The voters who really care about the state of the USA at this time and have any hope of being part of the solution should ignore the polls and get out the vote for John Edwards. Hillary Clinton is not Bill or even close to as persuasive and powerful as Bill 'WAS'. Obama thinks he is the smartest thing to ever enter politics and he talks down to everyone like We need him to lead US all out of the desert. GET SERIOUS. We don't need a bible carrying president again. Bush and his 'unify America' was crap so are we going to by that line again? John Edwards will take no compromizes or prisoners in his drive to rise up the American People from under the shoe of Corporate supression. How many jobs have to go overseas to substandard workers? Don't let the corporate owened media dictate to you any more. VOTE FOR YOUR FUTURE !

There's a lot of wishful thinking in the Clinton and Obama camps. Edwards' supporters don't owe their allegiance to either of them. Win, place, or show, they are in it with their candidate for the long haul. The reason for this is that of the three candidates, Edwards has the best plans and the best capacity to execute them. No brokering here...

I like Edwards because he clearly states his ideas and how he plans to implement them plus he is the only candidate in the top 3 that wants to restore the constitution to the pre 9/11 status.

If he drops out I hope he will give his support to Obama which it looks as though he will.

Righteous indignation is how I would characterize the feeling of all knowledgeable Americans regarding the corruption and ineptitude of the Bush administration and Congress. Anyone who is not indignant by now has buried their head in the sand.

I will stay an Edwards supporter all the way to the convention. The most cogent analysis I have read on who will do the best job as president comes from http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

My priorities are the health of the planet, and the health of the Middle Class in America. We as a nation need to fix some serious biases in this society, else risk complete surrender to an oligarchy. Edwards runs on a platform of opportunity, NOT resentment. He does not resent the ranks of the mansion dwellers; he likes to number among them. However, Edwards does want the poor to earn a livelihood without working two jobs, and he does want the Middle Class to be able to afford college.

It's actually hard to know whether to respond to all the innuendo and snide remarks here, or just come right out and say it. I'll choose the latter and say, the only ones who expected John Edwards to drop out with 48 states left to go are the Very.Smart.People.Who.Are.Wrong.About.Everything. The media, including the Washington Post, have been writing off his candidacy almost from the day he announced. The celebrity candidates are so much more fun to write about, I suppose.

Now, as to the deeply flawed language in your piece, when Clinton or Obama travel to different cities, do you call it a "ploy for media attention" or do you breathlessly await news of their events?

When will columnists stop evaluating this race in terms of money and polling? What Edwards brings to the Dem. campaign is issues that neither Clinton nor Obama will talk about: poverty, the right to organize, corporate accountability, and reevalutaion of international trade agreements.

All those issues will become more important as the campaign progresses.

Right now, fewer than one percent of the votes are in; it's too soon to call the race, and just manipulative to call it based on polls and fundraising.

John Edwards is the only candidate that has a plan. The other two have borrowed from his plans. He is the strongest candidate and the one that has the electability. I've lived inside the Beltway and know the mentality. John Edwards has had to fight the media - almost all of you - and the rivals. If money were everything, Texas would have Gov. Sanchez. In asking people who they support, John Edwards wins all the grassroots polls. You all in the media world need to check with the rest of the nation, who do you want to listen to and to look at for the next four years. Who cannot be bought. Who is strong. Who can talk to everybody, go anywhere, and be accepted. It's John Edwards. It's a horse race. The delegate count is very close in real people delegates. Super delegates can change their mind in a whim.

Dan Balz..."Brilliant article"???

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING...

His lead was: "Faces a moment of truth..." and "...needs to severely reassess his candidacy" (because of lack of money)...AND YET HE NEVER SAW FIT TO MENTION that ALONE among the Democratic contenders, Edwards chose to forego ALL lobbiest, special interest and PAC donations and has for his entire career in public life.

I'd say that was a rather important little item to omit, wouldn't you?

You MSM "truth" tellers proclaim with grave Solomonic wisdom that it's a 2-person race because that's the way you can present it as entertainment...us versus them; black versus white; change versus status quo; because it makes for a good "show", compelling drama, etc....plus you don't have to think.

OR...you have your orders from the corporate bosses who control the major media as assuredly as if they headed GM, or IBM or Microsoft!

Which is it? Laziness and/or ineptitude or corporate bread and butter?

Either way, it's ROTTEN!

Speaking as the ex-city editor of a metropolitan daily, what passes for journalism today is offensive beyond brlief!

Cut the crap and do your damn jobs!

I would love to see a Obama-Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket. I hope to see both of them triumph over Hillary in this evening's debate. Obama needs to be strong tonight; Edwards is always good. Democrats need to realize that Hillary is incredibly polarizing and will not be a good choice for our country. We are in crisis and need to be unified. Hillary will only divide. I am a staunch Obama supported and I am looking forward to John coming in second in the Nevada caucus. I don't think he will take over Obama's lead. But I might be surprised.

if only the media would give him the coverage! In it to win it! Go EDWARDS 08!

From the article:

Judging from this memo, Edwards clearly believes he still has a role to play in this nomination fight. Judging from the unpredictability of the process so far, we are loath to rule out any candidate. But, judging from most of the empirical evidence available to us, it's hard to see how Edwards can win the nomination given the financial and organizational challenges before him. It's far easier to see how he impacts the eventual choice of a nominee, however, as the Post's Dan Balz brilliantly outlined in a piece over the weekend.

Chris:

What do you do when you're not busy kissing your fellow reporters butts?

Depending on the outcomes in Nevada and South Carolina, if Edwards comes in with less than 30% of the votes I don't see how he has the funds to continue on to super Tuesday.

If he was really a man of "vision" and "change" he would see that his continuing into super Tuesday would only hurt the real candidate of "change" - Obama. If he is really for changing the status quo then he should drop out and turn his support over to Obama. He and Obama seem to agree on many points, but Obama comes across the effective communicator and unifier, unlike Edwards who this time has a more angry resonance in his communication. I'm sure Obama would give Edwards a high profile position in his administration - may be leading the fight on poverty which is Edwards' pet concern.

The United States media is undermining the candidacy of John Edwards by ommitting virtually any coverage of this outstanding candidate. Why?
It is remakeable that he continues to gain support given this blatent lack of attention.
I hope the citizens of your great nation will stand up and call out the media against this injustice. Surely your electorate deserves the opportunity of being informed of this viable candidate with such substance and spirit. John Edwards could bring enhanced stature and respect for the United States world wide.
I admire Americans for their sense of justice and fair play - I hope you decide to contact your media and demand coverage for John Edwards. Your democracy deserves no less.
John Edwards, isn't it time to give him a chance to be heard?

The United States media is undermining the candidacy of John Edwards by ommitting virtually any coverage of this outstanding candidate. Why?
It is remakeable that he continues to gain support given this blatent lack of attention.
I hope the citizens of your great nation will stand up and call out the media against this injustice. Surely your electorate deserves the opportunity of being informed of this viable candidate with such substance and spirit. John Edwards could bring enhanced stature and respect for the United States world wide.
I admire Americans for their sense of justice and fair play - I hope you decide to contact your media and demand coverage for John Edwards. Your democracy deserves no less.
John Edwards, isn't it time to give him a chance to be heard?

I agree with the poster who wrote that if Edwards can get at least 10% on February 5 he might be able to play kingmaker if neither of the other top candidates get to 50% of delegates. But he won't be able to win a majority unless his February 5 performance is strong, as over half (close to two thirds, I think) of all Dem delegates will be chosen on that day.

pamela, from early '06:

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don't think -- I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here's why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it. And so let's have the hearings.
---------------------------------------
McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) were the Rs that expressed serious concerns about the legality of the program.

BREAKING NEWS!!!
January 14, 2008 9:02pm ---

"Delaware Senator Joe Biden announces he will re-enter presidential race."

If you actually had a disbelieving, yet fleeting moment of excitement upon reading that sentence, then you're as desperate and hopeless as I am for one decent candidate in this race.

Chris, Stu Rothenberg would be so proud of you dissing Edwards. Congratulations!

To all you Nevada voters out there I hope you come out in large numbers for Edwards and stick a finger in the media's collective eye!

Edwards is smart to remain in the campaign until the delegate break-outs are much better known - it is entirely possible that neither Obama nor Hillary will get to 51% and there could be a negotiated settlement, a negotiation in which Edwards' delegates would reign supreme.

Edwards is actually in a very good position.

Edwards needs to stay in the high teens, perhaps even about 10% would work. He will be very very important come late February.

Edwards is smart to remain in the campaign until the delegate break-outs are much better known - it is entirely possible that neither Obama nor Hillary will get to 51% and there could be a negotiated settlement, a negotiation in which Edwards' delegates would reign supreme.

Edwards is actually in a very good position.

Edwards needs to stay in the high teens, perhaps even about 10% would work. He will be very very important come late February.

Mark, Proud, bsimon, or anyone else considering/supporting McCain -

Can you tell me what McCain's position is on the Patriot Act or judicial oversight of wiretapping - or other privacy/civil liberties issues? Checked his web site and didn't find anything. IMO, this expnsion of the federal government is a dangerous legacy of GWB - I'm loathe to vote for anyone who'd continue it.

the problem with your theory is that it's hypocritical.. Just last week you talked about John McCain being able to win the republican primary. Unfortunately, what you forgot to write was that McCainis also using federal matching funds. If McCain isn't handicapped by taking federal matching funds, why is Edwards? Oh I know why, you are feeling warm all over from the memos from the Clinton and Obama campaign telling you it's so.. Senator Glitz and Senator Rich telling you what to write. Nice job

bsimon

I think that Edwards being, at the time, a Southerner and a moderate made him look a little more electable to the Republicans. The last time a non-Southern Democrat won the presidency was 1960.

The party that keeps on giving... The Democrats seem to be living up to their benevolent party status as the gifts for Republicans keep on coming...

Race Spells Trouble for the Dems
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1703310,00.html

bsimon,
Simply because he came across as nice and personable (compared to Kerry and like Bush) and articulate (compared to Bush and to some extent Kerry who talked above everyone). I think experience (or lack thereof) matters less when choosing a president than personality or a person's core beliefs. I don't particularly like Edwards (and the new Edwards even less) and his man of the people routine is like fingernails on chalkboard to me. But can you imagine in 2004, Edwards running a 2008 Obama type campaign (a positive change candidate) against Bush? I think that would have been tough to beat.

Edwards like Mayor 9/11 in the GOP race does not have a chance in hell at gettiing the nomination, forget the election in November. He should go home and take care of his wife and kids.

JimD writes
"dave's comment "Edwards the personable nice articulate guy against Bush, perhaps. Edwards the angry left wing populist...I think not." sums up why I think he MIGHT have been electable in 2004 but would lose decisively in 2008."

I think that both you and dave are being charitable. Edwards was a one term senator with zero prior political experience when he ran in 2004. Since then he has done little more than prepare for this 2008 run. I think he would have been trounced - thoroughly thumped - by Bush-Cheney. I'm still stumped when I try to figure out what it is that people see in him as a candidate.

To whomever is still thinking about 2004 -

Rove thought, early on, that Gephardt was easily the toughest D to beat for the Rs.

I agreed. However, I supported Wes Clark, both because I liked him, and because I thought Gephardt was too much "old labor" for me [I am respectful of, but not in love with, unions]. The Ds never gave Gephardt a chance for reasons that baffled me.

Then when IA left the road clear for Kerry and Edwards, any Martian could have seen that the 2004 version of Edwards was more electable than Kerry. It was no surprise that Rove thought so.

OT - sorry to all of you whose threads I left hanging last week - I was unfortunately pre-occupied with a sick child for the last several days.

from elsewhere in today's Post - "News reports disclosed that an influential state lawmaker and prominent megachurch minister who had endorsed Clinton" (in S.C.) "also happened to have a political consulting contract with the campaign worth some $200,000. Two other black state senators who later endorsed Clinton have financial ties to the lawmaker on the Clinton payroll."

My January 14, 2008 03:55 PM post should read left-OF-center (not left-or-center)

rm-rf - "hey Dave can't you tell when someone is being tounge and cheek? (I thought the smiley would help)"
I can and sorry I forgot the smiley in my reply.

bsimon

dave's comment "Edwards the personable nice articulate guy against Bush, perhaps. Edwards the angry left wing populist...I think not." sums up why I think he MIGHT have been electable in 2004 but would lose decisively in 2008.

Asher13 - "Edwards has ALWAYS been the most electable".

Edwards the personable nice articulate guy against Bush, perhaps. Edwards the angry left wing populist...I think not. Aside from the personality, his solutions to issues are somewhat left-or-center making them not particularly palatable to the country as a whole. Next to Kucinich, Edwards is D I fear the least! IMO, Biden was the "electable" one.

hey Dave can't you tell when someone is being tounge and cheek? (I thought the smiley would help) Are you bothered by the facts? Did my post annoy you? too bad. Voter fraud is an issue however... read this.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

here is a little excerpt...

"The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

"Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17) ''Exit polls are almost never wrong,'' Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ''so reliable,'' he added, ''that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.''(18) In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine -- paid for by the Bush administration -- exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)"

JimD writes
"The Edwards of 2008 is quite different from the Edwards of 2004. He would be trounced by the Republicans."

How does that make him different??

The more this plays out, the more I like Edwards best of the top three. The reason he seems different is that he is campaigning to win the national election rather than the nomination. He's not pulling any punches or jockying for position.

I agree with those who have pointed out that most of his supporters will land in the Clinton camp rather than Obama's. In other words, he is not holding Obama back from some glorious landslide.

On the other hand, I don't agree that he is somehow more electable than the others. I have plenty of reservations about "another southerner," his disappearing act in 2004, and failure to deliver any Southern states to that ticket. Finally, I'll bet Ann Coulter et al can't wait to crucify him for being rich and living in a mansion. That privilege is reserved for Republicans evidently.

I agree, JIm, that whomever these boaters were were acting like cowboys/jerks and could have been seen as theatening. And If I had been on the Navy ship and thought they were getting too close, i would have pulled the trigger. But as you point out, the Strait is so narrow and these are US warships bumping up against the Iranian Coast -- after all the bloviating and threats from bush -- could the warships not have appeared as a threat to Iran? I mean, imagine if a fleet of Iranian warships were anchored off Florida? Wouldn't Floridians be a tad nervous?

IN any case the way the film was edited and the voice track spliced onto it , even when they really had no idea where the voice was coming from --and apparently, the guy is well known -- was misleading--and probably 90% of people will never hear that it was a fake.

asher13 - You should talk to lylepink. He is convinced that the Republicans are supporting Obama and are largely behind his success because the GOP "FEARS" Hillary and he says this is a "FACT".

The Edwards of 2008 is quite different from the Edwards of 2004. He would be trounced by the Republicans.

rm-rf writes
"here is the evidence Edwards is the safest democratic choice if you want to win..."

Thanks for the link, though you misinterpret my intentions. I won't be voting for the party, but the candidate. If the Dems nominate Obama, I'll vote for him. If they don't, I hope the Rs nominate McCain, so I'm not forced to vote 3rd party. Though this Bloomberg fellow might be interesting, if he makes up his mind.

drindl,

I heard the news reports on the radio heckler. It would have been tragic if some disturbed prankster caused the Navy to fire on the Iranian patrol boats. However, the issue would never have arisen if the Iranian boats were not acting provocatively. Navy ships do not allow unidentified ships and planes within a certain distance of them and this information is widely promulgated to pilots and ships. Over 50 sailors have died in the last 20 years or so because a boat or aircraft came too close - USS Stark in 1987 and USS Cole in 2000.

When I was on a ship off Lebanon in 1983 we had intelligence reports warning about small boats and small planes approaching Navy ships loaded with explosives on suicide missions (that must be declassified now). I do not doubt that they are on guard against that today. The ships will defend themselves and cannot allow potentially dangerous craft to get too close. Iranian patrol boats are certainly potential threats.

'According to Drudge, John Solomon -- well known WaPo slapdash reporter notorious for being an easy play for GOP oppo research hucksters -- is taking over the Washington Times.'

that durn liberal media

FYI

A new Quinnipiac poll in Florida shows a four-way dead heat on the Republican side, much like the Rasmussen poll also out this morning. Here are the numbers, compared to the last Quinnipiac poll from mid-December:

McCain 22% (+9)
Giuliani 20% (-8)
Huckabee 19% (-2)
Romney 19% (-1)
Thompson 7% (-1)
Paul 5% (+3)
The Democrats are not seriously contesting this rogue primary, which for now has been stripped of all delegates by the Democratic National Committee. But there the numbers stand at Clinton 52% (+9), Obama 31% (+10), and Edwards 9% (-10).

Drindl,
The Star Wars thing was great. Now if only Billy D Williams would Endorse Hillary it would be perfect.

patrick asks: "Edwards fans, who is your second choice and why? Just interested"

1. I like Edwards because he is the best of the 3 on policy substance. Indeed, he has driven the policy debate to the extent there has been one; that has been a huge service in and of itself; and that is a big reason he should remain in the race.

2. Ultimately, all three are very similar in policy substance. That one of them win in November is far more important than which of them it is. Any true Democrat should feel this way.

3. Therefore, the ultimate question for me is who has the best politics ("strategy, tactics, etc."), rather than who has best policy (substance), for (1) winning in November and (2) enacting an agenda which all three hold in common thereafter. Strategy, not substance, is the most important difference among them.

A. Edwards believes that the main obstacle to change is business influence in Washington, thus his "populist" rhetoric and tactics and supposedly "angry" demeanor.

B. HRC believes that Republican "dirty tricks" and "obstructionism" is the main obstacle, thus her emphasis on her husband's legacy in winning office, her resulting experience in such matters, the fact that she is "vetted" and knows how to play "hardball."

C. Obama believes that the real issue is generational: that the lack of any progress on big issues is due to a "toxic political culture" associated with boomer voters and politicians; that it is younger voters who have the most interest changing both policy and politics; that generational change is required to change policy and politics, neither of which will change unless the other does.

Obama in many ways is making the most sense strategically and politically.

Generational conflict may indeed be the true substance of this election and appealing to youth may be the best strategy for winning and achieving something afterwards. His astonishing success so far (much more impressive than that of HRC, the best known and funded "establishment" candidate, or that of Edwards) suggests that he is right -- that 2008 is much more about generational change and conflict than partisan conflict (HRC) or "class" or "people v. power" conflict (Edwards).

Dave, you have to be kidding Edwards is the GOP's biggest fear? He is their worst nightmare! Are you aware during 2004 BushRove&co stated that is was Edwards they most feared, as they new they could beat Kerry. Don't you find it strange the all the GOPers have been trumpeting Clinton and Obama this whole cycle? nOw why would that be? connect the dots???

Edwards has ALWAYS been the most electable and by the widest margin, do your homework. Isn't it strange when Edwards had been written off, has virtually 0 media coverage, or the usual he has 'no way he can win' memes, and with a very barebones operation in Nevada he has quietly moved into a 3 way tie (MOE) with the 2 frontrunners, Now that's a story.... Yet alas,where is it?

Vote smart! Do not let the MSM choose our candidiates.
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!
Edwards 2008 The Peoples President" If the American people would only wake up and realize who will work for us "We the Poeople"

the snake oil salesman --that would be romney

rm-rf - "remember republicans get a 3 point advantage due to "exit poll bias" i.e. voter fraud"

You can't count on this. Those sneaky Republicans can adjust the percentages the electronic voting machines give them. All that good analysis, shot to heck with this less than brilliant statement.

Also, if CNN reported this poll, how is it that the MSM are not reporting it? Isn't CNN MSM?

Edwards needs a win in NV or SC, or his campaign is going nowhere. It's odd that he's spending so little time in NV this week with polls showing the race pretty darn close.

rm-rf,
What that poll does not tell us - how strong the candidates support is. There was no selection for an undecided since the following phrase was in each question "(IF UNSURE:) As of today, who do you lean more toward?" Back in Dec 6-9, I'm surprised that 35% of the people questioned even knew who Mike Huckabee was. Also, since the questions are asked giving the voters the party affiliation (...who would you be more likely to vote for -- Edwards, the Democrat, or
Huckabee, the Republican?), it seems to me that the current anti-Bush/republican sentiment weighs heavily in this poll. But in picking a president, you pick a person moreso than a just a party. Edwards, who, other than a haircut, has not been scrutinized by the press since he has been running a distant third, would have a hard time shaking off the angry populism messages, the snake oil salesman reputation and the sleazy lawyer history once he got the focus. IMO, this is a horrible poll, much like most one on one matchup polls a month prior to the first primary. It would be interesting, however, to see a more current one, done better.

At the end of the day, this is about bread and butter issues and Edwards has dominated Clinton and Obama to this point. That's on the intangible side. The tangible argument is votes and right now John Boy is way behind the frontrunners. However speed types have been known to exceed their vital capacity and when that happens they come back to the stamina types. We'll see if JE's got the stamina.

like most pseudo-pundits, i've been very wrong quite recently in my predictions. nonetheless, i will say with absolute certaintly that there will be no brokered conventions this year. and the idea that Edwards would have "a couple hundred" delegates" or 15% seems ludicrous since he has almost none now and is not leading in any state.

i like john edwards. i worked hard for him in 2004, but it sure looks like a two person race at this point. (and mccain seems to have the GOP nomination wrapped up already).

bsimon - also remember republicans get a 3 point advantage due to "exit poll bias" i.e. voter fraud - so edwards would probably only beat McCain by 5% - :)

bsimon - here is the evidence Edwards is the safest democratic choice if you want to win...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/

quote - vs. McCain
"The poll also shows that Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona would do best against leading Democrats. He beats Clinton by 2 percentage points (50 percent to 48 percent), ties Obama (48 percent to 48 percent) and loses to Edwards by a smaller margin (8 points) than the other Republican candidates do."

vs the huckster

"In head-to-head matchups -- the first to include Huckabee -- the former Arkansas governor loses to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent), to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 15 points (55 percent to 40 percent) and to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina by 25 points (60 percent to 35 percent)."

Why I read the Guardian--wonder if any US papers will pick this up?

'A heckling radio ham known as the Filipino Monkey, who has spent years pestering ships in the Persian Gulf, is being blamed today for sparking a major diplomatic row after American warships almost attacked Iranian patrol boats.

The US navy came within seconds of firing at the Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz on January 6 after hearing threats that the boats were attacking and were about to explode.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2240533,00.html

Scenario for Edwards as kingmaker:

First, remember that 20% of delegates are of the super variety that are politicos not formally tied to either candidate, though I expect both the Clinton and Obama camps will split about half of them with pretty firm commitments. The other half (10% of total will gravitate to whoever has the highest delegate count, so for this scenario to work, neither Clinton nor Obama's delegate count should be over 35% of the total. Here's why. To their committed delegates of 35% won in the primaries and caucuses, add another 5% won through endorsements and the remaining 10% of super delegates who get the benefit of naming the nominee and thus putting themselves in position for patronage from the next presidential administration.

For Clinton and Obama to both be under 35%, Edwards would need to win greater than 10% of the delegates remaining in primaries and caucuses.

Here's an example:

Clinton
delegates won 33%
super delegates pledged 5%
total 38%

Obama
delegates won 32%
super delegates pledged 4%
total 36%

Edwards
delegates won 15%
super delegates pledged 1%
total 16%

Unpledged super delegates 10%

Total delegates 100%

In this scenario, even if Clinton had the highest delegate count before the first ballot AND all unpledged super delegates signed on, she would be stuck at 48% with Obama at 36% and Edwards at 16%. His power would then be greater than the super delegates and he would be able to decide who would be the next democratic nominee and exact whatever price he wanted.

So he needs Clinton and Obama to split delegates closely as well as win about 10 - 15% of the delegates up for grabs in the remaining contests himself. I don't expect this to happen, but it is certainly possible given the results thus far.

Based on what all of you told me on the previous thread and this article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/14/clinton_obama_and_a_dangerous.html#more

Edwards is playing the only game in town.

'would McCain think that bringing Lieberman into his cabinet would be an opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship? That is scary.'

it would also demonstrate that mccain has no idea what the word bipartisan means. I had forgotten about mccain's alliance with lieberman. never mind -- couldn't vote for him.

Lieberman cares far more about Israel than he does this country -- he shouldn't even be in office here. I have no problem with 'sup0porting' Israel but putting their interests before ours is too much.

I don't see how it's helpful to look at how Edwards did in his past campaign to in any way project how he will do in this one. The man who was once a charming optimist with a gentle lilt in his voice has transformed into a somewhat irate capitalist-opath with a chip on his shoulder bigger than his accent. I'm sure he has intentionally tweaked his personality in response to pundits saying that people see him as being too soft or pretty to be President. The problem is that Edwards is soft and pretty, and while people are adept at faking many things, personality it not one of them. It reminds me of when Gore was maligned as too stiff, so suddenly he donned blue collar shirts and started slapping people on the back with a goofy grin on his face like a drunk in a pub. But for his mid-campaign personality split, I think there is a strong chance that Gore would be sitting in the White House right now. Edwards' personality shift is the least of his problems though, because he is basically Ringo in a room with John and Paul. I like Ringo, but I don't see him ever being any more than third fiddle on his best days.

OT but it's really funny --Star Wars guide to the candidates...

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html

From the WaPo last year:
With Trippi's Rise, Some See a New John Edwards
By Chris Cillizza
Tuesday, October 23, 2007

"Others say Elizabeth Edwards sees this race as more a cause than a campaign, a belief that makes her and Trippi -- an unapologetic believer in the power of liberal ideals and the overthrow of "transactional politics" -- ideological soulmates.

It's that message -- a fiery, some say angry, populism -- that has drawn attention to John Edwards of late.

One Democratic consultant who has worked with Trippi said the common thread in the majority of the presidential campaigns with which Trippi has been involved is an outrage with the way Washington operates.

A former senior staffer for Dean's presidential campaign said, "Anyone that knows Joe could see a marked difference in the creation of the new John Edwards once Joe came aboard." Trippi, the staffer added, "is an incredibly powerful force on any campaign, and when given a malleable candidate he will have an enormous impact.""

You can call it anger or you can call it passion, but JE will not be confused with someone that could end partisanship in Washington. Being more partisan than most is the answer? Right now, Edwards is the Republicans greatest asset. He is a candidate that couldn't win a general election against most of the current R's. If he did manage to win, he would be incredibly unsuccessful because nothing he has done in the last several years should lead anyone to believe he is willing to work with those across the isle. And to top it off, by staying in the race, he keeps HRC and BHO focused on each other longer, and not the R's, spending all those hard earned dollars. For Republican's, he is the best late Christmas gift anyone could dream of.

A couple Edwards supporters have said
"all the evidence points to the fact that in a run off against republicans Edwards outperforms the other democratic contenders"

What polls are you guys looking at? All the polling data I've seen that does speculative head-to-head matchups show Obama beating Repubs more consistently & by larger margins than Edwards, who sometimes loses (depending on the R).

bhoomes, Clinton and Obama are running even NOW... but I would be surprised if that were still the case in three weeks. on another topic, how is McCain looking where you are? (Midwest - right?)

AndyR3, I can see Edwards as AG in an Obama administration, but I'd be amazed if Biden took the VP slot. Sec. of State has more stature and would also give him the opportunity to implement the Iraq plan.

I can't see McCain/Lieberman for all the reasons previously mentioned, but that got me to thinking - would McCain think that bringing Lieberman into his cabinet would be an opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship? That is scary.

and here's another example of the 'genius of the marketplace'

'The Post reports that the $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has fire-safety problems that U.S. officials overlooked "in their rush to declare construction largely completed by the end of last year." The paper says the poor fire planning is representative of the construction effort as a whole, which has been plagued by delays, budget issues. and "shoddy workmanship." According to Post sources, the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into the building contracts.'

"One last bit of financial news: The NYT says that a New York state investigation into the mortgage troubles is now considering whether or not "Wall Street banks withheld crucial information about the risks posed by investments linked to subprime loans."

this is exactly why we don't need another tool of crooked corporations running the country. look at the debacle this naked, bottomless greed has caused...

I have no link Patrick, I'm just playing out why he may be determined to stay in the race. Both Clinton & Obama are running about even now and they both have money. This could be decided at the convention, and wouldn't Edwards be happy about that.

youcrew--it's not impossible. there's a lot i disagree with him on, but he is not a nut at least. say he chose Biden or someone similar for a running mate--unlikely but possible. then, yes.

vbhoomes is right about this.

If Edwards sticks around through Feb. 5, he may have enough delegates to influence the nomination. If Clinton and Obama split the delegates from the primaries/caucuses much the way they have so far, they'll both fall short of the nomination. Most of the superdelegates have yet to pledge support one way or the other, and if it's too close to call, they may stay on the fence for quite awhile.

It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. If Edwards is holding a couple hundred of them, then pledges his delegates to Obama or Clinton, that could swing a lot of undecided superdelegates that way as well, as they would be looking to climb on board with the likely nominee.

claudia, are you saying you would consider McCain with a different running mate?

Youcrew,
I thought about the Liebermann VP nomination too but I think he would run the risk of REALLY alienating his base. McCain has to choose a VP that would appease the far right folks or he runs a serious risk of a evangelical third party running someone just to spite him. I still think that McCain/Huckabee or vice versa is your GOP ticket.

Also I've been thinking that the best place for Edwards in a Obama administration would be as the Attorney General. Biden would bring alot more to the table as a VP candidate, and it would give Obama a good excuse to adopt Biden's Iraq-partition strategy (which I think in the end is what we are going to see by the end of 2009).

lieberman is a deal breaker. the guy is to the right of dick cheney, when he's not kissing his butt. wold never ever vote for this ticket--and neither would any D i've ever met.

Why do the democrats see Clinon or Obama as being more electable than Edwards - all the evidence points to the fact that in a run off against republicans Edwards outperforms the other democratic contenders, beating every one of them by a considerable margin - why do the democrats run off a cliff every primary cycle and go with a sure loser like dukakis, mondale, kerry etc... Also the MSM is complicit in not pointing out this fact, since edwards is not the candidate of the our corprate elite... it is just sad, that the democrats are so emotional and short sighted in picking a candidate and are incapable of strategic thinking - wheras the republican corpocracy is much more strategic (and manipulative) in choosing their candidates - I guess we get McCain in 2009... at least he won't torture people he locks away without trial... yeah!

Stonecreek:

John Edwards, the anti-Hillbama?

In an effort to pull in more independants and right-leaning democrats (is there such a thing?), John McCain announces his running mate, Joe Leiberman...

'I don't know if they'll succeed, claudia, but it sure is fun to hear their anguish and outrage!'

oh not only that, pamela, but jonah godlberg [pudgy legacy rightwinger known among bloggers as Doughy Pantsload] says he's 'terrifed' that Huckabee's compassion is real...

As squirrly as this race has been thusfar, Edwards would be foolish to drop out prematurely. Both Obama and Clinton have higher negatives than Edwards. Edwards has the potential to be the concensus candidate if the two *current* frontrunners should stumble. Edwards also has better potential in the "purple" states, and at the top of the ticket would make a less-inviting target for downballot Republicans.

Insofar as campaign finances, Edwards is not as disadvantaged as many assume. The "massive" amounts of money that Obama and Clinton have accumulated are a tea cup in the ocean of media costs in states like California, Florida, and all the rest. Besides, the real media money is going to come in the form of 527 expenditures, no matter who the candidate is. Edwards has largely freed himself from endless fundraising by taking the public money. It was a smart move, both in terms of PR and strategically.

I'm not betting the farm on Edwards for the nomination, but I'm not yet ready to bet it on one of the other two, either.

vbhoomes: can you explain this scenario or point me to a link?
Thanks.

It is concievable that both Hillary and Obama will get to the convention without enough delegates to put them over the top. Edwards then could be the King Maker, demanding a spot on someone's ticket for his delegates.

claudia says: "Speaking of 'class warfare' -- that's what the Great White Spin Machie --Hannity and Limbaugh, et al, are accusing Mike Huckabee of. They're really trying to crush him with the base. Think they'll be successful, anyone?"

I don't know if they'll succeed, claudia, but it sure is fun to hear their anguish and outrage!

Wonder if McCain gets the nomination, would he consider Huckabee as VP? Might shore up his support among Evangelicals, who haven't been inclined to take Rush's advice. McCain and Huckabee are treating each other with respect and courtesy - contrary to their approach to Mitt. Picking a woman VP might help solidify McCain's support w/ moderates - but I don't sense he needs the help there.

novamatt: Thanks, I really wonder what truth (if there is one) of this question is. I know it won't be 100 percent either way, but it does seem like Edwards is playing the Obama spoiler to me; I may be mistaken though.

I mean, if Edwards' supporters agree with what he is saying about her, I can't see the logic in the druid73 post. It seems that there is more vitriol b/w Edwards and Clinton than Obama with either.

patrick asks: "Edwards fans, who is your second choice and why? Just interested"

I am a fan of Edwards. However, I am also a fan of HRC and Obama. This seems kind of rare these days.
But first, I was a fan of John Edwards (voted for him last time around, my mother worked for his campaign).

I decided long ago that JE would not be the chosen one due to many factors; polls, money, and he has not inspired me the way I hoped to be inspired.

So, I have given lots of thought to who my 'second' choice would be.

I like Hillary because she is a strong person and I think possesses executive talent. I beleive she is up for the challenge. I am also a big fan of her husband. My biggest fear hear is that the other side hates her (and 42) with such passion, they may really turn out the vote.

I like Obama because he taps into that inspiration and has the oratory skills that I was looking for in Edwards. I saw him on Leno one night and he really came across as genuine. I am not sure that he could go toe-to-toe with someone like McCain who is already battle-tested and has worked both sides of the aisle effectively. My biggest fear is that his hope for unity is naive. It seems like the replublican version of bi-partisan means "agree with me, or else". After eight years I want someone who will fight fair, but will fight nontheless.

So, to answer the question, I have no idea who my second choice is. I am hoping all of you can continue to help sway my decision.
It may come down to something simple, like Obama making a brilliant decision of making Biden his running mate.

Patrick, I'm voting for Obama if Edwards is out by Feb. 12th. Might vote for Obama anyway if it really is Obama vs. Hillary by that point.

And after kicking the idea around for a little while, if Hillary is the D nominee, I'll be voting for a third-party candidate in November. Virginia won't be competitive for her anyway, and I do have my mortal soul to consider.

"Class warfare" is when the peasants of Springfield march through town with the severed head of Montgomery Burns leering from atop Homer's pike.'

thank you novamatt!

I get sick of the "angry" and "class warfare" talk. "Class warfare" isn't an incremental decrease in the degree of economic inequality. "Class warfare" is when the peasants of Springfield march through town with the severed head of Montgomery Burns leering from atop Homer's pike. Someone isn't "angry" when he's speaking with emotion about an instance of injustice. Someone is "angry" when he acts like Lou Piniella after a close call at first.

Thanks for a nicely balanced piece, Chris. I feel that if Edwards is nominated, he will squash the repub candidate. All the polls show this. If he is not nominated, the neocons win.
Paul Wertz
Eugene, OR

I totally agree with claudialong. The arguments that we need less government and that government is the problem, are being served up by the money and corporate interests that control our nation, not by those whose primary conern and vision is for a nation that is "of the people, by the people and for the people." Edwards is the only candidate in either party who is addressing the issues that need to be changed to make us a stronger nation.

druid73, Thanks for your thoughts.

Edwards fans, who is your second choice and why? Just interested.

Of course, Edwards is staying in the race!

BUT, he is now actually running to be Obama's veep!

The veep on a ticket is the hatchet man to beat up on the other team so the his team leader appears above the mean side. Edwards is already acting as Obama veep by his continued vicious attacks on Hillary.

If it looks like a secret deal, acts out like a secret deal, has the odor of a secret deal, it likley means Obama and Edwards have a secret deal. Edwards stays in the race in order to beat up on Hillary while Obama claims he is above the "old" politics. Obama picks Edwards as his veep.

Obama: snake oil and hypocrisy!

I am tired of the media trying to label him as angry, in a dismissive manner'

that's the media's narrative of him--once they adopt one they won't change-- just repeat it endlessly until it becomes CW.

Speaking of 'class warfare' -- that's what the Great White Spin Machie --Hannity and Limbaugh, et al, are accusing Mike Huckabee of. They're really trying to crush him with the base. Think they'll be successful, anyone?

I know a lot of people seem to be buying into this storyline that Edwards' supporters would all flock (like sheep) to Obama the day Edwards drops out. However, it doesn't look like it from the polls. All the past movement has a stronger correlation between Edwards and Clinton. In other words it looks like the early defectors from the Edwards camp have gone to Clinton NOT Obama.

The NH results seem to verify that since Obama didn't slip much from his Iowa showing but Clinton surged ahead as Edwards dropped.

So, I don't think Edwards dropping out would be a good thing for Obama.

John Edwards was born in SC and lives in NC. If his "favorite son" status is not yet showing in polls, it will not show up at all.

I got clobbered on another blog for making this remark, but I do believe that Edwards very strong Southern accent does not work favorably for some voters outside the South (and I am a native Texan). I think that after 16 continuous years of Presidents from southern states, Edwards' accent is a deterrence.

"Harold Stassen" Edwards is in it because after all these years (he's been running since 2002) he can't accept the fact that most voters see him as an empty suit.

Edwards Will Face a Moment of Truth After South Carolina Primary. If there were any doubt, his performance in the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate answered that question definitively.

Will John Edwards' exit hand a Victory to Obama?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1511

.

I sincerely hope that Edwards is the beneficiary of the heavy-handed Nevada caucus fixing scandal. Culinary Workers don't have to leave work on Saturday to caucus? The court HAS to throw that out! The teachers' union lawsuit (read: "Clinton's Union vs. Obama's Union") should benefit the REAL union champion: John Edwards.

Senator Edwards is right about one thing: there is nothing to be gained by compromise with Republicans.

In an op-ed piece published Saturday in the New York Times, Paul Burka -- senior editor of Texas Monthly, pointed out that "Mr. Obama will eventually have to accept that conflict, rather than unity, is the natural condition of politics. . . . Mr. Obama -- or anyone else who goes into politics -- is making promises he can't keep when he says he wants to work with the other side."

John Edwards recognizes Republicans' duplicity and hypocrisy and vows to fight them. For that, he deserves greater consideration than he has received so far.

JD writes
"Edwards: "I'm in it to be Obama's VP" This might as well be his slogan."

I hope not. If Obama were to pick Edwards as second fiddle, I'd have to reconsider voting for him - much like a McCain pick of Rice would sour my opinion of him. Edwards was a bad pick in 2004 & has done nothing to change in the interim, other than get more angry. In my opinion, he should drop out & spend more time with his family.

I'm surprised at the NV poll numbers. 27% for Edwards is not a 'disant third', that's a tight race at 32 to 30 to 27.

I wonder if TV shows like Hardball and Situation Room will continue to have John Edwards on.

How can anyone poll Nevada and some of the other states that moved up their contests? I live in New Jersey and our presidential primary used to be in June but its now February 5. How do pollsters figure out who is a likely voter in a state where the presidential primary never mattered? I'll be going out to vote for the first time in a presidential primary in New Jersey but I expect very low turn-out. IMO, it will wind up favoring Obama because Obama supporters are motivated more than Clinton supporters. I voted a few times when I lived in New York but New York hasn't had a contested Democratic Primary since 1992, either.

Edwards: "I'm in it to be Obama's VP" This might as well be his slogan.

HRC would see Edwards as a warmed over version of Kerry's guy (who just went for Obama). And of course, he and Obama double-teamed HRC at the debate, really ganged up on her.

With Obama, however, he provides balance; racial, geographical, old guard vs new blood, even speaking style (Obama's measured tones vs the trial attorney's angry rhetoric and class warfare/populism).

If you are going to quote a poll you MUST do two things: 1--it is imperative that you give the error factor and then2--analyize the polls with this in mind. Edwards could well be in a 3 way tie in Nevada with the figures you quote.

Haven't seen too much of Edwards lately, but I did watch him in the debate before the NH primary, and I don't find him phony - I think he sincerely believes what he says. I suppported him in 2004 and with Biden out of the race, I'm giving him a second look, but I don't expect him to make much headway. I do applaud his willingness to fight on.

If he seriously wants to fight poverty, health care inequities, etc., I wonder if he'd be a good Secretary for HUD or HHS in and Obama or Clinton administration?

Edwards has been buried, from the start, under the discussion of Hillary (the first woman candidate) and Obama (the first African American candidate), but take a closer look and one sees that Edwards is running the true campaign of the Democratic Party. His campaign in 2008 is a continuation and an evolution of the 2004 Two Americas campaign. He's allowed us to see more passion, strength and backbone than in 2004, and I am tired of the media trying to label him as angry, in a dismissive manner. Edwards is incredibly optimistic. I always feel a sense of hope, possibility and joy when I see him speak, even about some of the worst situations that we MUST begin to face and deal with in this country.

Why is Edwards defending Obama against Clinton, but at the same time, he is standing in the way of what would be a runaway Obama victory? I really don't get it. I know that the more choices, the better for democracy, but he will be the Obama spoiler if things continue the way they are going. Any insights?

Your analysis is interesting, though your relying too much on polling, especially in analyzing Nevada and South Carolina, a surprise in either one could again rescramble the conventional wisdom.

I thought of Edwards after seeing 'There Will Be Blood' -- interesting movie.

I started reading again about Uptown Sinclair and The Jungle, and Sinclair Lewis and Elmer Gantry and Babbit... and all the great social reformers of a century ago, and realized how prescient they were -- and how nothing has really changed, and in many ways is worse.

Edwards is the only candidate who addresses those issues.

It would be nice if we had a primary voting system that allowed voters to support more than one candidate. I like Edwards, to a degree. I like many of his policy ideas, and I'm glad he's bringing more attention to poverty and economic issues. But he hasn't run a very good campaign, he's got the least experience of any major candidate, and he comes off as phony and inauthentic. He also lacks the money, poll numbers, and popular support of Clinton and Obama.

Since each voter can select only one candidate, Edwards is just messing up the primaries. He's taking support away from Obama, so his presence just benefits Clinton. I wish he'd just accept that he's not going to win the nomination and bow out, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.