be over.

then we could anxiously await edwards' natural ascension to the presidency.

That may very well happen. Edwards would be a fine choice for the Attorney General position. And there will be three judges appointed to the Supreme Court during the next four years. That is the biggie.

As long as she maintains her health and if there is an election, Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

I'm a member of the LP and a ron paul fanatic but I'm going to give my advice to greens anyway. Nominate Cynthia she was my representative and yes I participated in the right wing conspiracy to vote her out of office (only the 2nd time I was underaged when the first happened). Everything that made her a liability as a Dem legislature is an asset. She's frank and loud about progressivism. She's colorful and an attention grabber. Furthermore Third parties only function on excitement. More Nader will not be exciting to even Nader voters. New Blood and New success for all non major political parties. Unless Paul bolts to the LP or LP/CP combo. Then Old Blood and new success but just this once.

~Hi Lino~ I cannot see Edwards being a VP choice for either Obama or Hillary. Remember, after the last debate, Edwards ran TV ads in South Carolina, saying he was the ONLY candidate of the three, who was adult or mature enough to be the president.

Now after that political blunder, how could Edwards support his running mate as a VP, and have an ounce of credibility? I can see the Republican TV ads now. It would be a disaster for Hillary to have Edwards as her running mate, after what Edwards broadcast about her childish behaviour during the debate. He has dropped out now and his words about her are a moot issue. Sure as hell is hot, Hillary does not wish to see it raised again.

A lot of folks mention attorney general, and there's good reason for that. And I certainly don't know Edwards' preference. But I go back to my earlier comment: labor, or health and human services. If Edwards' remaining life passion is to implement the policies he has been promoting, those are the right places for him. If we want universal health care, or genuine fair trade, we need Edwards where he might really have that kind of power and impact.

A caller to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" just identified himself as a long-time Southern Democrat. He said he and a lot of others would never vote for Obama. After mild questioning, he admitted it was based on lack of substance and....RACE.

President McCain indeed.

Having Hillary run is another vote for McCain's policies.

I think we're jumping the gun here. I don't think Hillary is a shoe in for the nomination. Not only that, Obama is now ahead of Clinton by 3 percenatage points in California. And Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Billary. And the Kennedy endorsement is HUGE for Obama. And if Richardson tips to Obama, things could change very quickly.

I LOVE the idea of Edwards as Attorney General. Who should be Sec'y of State? How about Kucinich?

I have no prediction on whether it will be Clinton or Obama, but neither one of them will win.

colleen- Feingold does very well with rural Republicans here in Wisconsin, I'm sure someone here has the numbers but I think he received 5-8% more votes than Kerry in the 04 elections and Kerry was running against a despised Bush while Feingold was running against an established Republican who had won many elections in the state.

Where I disagree with Feingold is comparing Edwards Senate record to his campaign. Some people change because they see the light. I voted for Bill Clinton enthusiastically and agreed with Mandate for Change when it was written. But I have since become a member of the Green party. For me it took the militarism of a post-9/11 America to realize where I belonged. Who knows why Edwards changed but he did. Same with Al Gore. There may well be ideologically pure progressives out there but I suspect most of us came from more centrist politics, at least during some point in our lives. And for Edwards maybe it was simply not being part of the system any longer, being able to back up and see the forest through the trees. Maybe it was not having to raise a million dollars a month for 6 years to stay in the Senate. What matters was that he brought up issues that no one else was talking about and he did change the tone of all the Dems. I would have liked to have voted for him, not sure what I'll do now....