John Edwards is a maverick. He likes to fight for the high cause. His commitment to end poverty and represent the middle class is noble. This electorate however does not want a fighter. They want a leader.

Edwards should endorse Obama before Super Tuesday. If not he will not be on the Obama short list for V.P.

It is now time for John Edwards to quickly move and ask those who suppported him to lend their support to Barrack Obama, the only democratic presidential candidate who can win against any republican, The only one who has the backing of all groups except, entrenched special interest groups black, white and others. He is the only one who draws his support across the board, especially from independents, young, educated people of ALL income brackets. The very one who will come out in force to vote for him, but will stay home or vote republican if the Bilary klan gets the nomination, thereby guaranteing a republican win. There is NO WAY a person as divisive as Hillary Clinton can win in the general election. The republicans will bring up every scandal they have been involved in to discredit them. They simply do not have a chance, Obama OTOH is clean and honest. He is our best hope to finally turn the page on business as usual and move boldly into the 21st century with a new kind of American leadership.

Everyone has to check out the article "White Voters with a Side of Hispanics" on the blogzine Savage Politics. This is an awesome discussion and analysis on the current Democrat and GOP candidates and their eligibility.

www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt: "Tuesday night's Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC's Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a "gross" favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN's pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat ("Beauty Pageant" was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama's 33%, Edwards' 14%, and Gravel's 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney's 31%, Giuliani's 15%, Huckabee's 14%, and Paul's 3%. Let's discuss each Party's results and their realistic consequence.
First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most "base" Republicans, much of it owed to McCain's overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush's Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the "moderate wing" within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to both Romney's and Huckabee's 29%. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but when you also consider that the majority of non-Evangelicals (Catholics, Atheist, etc.) also..." Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64

Well this Edwards supporter doesn't have a tough choice to make. I'm voting for Edwards in my May primary. Obama & Clinton will have to win the nomination without my vote.

I guess I don't fit in with your polling. I'm a white, female, liberal feminist who supported Edwards for many reasons. I especially liked his stance on poverty and the fact that he was the only candidate willing to spend political capital to fight to get entrenched interests out of Washington. What he stood for was HUGE change that was no less historical in nature than the candidacy of an African American or a woman for president. Unlike the media, I wasn't swayed by the symbolism represented by Obama & Clinton. I was swayed by the candidates' policies and character.

I agree completely with (pmorlan1) I too am a white female who has supported John Edwards. He has been my candidate of choice and I will vote for John Edwards in the CA primary. As far as the choice between Clinton or Obama I feel it will be politics as usual. I plan on voting for who ever wins the Democratic nomination. The lesser of two evils.

If the polls are correct neither Obama or Clinton have a real chance to win against McCain. That is why when Republican voters were asked why did they vote for McCain over the other Republican candidates they said because McCain will be able to win the Presidency against Clinton or Obama.

I want to encourage John Edwards to continue his campaign. He can do a lot of good for his constituany if he arries at the Democratic Convention with 25% of the delegates and neither Barrack or Hilary holding aclear majority. He could then negotiate a strong concession from either of the other canidates to make our issues their priority as part of getting John's endorsement. Then John has to go out and work like heck to campaign and deliver his constituancy for the Democratic nominee to win in November.

In response to elsylee28, I live in Florida, and I can tell you for a fact that the people who voted in yesterday's democratic primaries fall withing certain categories of voters. And they are:1-senior citizens, who mostly feel a duty to vote in any election because it is election day, 2- People who have been told by democratic leaders to go out and vote in order to let their choices be known, 3- Those who DID NOT know that delegates would not be allocated to the winner, they also include illiterates who simply do not even understand the delegate concept. Barrack Obama's supporters who are far more educated and knew that their votes would have made no difference simply stayed home. They also do not blindly follow the demodratic leadership by going out to vote simply because they are tolod to do so. Still he had plenty of votes, and I'm frankly surprised to see that he got so many votes.

response to elsylee28, I live in Florida, and I can tell you for a fact that the people who voted in yesterday's democratic primaries fall withing certain categories of voters. And they are:1-senior citizens, who mostly feel a duty to vote in any election because it is election day, 2- People who have been told by democratic leaders to go out and vote in order to let their choices be known, 3- Thoe who DID NOT know that delegates would not be allocated to the winner, they also include illiterates who simply do not even understand the delegate concept. Barrack Obama's supporters who are far more educated and knew that their votes would have made no difference simply stayed home. They also do not blindly follow the entrenched democratic leadership that supports Hillary Clinton which urged people to vote no matter what. Still he had plenty of votes, and I'm frankly surprised to see that he still managed to get so many votes.

Seriously, is this how democracy is supposed to work? Just once I would like to vote in a primary for the candidate I believe in rather than for the lesser of two evils. I may vote for John Edwards on Tuesday, but it's far more likely I will just stay home. And come November, I'll stay home too. I'll not vote for Clinton or Obama. Period. Looks like four more years of the GOP.

People just don't get it. It's not terrorism and it's not the economy either, stupid. It's the erosion of the middle class. Globalization and the outsourcing of our jobs to China, India and Mexico are the biggest threats to this nation's security. Who can afford a house any more? Who can afford to send one child to college, let alone two or three? Who can afford healthcare bills, even WITH insurance?

We are fast becoming Brazil. The few that have will live in gated communities and travel with bodyguards. The many who don't have will live in slums and worry about themselves or their children getting shot by drug dealers and carjackers on the streets.

If you think this isn't true, ask yourself: how many neighborhoods am I afraid to visit in my city, even in daylight?

Julio, your comment is absolutely offensive. This lack of regard and respect for others is all I keep seeing from Obama supporters. Moreover, your comment doesn't make sense because over 1/2 million people voted for Obama..or is it that according to you they're either dumb, old, or illiterate. I'm a Hillary supporter and a college graduate with a 3.75 GPA in Neurobiology in the world's second top university. Eat that, and be quite about your sweeping assumptions and accusations about the demographics of Hillary supporters. BTW, I have known plenty of well-educated people who make the stupidest decisions and can't even write properly. An education does not equate to good decisions!

GOOOOO HILLARY 2008!!!

EDWARDS: "I don't know how it started," he said. "I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people..." It started when we were forced to choose between Hillary and Obama! Edwards epitomizes the democratic party and yet we are forced to address an obstruction of unification. Dam Hillary - Dam Bill! Edwards suspends his campaign... I apologize for not walking precincts all over the nation for this guy! I am forced to address the immediate ill, the Clinton ILL, a divisive polarization within the democratic party. Although I love Edwards, I am thankful for Obama. He personifies unification and eloquence, and democratic values! If we ever get past the primitive BS of polarization, perhaps we can progress towards issues like Universal Health Care and services for the poor. Obama, please bring on board Edwards. Please, please, please! We are ONE.

JOHN EDWAEDS IS THE SUPERIOR CANDIDATE. HE REPRESENTS THE AMERICAN WORKING MAN IN THE UNIONS. ANYONE WHO KNOWS OUR HISTORY WOULD KNOW THAT IT WAS THE SACRIFICES OF UNION MEN THAT BECAME THE STRENGTH OF OUR COUNTRY. RONALD REAGAN WORKED TO DESTROY UNIONS SO THE BIG CORPORATIONS WOULD DOMINATE THE PEOPLE. BUT WHEN REAGAN WENT TO POLAND, HE SUPPORTED UNIONS THERE SO HE COULD GET HIS PICTURE WITH POPE JOHN PAUL II. WRITE IN JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT.

I take the strongest objection to comments from the likes of Julio and Elaine. Clearly, Obama has never ever done anything to help or to stand for the working people of America - Hillary has. Obama has never ever supported the farmers of American - Hillary has. Obama turned this nomination process into a race war that is set to divide America and most of all divide the Democratic Party.

Every Republican I know supports Obama as the Democratic nominee (a few of their kids in college in Iowa went to the caususes to vote for him), because they know anyone on the Republican slate has a real fighting chance with Obama as their general election opponent.

Obama and his team are in the established Washington machine. They are trying their best to move the party toward the far left extremists - essentially the Democrat version of Bush. Uninspired, incapable of a creative thought, a follower and not a leader, but clearly the insider. The machine expects to run the White House, if he is elected - just as the machine runs the White House with Bush as President.

Obama's campaign has been nothing more than a bag of wind, one day he's JFK, another he's MLK, and he's Reagan. He has never yet spoken from his own head and heart. Sure, JFK was an excellent speaker and leader. Sure, MLK was an excellent speaker and leader. Pretending to be one of those men, or both at the same time, in every speech, does not a leader or good speaker make. Name one independently thought through policy or objective with any details that he will fight to get enacted into law. So far, it's other people's ideas and nearly all are dead on arrival in any spirit of bipartisanship.

There is one reason so many Republican hate Hillary. She is a woman, has always been a voice of change and a Washington outsider. She is the one with creative, sensible and well thought out policy and objectives. She has been able to make real impact as Senator, due to her colition building techniques. On the other side, Obama has done nothing as a Senator and missed most votes. The Clintons were not welcomed into the Washington machine, and most certainly were never welcomed by the Washington Democratic boys club. Obama is the the face of the machine. Bill was and now Hillary is the tip of the spear for good, sensible, realisic and positive change in Washington.

It's time people stop distorting facts or fooling themselves with a candidate who won't win the general election, who by his very gender "is the status quo" - and get on the train that leads to the beginning of the future by electing a woman to head the White House and lead America. That is a radical change in of itself. For more than 200 years we have had men leading the political process in America and with that we have divisive, combative, destructive politics. It's time for a woman who can make change a reality take a seat and, turn the partisan voice of the Washington Mens Club into one American voice.

Hillary's Smear Campaign
By MICHAEL ZELDIN
January 31, 2008
Beginning with the South Carolina debate, and continuing as an applause line in many stump speeches thereafter, Hillary Clinton has accused Barack Obama of representing an inner-city slum lord while practicing law in Chicago. Of all people, Sen. Clinton should know better.
During the Whitewater investigation, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated the legal work performed by Mrs. Clinton, then a partner in the Rose law firm, on behalf of Jim McDougal and his bank, Madison Guaranty. Mr. Starr believed that Mrs. Clinton helped orchestrate the fraudulent land deal known as Castle Grande. He subpoenaed her billing records, hauled her before a grand jury, and relentlessly pursued her.
In her defense, Mrs. Clinton and her attorneys asserted that her involvement in the matter was de minimus. As one of independent counsels who preceded Mr. Starr, I was interviewed repeatedly on the subject. I wholeheartedly defended Mrs. Clinton.
I believed that the evidence revealed that Mrs. Clinton, who spent a total of only 60 hours of work on the case over a 15-month period, was not substantially involved in the matter and did nothing improper in her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty. In the end, no charges were brought against Mrs. Clinton because there was insufficient evidence to prove that she knowingly assisted anyone in the perpetration of a fraud.
Yet, when an opportunity presented itself in the debate, Mrs. Clinton, without so much as a blink of an eye or the slightest blush, denounced Sen. Obama for representing "Tony Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." Her accusation invites scrutiny. Not so much for the truth of the accusation (the facts are quite straightforward and completely benign) but as a window into Mrs. Clinton's character and as a lens with which to see whether a Clinton presidency will be a vehicle for change.
The facts are well documented: Upon graduation from Harvard Law School in 1991, Mr. Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law review, could have named his job at any law firm or corporate legal department in America. Instead, he selected a boutique civil rights law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries.
During his tenure at Miner Barnhill, the firm accepted the representation of the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side. Mr. Rezko, not the client of the firm, was assisting Woodland with City housing redevelopment projects. As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case.
No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.
I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty -- a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction -- she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically. She appears to have learned no lessons from the Starr investigation.
Mrs. Clinton's willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that's paralyzed Washington for too many years, and the cynicism felt by so many Americans, especially the young. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. Once elected, the candidate falsely believes that he or she will be able to set things right and govern differently. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized -- it will be forgiven and forgotten as part of the hyperbole of the election process.
Sadly, it just isn't so. No one forgets and no one forgives in Washington. (Ask John Kerry if he has gotten over the Swift boat smear campaign.) How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage.
Mr. Zeldin is a former independent counsel and federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He has volunteered for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary campaign.

To Tommy who seems to feel that Hillary has a better chance at winning in the general election. See what the republicans are more afraid of.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24747

Thank you Tommy for telling it like it actually is!

YES for EDWARDS! I too am a liberal woman and Edwards has been my choice. I am writing him in tomorrow. If you wanted Edwards, don't stay home. Exercise your RIGHT and PRIVILEGE to vote for your CHOICE. I cannot make myself vote for the lesser of two evils. I was completely turned off by the MoveOn video that was supposed to show WHY we should vote Obama. Please. It's show business. It's a sad situation, two parties, no choices. Edwards was and is the best choice. Write him in, don't stay home!