I really liked John Edwards, even though I am an Obama supporter and I was hoping that he would stay in the race, not because I felt he might win but its hard for me to see those who are voting for him to support Obama. They should, but they won't because as those I heard say in the 2006 election, I am going to vote for Bush because I am afraid we might get hit again. I could only shake my head because I knew before the 4 years was up these folks would have alot more to complain about than getting hit. But I say that to say this, Edwards is a good man and so is Obama but lets face it he had the folks that voted for Edwards the ones who would never see a black man in the WH, not because he cannot do the job but because they are who they are. They would rather vote Republican.I say also to the latino Hillary followers or call themselves devout Republicans, you are no different than the blacks who vote Republican, I just laugh because it show how much intelligence or even sound judgement you have. I'm laughing and the Republican party is laughing,just as George Bush has laughed at all those Evangelicals who thought he would get rid of abortion and gays. Give me a break. This country will continue to be divided with Hillary or she will move so far to the right it will make your heads spin, lets not forget that this very intelligent woman voted for the war, and as far as I remember was ready to vote to start one with Iran. Personally if she gets the nomination and if she wins it won't be much different than it is now from my perspective other than she is a woman and I am a woman but when my neice went to Iraq I became a news junkie and I read everything coming and going, I paid attention to what was going on on Capitol Hill. So I can say with a lot of certainty that whether you get John McCain or Hillary Clinton, you will see them as one in the same.

Glo4u

I really liked John Edwards, even though I am an Obama supporter and I was hoping that he would stay in the race, not because I felt he might win but its hard for me to see those who are voting for him to support Obama. They should, but they won't because as those I heard say in the 2006 election, I am going to vote for Bush because I am afraid we might get hit again. I could only shake my head because I knew before the 4 years was up these folks would have alot more to complain about than getting hit. But I say that to say this, Edwards is a good man and so is Obama but lets face it he had the folks that voted for Edwards the ones who would never see a black man in the WH, not because he cannot do the job but because they are who they are. They would rather vote Republican.I say also to the latino Hillary followers or call themselves devout Republicans, you are no different than the blacks who vote Republican, I just laugh because it show how much intelligence or even sound judgement you have. I'm laughing and the Republican party is laughing,just as George Bush has laughed at all those Evangelicals who thought he would get rid of abortion and gays. Give me a break. This country will continue to be divided with Hillary or she will move so far to the right it will make your heads spin, lets not forget that this very intelligent woman voted for the war, and as far as I remember was ready to vote to start one with Iran. Personally if she gets the nomination and if she wins it won't be much different than it is now from my perspective other than she is a woman and I am a woman but when my neice went to Iraq I became a news junkie and I read everything coming and going, I paid attention to what was going on on Capitol Hill. So I can say with a lot of certainty that whether you get John McCain or Hillary Clinton, you will see them as one in the same.

I really liked John Edwards, even though I am an Obama supporter and I was hoping that he would stay in the race, not because I felt he might win but its hard for me to see those who are voting for him to support Obama. They should, but they won't because as those I heard say in the 2006 election, I am going to vote for Bush because I am afraid we might get hit again. I could only shake my head because I knew before the 4 years was up these folks would have alot more to complain about than getting hit. But I say that to say this, Edwards is a good man and so is Obama but lets face it he had the folks that voted for Edwards the ones who would never see a black man in the WH, not because he cannot do the job but because they are who they are. They would rather vote Republican.I say also to the latino Hillary followers or call themselves devout Republicans, you are no different than the blacks who vote Republican, I just laugh because it show how much intelligence or even sound judgement you have. I'm laughing and the Republican party is laughing,just as George Bush has laughed at all those Evangelicals who thought he would get rid of abortion and gays. Give me a break. This country will continue to be divided with Hillary or she will move so far to the right it will make your heads spin, lets not forget that this very intelligent woman voted for the war, and as far as I remember was ready to vote to start one with Iran. Personally if she gets the nomination and if she wins it won't be much different than it is now from my perspective other than she is a woman and I am a woman but when my neice went to Iraq I became a news junkie and I read everything coming and going, I paid attention to what was going on on Capitol Hill. So I can say with a lot of certainty that whether you get John McCain or Hillary Clinton, you will see them as one in the same.

I am sticking to my choice for Edwards. I believe in the things he stands for, and will not allow his lack of attention in the media, and negative predictions by political commentators to sway me. What is wrong with people? He exudes goodness, and is bright and sweet. Is he just too good for people to believe he is real? Don't hate him because he is handsome and successful! He is beautiful inside and out!

Gitasmith - I think Edwards's lack of popularity has less to do with the fact that he is running against an African American and a woman and more to do with the fact that his voting record in Congress does not support the platform on which he has based his candidacy. This quote from Senator Russ Feingold is Edwards's problem in a nutshell:

"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."

You say, "But he doesn't stand a chance as blacks line up for Obama and women and Clinton fans line up for Hillary.
I really wish it were otherwise. In any other election year, y'all would love the guy."

I don't think so. This link should shed some light on your thoughts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402799_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Gitasmith - I think Edwards's lack of popularity has less to do with the fact that he is running against an African American and a woman and more to do with the fact that his voting record in Congress does not support the platform on which he has based his candidacy. This quote from Senator Russ Feingold is Edwards's problem in a nutshell:

"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."

You say, "But he doesn't stand a chance as blacks line up for Obama and women and Clinton fans line up for Hillary.
I really wish it were otherwise. In any other election year, y'all would love the guy."

I don't think so. This link should shed some light on your thoughts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402799_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Gitasmith - I think Edwards's lack of popularity has less to do with the fact that he is running against an African American and a woman and more to do with the fact that his voting record in Congress does not support the platform on which he has based his candidacy. This quote from Senator Russ Feingold is Edwards's problem in a nutshell:

"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."

You say, "But he doesn't stand a chance as blacks line up for Obama and women and Clinton fans line up for Hillary.
I really wish it were otherwise. In any other election year, y'all would love the guy."

I don't think so. This link should shed some light on your thoughts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402799_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

In 38 years as a registered voter, I never gave money to a political campaign... until last week when I donated to John Edwards' campaign. The ONLY reason he isn't doing better in the primaries is that the media is ignoring him (media is controlled by big corporations so this should come as no surprise -- these companies are as threatened as any others by Edwards message).

To those who say their vote would be wasted on Edwards, I say vote for the person who stands for what you stand for... if you, in fact, stand for anything. Don't vote for Obama because Oprah is for him. And don't vote for Hillary because having Bill back in the White House sounds like a good idea.

optimyst,
My numbers for SC are 19.8% (R), 23.7% (D) for a total of 43.5% (out of 2,246,242 registered voters). If there are 4.1 million registered voters in FL, the comparative ratio would be 971,700 Democratic votes. In the last primary election for Dems in 2004, 753,762 votes were cast. Given that some FL polling officials don't know that there is a Dem primary today and were having trouble providing ballots, any number above 500,000 would be remarkable. That said, I still don't see what the voter turnout has to do with my original contention that name recognition was no longer an issue or excuse for voting (or polling) results. But we can discuss that tomorrow I'm sure.

"His message of fighting for the forgotten middle class had clear resonance in Iowa, but since that vote Edwards has struggled to repeat the showing."

I don't remember any Washington Post story after Iowa that said Edwards message had clear resonance in Iowa. As a matter of fact the media pretended that Edwards hadn't even beaten Clinton in Iowa. The stories coming out of Iowa were that Obama won 1st and Hillary won 3rd. You guys wrote Edwards out of the narrative. And that's the problem. The Media has refused to give Edwards credit for anything. The only stories you guys write, when you do write a story about Edwards, is to say that he can't win. You deliberately try to drive down his numbers by framing his campaign as not viable and then you have the nerve to ask why isn't Edwards message resonating. I don't know how you sleep at night.

The other people posting here all know what the media did and is doing to Edwards. A lot of them won't admit it because they have a different candidate in this election but they all know because they've followed this election. And anyone who has followed this election knows exactly what the media has done.

And not to be outdone are the polling organizations (hooked up w/media corporations). They won't even poll Edwards in head-to-head matchups with the Republicans. So everytime the media reports on the head to head polling numbers Edwards once again gets no coverage.

If all they can say about obama is he worked for a slum lord indirectly for a short time. That's pretty darn good compared to the gop/bush and clinton. I'll take it. the differance is a small time slum lord has zero hold over obama. Can teh same be said of bush and teh oil companies? Clinton and drug? think about the big picture.

And obama claims it was his law firm that worked for him and obama played a very small role. i believe him. Why risk it. Little to gain.

If you want someone a slave to lobbyists go after clinton and the gop. Stay away from obama. you hurt edwards cause by painting your self as a propogandist.

Bashing obama is not going to get your boy edwards elected. Edwards is the man. He has many positive qualities to trumpet. Stay there freind. Stay away from turning into fox and your enemy. Like the gop we need not beceom our enemy to defeat him.

The gop are the terrorists. Focus your hate and anger there. Oh yeah and clinton is a republican :)

Mark_in_austin,
Holy Hangin' Chad, Batman! I could have sworn that FL went to electronic voting? Maybe just wishful thinking on my part. JimD would know. Personally, I am beginning to think that the 'F' in Florida stands for the same thing the 'F' in FUBAR stands for...

Two senators, who can't get us out of war, are calling themselves progressive while talking about the sixties and race. Two senators who continue squabbling about race and holding hands
with Rezko, two senators who are an excellent side show and have failed to talk about real hope, integrity and leadership, these two have failed us. And they say, "We need to become president to bring about our brand of change." What about healthcare or homeless veterans? Do you back John on the homeless veterans or are you to busy trying to impress your constiuents like a giddy high school group?
John Edwards has stood firm on his pledge to stay in this race and continue a positive conversation with the American People, despite the media wondering what will happen they should cover what is happening. JRE marches on with support from MLK III, stating,"fight on." Obama has been compared to JFK and RFK I might be able to hear the resemblence but I fail to see how not fighting for the poor who had no heat in Rezko's buildings or voting for liquid coal without sequestration, (a method that will pollute the environment at a 20% higher rate), or throwing money at the homeless veterans issue without any result is any way to honor the Kennedy's legacy. Both Kennedy members would be appalled by such treatment of our citizens and the environment. I'm sorry Obama is no Jack or Robert Kennedy.
John Edwards is the only one that disavowed NAFTA and NAFTA like trade agreements as we speak Obama and Clinton continue to send your jobs overseas.
Remember when things get tough in this country and they will get worse, remember who was the first to speak out about the economy and remember who told you to vote for someone other than JRE.
Use your brains and vote for the candidate that is best for America. The greedy corporations, continue to want America silenced and not heard. If you want squabbling, if you want no end to war, if you want, our leaders to be hand-in-hand like teenage lovers on a first date with corporations vote Obama and Hillary.

Chris--Would the Post and other media start doing some education re: primaries and the fact that they are supposed to be the province of the parties and explain how we got to this awful mess that the current system is foisting on the American people. Am I the only reader old enough to remember when local delegates were chosen to represent their local districts at the Convention and the parties chose their candidate there? The kind of voting we are seeing now should be reserved for the November election, and the people who really know their candidates should make the choice instead of people who only know what they read on blogs like this.

Thought: Vote for Edwards in your primary and send the choice to the convention and watch the fun!! It would not be a "wasted" vote. Another "thought"--if you want change in Washington, you would never vote for any Republican no matter how likeable they are in November--get real people!!
jallison

dave and optimyst, you might want to read this article in the Orlando Sentinel before you actually wager.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-bk-polls012908,0,4785381.story

It would be funny, if voting screw ups in FL were something new.

Dave,

Just so you don't think I'll skew the numbers later on, here are the projections based on South Carolina, which had open primaries. Overall, 956,031 voted in the republican and democratic primaries out of a total of 2.25 million registered voters. That equals 42.49% turnout. Florida is much more democratic than South Carolina, but I'll let that go for now. There are 4.1 million registered democrats in Florida. Using the SC turnout of 42.49%, you should expect about 1.742 million votes cast in the democratic primary tonight to even begin to argue your position. In reality, the SC turnout for the democrats was much higher and for republicans much lower than the average of 42.49% but I don't have the details to break out those calculations.

My own thought is that if democratic turnout is less than 2,000,000, it will prove that voters stayed home as a result of the campaign restrictions, thereby invalidating the results. If it is around 1,000,000, then your position is totally without merit.

On the republican side, there are 3.8 million registered voters. I'd expect about 1.5 million to vote today since the candidates are out in force and real delegates and momentum are at stake.

I trust this is objective enough for us to find a way to agree tomorrow.

optimyst,
I don't know what voter turnout really tells us other than interest in an election for one reason or another. I think that people might feel dissed by the Democrats and they may not vote in protest. Or they may vote in huge numbers with the "i'll show them" thinking. I just don't think that it really tells us anything about name recognition. Candidates campaign all over focusing on different groups. The Dems for years have been focusing on the youth vote and have done enough campaigning to where they should have sealed the deal numerous times. But that vote has never materialized. It would be interesting to see the correlation, if any, between amount of campaigning/dollars spent and voter turnout however.

But I will say that when I opened my browser to check the blog here, yahoo had the following headline: Record-breaking turnout expected for Florida primary.

Dave,

You are stubborn. I'll grant you that. I'll tell you what. I will post an analysis here of the increase in voter turnout between 2004 and 2008 once the Florida results are in. We will both be able to look at the numbers objectively against our theories. If turnout is anemic (example, less votes than for republicans), then my theory is proved. If it is record-breaking like in Iowa, NH and SC, then I will concede your argument. Fair?

I haven't seen or heard much about Mrs. Edwards lately. Is she doing OK? Does anyone know? I like John Edwards but I wonder if he shouldn't just go home and be with his wife and family. Spend some real quality time with them. If he can't pull off victory in his birth state, the handwriting is on the wall isn't it? Why put yourself and your family through this?

Blarg, that really was an excellent post! I don't mean to demean BJLeone or anyone else. I'd considered a response to that particular post myself but you stated the points I would have made very well.

I have also educated myself concerning the positions of Senator Obama, as well as other candidates, and you are absolutely right. It's not difficult at all to discover where Senator Obama stands on the issues if anyone truly wants to know about these things (and they should).

There is absolutely no reality in "campaign promises" that are too detailed on any important issue; and the other candidates are aware of that fact, even as they atack Senator Obama for having the integrity to not fill voters heads with a lot of empty, detailed, promises that he knows he can NOT keep. Hillary Clinton has, herself, stated in the past that she would not make promises because there are too many things that are beyond her control when it comes to legislation, and all she can promise is to give her best effort. Hillary's remarks were made as a Senator, whose job it is to propose and pass legislation. Now that she's running for President, she has ignored her own comments and provided boring speeches that are full of details that she knows she has no possibility of achieving, especially as President, who is not a legislator in case that fact escaped Ms. Clinton.

The most honest thing that any Presidential candidate can do during a campaign is to inform voters about his beliefs and his stand on the important issues with some idea of what he would like to be able to accomplish in the major areas that a President can influence. How much of any candidates detailed ideas can actually be included in the legislation that is enacted by Congress will be determined by the political makeup of that Congress and the President's ability to influence and compromise with members of Congress to get as much of his/her program passed as possible. Rather than faulting Senator Obama for failing to provide a long list of meaningless details that he can not expect to deliver in tact; I find his honesty and refusal to mislead the American voters just for the opportunity of tricking them out of their vote to be very refreshing. One of the keys to this election, in my mind is that President Obama would be able to get much more of his programs passed through Congress than a President Clinton would be able to do with her's because one would unite the American people and to some degree legislators from both sides of the aisle, while the other would be as devisive a leader as the Clinton's have always been.

Educate yourselves on what the candidates really do strongly believe in and then consider which candidate would have the greatest success working with Congress, whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. It will be those 535 individuals who will determine the details of any health care, economic, energy, immigration, or other plan that will be passed into law. Any candidate who misleads voters into believing that they will inact specific legislation on ANY issue that very closely resembles any detailed plan they outline at this point is just another example of why the term "campaign promises" has become synonomous with "lies".

Just one thing concerning John Edwards and the very specific details that he claims to be able to deliver upon. Why is it that he made no significant impact as a Senator on any of the issues he claims to champion, and why has he now admitted that so many of the votes he vast as a Senator was a mistake and has apologized for. Does anyone truly find his track record to be consistent or worth hanging your hat on. Hillary and John can get as specific as they want in making their "campaign promises" and they can attack Senator Obama all they want for failing to join in on their "Follies". I know where Barrack Obama stands on the issues, I appreciate his refusal to insult my intelligence and lie to me about details that he knows he can't promise to deliver on, and I trust him to be able to work more closely with Congress than any other candidate in this election to achieve the overall goals that he has to represent the people and improve conditions for all Americans. I also look forward to feeling hope for our future and respect for and confidence in the integrity of the White House for the first time in a very long time! These are the issues that voters should be focussed on, because these are the things that we should be able to foresee with any confidence.

Last time I checked this was America. Meaning everyone has the right to their opinion and John Edwards has the right to stay in the race as long as he wants to. You crybabies questioning his credibilty are only jealous of the fact that he happens to be a self-made millionaire, which apparently is a bad thing if you're a Democrat. What a joke. Edwards-Obama-Hillary(while holding my nose) in that order. Peace.

There are many reasons for Sen. Edwards to stay in the race, regardless of the growing sniping from critics. If they looked at it objectively, both Clinton and Obama supporters should be advocating for Edwards to stay in the race, and trying to woo his camp rather than alienate even more potential Democratic voters. Consider:

1. Even without Edwards in the mix, this is going to be a "down-to-the-wire" decision. Clinton and Obama are likely to continue trading primary victories, and neither is certain to achieve a clear majority of delegates on his/her own.

2. If you think he's a "spoiler," then you can interpret the exit/entrance polling from the caucuses & primaries so far to show that Edwards pulls votes from both Clinton and Obama, depending on who is "winning." Essentially, he's the "2nd choice" candidate: for people who won't vote Clinton and don't want Obama, he's their guy; for people who won't vote Obama and don't want Clinton, he's their guy. *But* - and this is important - there don't really seem to be a lot of Edwards "haters" (as, unfortunately, there are for Clinton & Obama). He may not be Dems' favorite, but most like him well enough as an alternative.

3. Given the choice between having the nomination determined by a group of free-agent superdelegates, and a group of delegates controlled by a "king/queenmaker" (or "peacemaker," as the Edwards camp has more often said), I'd prefer the kingmaker. At least those delegates were - however indirectly - sent to the convention to represent the choice of actual voters. Superdelegates vote based on their loyalty to a particular candidate - in other words, whomever has promised them the bigger payola. At least in the Kingmaker scenario, we have the possibility of seeing delegates' votes traded on behalf of the issues their candidate represents. The voters get a hell of a lot more out of the second scenario.

4. Oh, yeah, the voters. Remember them? I know this isn't the 19th century, but a lot of people in America still live under the illusion that their votes matter. We're tired of having our candidates picked by a handful of early primaries - or, as more often seems to be the case, nominated by media proxy. Let the people vote. So what if it's "irrelevant" or "deluded" or downright stupid? It's a constitutional right. We've had enough of them stripped away by Bushco. Why give any choice away voluntarily? Those who want to throw Edwards out of the race because they can't handle the complexity of tracking three candidates, or because he spoils their cat-fight, need to get over it. Let the voters vote, or stop scratching your heads and wondering why no one participates in American civic life anymore. You don't have to agree with a campaign to support its right to be heard (it's a novel little concept I call "democracy").

5. Here's the most important one. Given the fact that Clinton and Obama are so evenly matched, the primary nomination decision process would likely become far more rancorous and divisive without John Edwards in the race. Without the "third wheel" for Dems, the NYT, and FauxNews to heap abuse on, the only choices for the "get out of the race" chanting still available would be Clinton or Obama. The rest of the primary would devolve into a shouting match between the two camps (and it's already heading in that direction). But with no clear choice of favorite, whoever received the nomination would come out of the primary season so bloodied by his/her own party that the Republicans wouldn't even need any new fodder to handily defeat the Dems in the fall. The more odious the fighting between the two of them becomes, the worse off the party as a whole is going into the general election in November. If for no other reason, both the Obama and the Clinton camps should be begging John Edwards to stay in the race!

As long as there is at least one other person to catch the occasional press- or candidate-lobbed vitriol bomb, the Dems might stand a chance of avoiding self-destruction before the general election. Seriously, every time John Edwards gets called a "socialist" on Fox News, every Democrat in America is served. At least, for that one shining moment, no one is talking about how much Bill hates Barack, or Teddy hates Hillary.

Of course, the real reason Edwards should stay in the race is that he's the best candidate, with the best policy, and the best chance of actually winning. But I'm no longer sure that's what Democrats seek in their candidates.

Edwards did not merely split the white vote in South Carolina with Clinton. Based on exit poll analysis, Edwards received more of the white vote than did Clinton.

"HARRY SMITH: When you see that enthusiasm [for Obama] though, and when you see the generational change that seems to be taking place before our eyes, does it make you at all fearful?

Kennedy understandably had no idea what Smith was driving at, and gave an innocuous answer about people's desire for "a new day and a new generation." But Smith's follow-up left no real doubt as to what he had in mind.

SMITH: I just, I think what I was trying to say is, sometimes agents of change end up being targets, as you well know, and that was why I was asking if you were at all fearful of that.

When you tell a man with Ted Kennedy's family history that "you well know" about politicians becoming "targets," the implication is unmistakable.

This time, Kennedy [to his credit I would say] chose to ignore Smith's suggestion, giving another bland answer about Obama being a candidate for change.

What could possibly have possessed Smith to raise this specter?
"

Frickin republcains. First you are ok'ing racism. Now your oking, well I'm not going to say.

Think about the future gop. I have seen this over and over. Tread very very carefully here. For the gop's histroy of murdering other opinions. be very careful where your propogandists go gop. The left does not do this. The left does not control your gop propoganda. Only you can. Better get a grip on this right now gop. Think about the future

BJLeone, Obama's links to Rezko are indeed sleazy and deserve closer scrutiny. Unfortunately the public and the media have given him a pass on lots of issues up until now, prefering to stick with the grand themes of "hope" and "change" until now it's becoming clear that there's no meat on the bones!

Like you said, in his policy-lite offerings, there are "so many pie in the sky suggestions, it boggles the mind."

At least Edwards is more of a pragmatist, and I repsect him for that.

And what really irked me about him was one of the first things that he plans to champion is public financing for running for office. Sure, AFTER he runs. If this is such a concern of his, why isn't he running on public funds now, like Edwards. It's so hypocritical.

tRYING TO DIVIDE THE ELECTORATE. tHAT'S ALL. Consider obama dn edwards votes the same. Consider clinton votes to be gop votes in the general.

Edwards is a great candidate. As of now he is not hurting obama, check back after feb 5th. Obama and edwards together are teh perfect candidate. But they are sperate people with seperate goals. I would like for obama to win and take on a moderate as vp (richardson biden dodd) and bring edwards into the fold. Cabneit position.

The more people we bring the the merrier that want to work to re-build the nation from gop sabotage. It's going to be true patriots agaisnt sabotuers come 09. Edwards is in the patriot camp. We need the guy. But not at teh cost of putting a gop sabotuer in the white house. Priorities people :).

I won't say anything bad about edwards, as I agree with most issues. But it comes down to black and white (pardon the pun). Who can win? Who can re-unite this country and marginalize those who would fight that goal. If you nominate edwards you have two camps going after each other. Not much will get done at all. Better to invole all, unlike the gop, and point out those throwing a monkey wrench in the works. If edwards wins there are to many monkey wrenchs and not enough people guarding the "works" for gop sabotuge. :)

In the next two weeks, John Edwards will destroy his own credibility and reputation while at the same time hurting the Democratic Party and the country by propelling Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Democratic nomination.

Edwards is already much more closely aligned with the ideals of the Obama campaign and has been splitting the vote of Americans looking for change and campaign finance reform. His continuation of his campaign into the critical contests on Super Tuesday undermines Senator Obama's chances to derail the party's attempt to annoint Hillary and that effect will be bolstered by his southern strategy which seems to target Obama directly.

Edwards has increasingly come across as an angry candidate and now he seems intent upon playing the spoiler, for no other purpose than spoiling the chances of the ideals he has claimed to champion throughout this campaign. With his failure to even come close to winning a single primary or caucus this year and his performance which has shown him losing many of his 2004 strongholds to Senator Obama; Edwards has done absolutely nothing to enhance his potential as a Vice-Presidential running mate after failing to do much to help John Kerry in 2004.

I fear that John Edwards' legacy will be that of the man who couldn't win, and let his sour grapes motivated campaign in February's crucial primaries become the greatest aid to Hillary Clinton's nomination despite her being the candidate who represents everything that Edwards has vowed to fight against in American politics. It truly is a shame to see a man who had so many people believing in his goodness and the sincerity of his cause revealed as a complete fraud.

Why should Edwards drop out? It's up to one person - him. And he's shaping the issues in this race and bringing to light the things that matter and should really be talked about. The saddest part about the current state of our democratic process is the people who say "I really like John Edwards, but I can't vote for him because he's not going to win." Of course he won't win if you don't vote for him!!! Idiots all, letting the MSM characterize this race into what they think fits instead of just presenting the facts about ALL of the candidates and letting the voters decide. 95% of the pieces on the news channels are about the bickering, bad mouthing and ooooh the gloves are off (for the 47th time). Where is the discussion of policy? That's what really matters in this race, and apparently everyone has lost sight of it.

Proudtobe:

And Obama moving into a home for $300,000 less than Market value courtesy Resko is not a problem with the people he's trying to attract? At least Edwards earned the money for his home. Obama went under the table, but unfortunately not under the radr on that one. More will come out.

optimyst - "The cars sit on the lot behind the chain link fence. You can see them, but you can't take a test drive and nobody is there to answer your questions. Think any dealerships would be successful using that strategy? Do you think some people are driving the car they are driving because of sales tactics, advertising and customer service?"

The error in your analogy is that the good people of FL have been checking out the different models, have access to pertinent information and cab go to different dealerships. They have been online and listening to media about the different features (unless you think Floridians are informationally challenged). There have been private fundraisers and national ads, news and opinion programs, the internet and Leno/Letterman that have all reached FL. I've heard they even have CSPAN there. I have never gone to a campaign rally and yet amazingly numerous politicians have "closed the deal" with me. If significant campaigning is a requirement to closing a deal which is needed to have a meaningful vote, do you plan on telling Alaskan's that their vote is meaningless for their 2/5 primary?

safe political thing, that is

I am so absolutely sick of people deciding that Edwards isn't a viable candidate when about 1% of the population has voiced their opinion. This is such a joke. The media in this country is horrible. And I actually like the WP. Report the news and stop injecting your opinion, and stop making this a two person race. What if we find out tomorrow that Obama committed fraud? Then our only choice would be Hillary? Screw the primaries, push Hillary forward? We need the choice of as many candidates as possible. Why is it fine for the republicans to have 4 candidates, but we're only apparently supposed to have 2?

When is the public going to realize that his promise to only use public funding for his campaign isn't a bad thing? It's a GREAT thing, and shows his true character. He would be one of the best presidents of our history. The world would look back upon his term as the age that changed things for the better after the Bush machine messed everything up.

perhaps AdrickHenry.

would be good. I saw biden speak here in reno. question to him, which was never asked or answered, was:

with all the dissatisfaction with both parties, do you see a real valid thrid party rising?

I got some mean looks. But for a time that's were we were at. The moderates (reid di fi biden rockafeller) were with bush. The liberals were being marginalized by the gop and moderates. Not a good time for me, america, or the democratic party. They almost threw everthing down the drain, and may still by electing clinton.

On the contrary Dodd stood agaisnt Fisa telecom immunity when nobody else did. He stood alone. Now obama clinton and the ledership is on board. Without dodd that doesn't happen. We don't get the names. Nobody is held to account. this can wand will go to the top. This is about america values and courage. Courage to go agaisnt party when necessary. Party over country is treason. Whether you are fox news, the gop or the democrats. For teh most part the new democratic party is about the nation again. But for a time it was contenious.

Without Obama and Kusinich and dodd and others , teh democratic party would have followed the gop down the rabbit hole. Biden didn't stop that slip. He sided with the clinton moderates.

Having said all that he provides valuble experiance, and foreign policy crediblity. Dodd adds experiance. Between the two I see dodd as have the domestic experiance (as well as some foreign), while biden is a foreign policy guy with some experiance in domestic.

We need both. I'm siding with dodd due to his courage and the fact we need to get our country right first. A lot of challenges here, as well as overseas. But as an american I'm more concerned with my freedom directly than others in other countires, though they are a close second.:)

so that's why I say dodd, but biden would be a good choice. I'm pretty sure biden will not be the guy though. who knows though. Wishful thinking. It's about respect and rewarding GOOD behavior. Like fighting for this great country. As opposed to doing teh same political thing

Krishna,

I think Obama/Biden is even stronger...

Bush "won" Because he fooled a lot of people. Not because he was strong with the base. Newt will fool no one

agree with you addrick about mitt -- you forget to mention he has made a fortune helping foreign governments buy out US companies and fire all the workers.

mark in austin -- here's back up for something you asked about yesterday:

FACT -- SURGE HAS WEAKENED THE MILITARY: Army Chief of Staff General George Casey warned that "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply" and also that "the surge has sucked all the flexibility out of the system." Yesterday, Gen. Petraeus "said the Pentagon wants to bring troops home quickly to reduce the strain on the armed services." [WSJ, 1/17/08; CNN, 1/28/08]

FACT -- THE LONGER WE STAY IN IRAQ, THE MORE OUR MILITARY IS BURDENED: "It's going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put ourselves back in balance. ... The question is, when does the conflict end?," said Army Chief of Staff George Casey in October. [General Casey, 10/9/07]

Newt would be a formidable candidate.

He is strong with the base, is he not?

We finally got obama on board, in terms of words and actions. Many people are going to prison for this, once we get the names. With the new backbone of the democratic party in the fold the party will have the spine to finally stand up to bush on this issue. Of course bush wants to hide the truth. What criminal doesn't? It's for america to enforce our laws. The doj has been destroyed. We get our country back next year.

"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power - and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

"

Barack Obama

Obama-Dodd 08

Adrick, I'd much rather cast a vote for Newt than for Mitt, but any of the Rs are vastly superior to the liberal alternatives Hill & Billie or Obambi.

...just kidding! ;-)

although I do think Newt Gingrich is a possiblity if the Republican Convention is brokered. Serious about that.

Blarg,

brokered convention...

Al Gore?

Proud: it feels really strange to be in such agreement with you...

...about Mitt Romney.

The guy is truly dangerous. If elected he would continue to follow the disastrous policies of the last 7 years. The possiblity exists that Romney would even WIDEN the deficit further with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts and continuing the occupation of Iraq (the wrong "enemy" in the wrong place at the wrong time).

What makes Romney so dangerous is that he is good-looking and tele-genic, and above all, he is wealthy enough to buy the votes of the uninformed voter: that mass of people who will base their decision on a TV commercial or a 10 second snipet on the evening news that they see while channel-surfing to pro wrestling or ultimate fighting or a reality show.

He "looks" like he would be a good president (better than Martin Sheen even), will say anything to not offend, and he is fabulously wealthy -- this guy is dangerous.

The candidates were prevented from coming to the state and present themselves to the voters and make their case for their votes. It's called closing the deal or making the sale. It didn't happen in Florida. That's why the results don't matter. Duh!

Posted by: optimyst | January 29, 2008 12:27 PM

That's exactly right. And it's not a coincidence that Team Hillary is talking up Florida so much. Or that Team Hillary for a long time thought about skipping Iowa, which is all about up-close-and-personal campaigning.

Call it the Giuliani Effect: the likelihood that a candidate will lose support in a particular state the more up-close scrutiny he/she receives there.

Mike, that's an interesting scenario, but I don't see it happening. Can you imagine the outcry if Edwards gets the nomination despite having fewer delegates than either of his opponents? That wouldn't re-unite the Democratic Party, it would tear the party apart. People would be furious that their votes didn't count because the end result was unrelated to the votes. And it would put Edwards in a very weak position in the general election.

Ideally, Obama will get enough delegates that he legitimately wins the nomination. My second choice would actually be for Hillary to clearly win the nomination, much as I dislike her. I'm really worried about a brokered convention, because there's no outcome in that situation which will please everyone. And no matter what happens in a brokered convention, the Republicans will have a field day. I know it might happen, but I really hope it doesn't.

On delegate seating: There was also a huge delegate fight at the '64 R Convention that ended up with all white delegations from the South seated for the first time in R history.
---------------------------------------
The Federal courts have have refused to force either party to include or exclude a candidate on a ballot, pretty consistently, on the theory that the party is not an arm of the government and makes its own rules. Any exceptions would almost surely have to be based directly on a Voting Rights Act violation.

Further, the two states have not been successful in challenging the RNC and DNC rules.

It actually makes sense for Edwards to stay in the race. Look at the negative campaigning by the Clinton's and the reactions by nearly everyone. So far the reaction has been revoltion, but they have hurt Obama. In the end, if they keep this up, both Clinton and Obama will be so tarnished that neither has a chance of winning the general election and, from the way things look right now, neither will even have enough votes to win the convention. Obama and his supporters are polarizing away from Clinton (and vice versa) and the Democratic Party, in general. I think this is one of the reasons you are/will-be seeing a lot of Party leaders either endorsing Obama or are staying neutral, are pointing out the underhanded tactics of the Clinton campaign, etc. It's a bit early, but I am pretty sure we are looking at a brokered convention. Now Edwards, in such a convention, is the only acceptable choice for both sides, the only remaining candidate with a chance of re-uniting a badly shaken and divided party for the general election. I would expect Obama to throw his delegates and support to Edwards (but it might just be Edwards throwing his deligates to Obama, too, if it is close) and look for the Cltinon's, under a lot of pressure from the national Party, to be forced to do the same thing.

need more nurses? Sounds like a great problem for teh economy. Sounds liek the nurses and medical folks we do have are going to get huge raises. Good for them.

Now if the democrats can create more jobs with higher pay, outside the medical field. Altough my girlfreind is a nurse so it works out for her and others in my family. If we could only extend the need for medical to other feilds. People get sick and hurt. No shortage of that. If the higher ups and drug compaines weren't sucking up the profits, that would be great. Time to start thinking in terms of the american worker again. Rather than the ceo and stock holders only.

Universal health care will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. and raise wages. The american people win and the stock holders lose. :). but the gop says they are one in the same. Most idsagree. This is why the gop is done for a generation. Somebody's got to keep this country running and operating. And it's not stock holders and doctors who sit at home or golf all day.

Okay, Dave. It sounds like I have to really simplify this for you. Here it is: Having a primary without a campaign is like having a car dealership without employees. The cars sit on the lot behind the chain link fence. You can see them, but you can't take a test drive and nobody is there to answer your questions. Think any dealerships would be successful using that strategy? Do you think some people are driving the car they are driving because of sales tactics, advertising and customer service?

The candidates were prevented from coming to the state and present themselves to the voters and make their case for their votes. It's called closing the deal or making the sale. It didn't happen in Florida. That's why the results don't matter. Duh!

Blarg,
Ideas, promises, yes, actual plans, not so much. Anyone can throw out a million changes that healthcare needs, although the first few paragraphs in his new booklet, (very reminiscent of Edwards 80 page booklet that's been available since IOWA)are so vague that I don't think they qualify as plans. The question is how and how much? How do you get hospitals to regulate records, collect and turn in reports for public consumption (Internet? publications?),nursing ratios, medical errors, etc? They can't find enough nurses, nevermind personnel to institute all these changes. There's no "how does this happen, where do we all meet to discuss this, are there the same rules for every hospital no matter what the size or financial capability", etc. Really read it. There are so many pie in the sky suggestions, it boggles the mind. There's no immediate healthcare in there, probably for years and years. It's not thought out.

As for transparency of governments, sure, but every contract over 25,000 dollars. Are you kidding me? Do you know how many people will bid on a $25,000 contract? Are we really going to argue every award in public forums? It's like he's trying to out detail everyone else's plan without a clue as to who's going to pay for it. And have you ever heard him talk about any of these things in public? No. 'Cause people will start getting out their calculators, spread sheets and bureacracy meters.

Since somebody brought up Superdelegates before, does everyone realize that each Superdelegate is worth approx 153,000 votes (based on 2004 turnout)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

bush says teh union will be strong if we continue to trust the people. Trust The People??

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."

William Gladstone, 4 time Prime Minister of Great Britain

The gop does not trust the people, and their polls show that. The gop does nto listen to the people and the polls show that. Congress does not listen to the people, and their approval ratings show that. trust teh people? this president and his party are a lost cause.

from Dave at 10:27
"... this campaign is more than just a run for the presidency for Edwards. He is on a mission to try to bring about the changes and direction that he feels the country needs."

Dave, surprisingly, you and I are in complete agreement.

Contrary to the common consensus, I believe Edwards in not a vanity-driven egomaniac, but someone who sincerely believes he is fighting the good fight. And, he going to go down swinging.

He will still in as long as the money holds out.

The most famous delegate seating dispute was probably that involving Fannie Lou Hamer's "Mississippi Freedom Delegation" at the Democratic convention in 1964.

don't know of any cases dealing with convention delegates' seating.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 29, 2008 11:55 AM

I haven't heard of any, of course, I am not a lawyer just someone with a pretty good knowledge of US political history. My understanding is that delegate seating is considered to be entirely within a political party's purview and the courts decline to intervene in such things.

There have been cases of competing slates of delegates from a specific state both arriving at the convention and it is up to the credentials committee to determine which slate to seat. This decision can be challenged on the convention floor and the entire convention votes on the issue. Delegate seating decisions were instrumental in Eisenhower winning the 1952 Republican nomination.

ProudtobeGOP: At least Romney will not lose his temper and go start a war like McCain. The man is just to unbalanced to be Commander-in-Chief. I am conservative before I am a republican, I will not vote for McCain under any circumstance. I am just one vote, but a lot of the conservatives feel the same as I do.

jimd: The only court case involving primaries of which I am aware is the Sup. Ct. decision invalidating the so-called white primary, Smith v. Allwright (1944).

I don't know of any cases dealing with convention delegates' seating.

"I feel that the Clinton's are hoping that if the race goes all the way to the convention, the delegates are split, AND Michigan and Florida will put her over the top they will sue to get those delegates reinstated. "

I think (Mark am I right?) that the courts have generally refused to get involved in such intra-party affairs. "

The upper of the above is one of the comments that got me thinking about superdelegates. If the Clinton campaign were to try to sue for MI & FL delegates be allowed to vote at the convention, how would the superdelegates react? Would the party establishment back that move, or give them the straight-up 'go-[expletive]-yourself' and vote for another candidate?

proudtobeGOP writes
" Edwards is scheduled to make a campaign stop in the Twin cities tonight; any chance you'll be having a Breck Girl sighting?"

First I've heard of it. There's an Obama event Saturday that we may try to attend, depending on where & when.

Lists of superdelegates (and who they've endorsed, if anyone), plus other convention info here: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Edwards' gambit likely won't work. Too many uncommitted superdelegates, and not enough delegates of his own.

optimyst - "For that comment to have any validity, you'd have to see the campaigns coasting now, thinking their job is done, that they've got the word out, the rest is in the hands of the voters."

Huh? Are you telling me that the only reason to campaign is to get name recognition? What is your definition of name recognition? To me, it means given a list of names to vote for, you are more likely to choose one you have heard of than not. If you are familiar with all the names, you base your decision on their particular positions or your feelings about the candidates. Could campaigning change this? Of course - that is why politicians do it. What about undecideds? I would argue most people know who the candidates are and what they stand for. In my case, I know all the candidates names and a lot about all of them and I am still undecided and the campaigns have not touched our state.

I am just pleased that I will still be able to vote for Edwards on February 5th, as he has been my first choice all along. I am not happy with Obama or Clinton. Clinton represents the DLC and votes too often with the Republicans. I am concerned about Obama's praise of Regan, his talk of "bipartisanship", and his ageist comments throughout the campaign. With all the hype about his charisma, I haven't been able to figure out what he stands for.

Brooklyn, New York

bsimon, Edwards is scheduled to make a campaign stop in the Twin cities tonight; any chance you'll be having a Breck Girl sighting? I wonder how his hair will fare in the sub-zero wind chills.

It's hard to imagine how, but Edwards' campaign staff keeps insiting that they are "excited" by how much support they're getting. "With absolute certainty, the commitment in terms of the size of the campaign and the overall commitment is quantum leaps ahead of what it was four years ago" said one campaign director.

But Edwards did some things in those four years that just don't resonate well with the public -- like moving into the large home when he was at the poverty institute, then the expensive haircut and the hedge fund thing.

But Edwards's campaign director said that's "more in keeping with who John Edwards is."

"I feel that the Clinton's are hoping that if the race goes all the way to the convention, the delegates are split, AND Michigan and Florida will put her over the top they will sue to get those delegates reinstated. "

I think (Mark am I right?) that the courts have generally refused to get involved in such intra-party affairs.

In thinking more about the delegate race, I'm getting more curious about these superdelegates. The CW portrays Edwards as the spoiler/kingmaker. But don't the superdelegates hold as many cards as Edwards does? If the Senators Obama and Clinton arrive at the convention with roughly comparable numbers of delegates, the superdelegates may be faced with a larger decision than they have in recent elections. Who can run the numbers and start to game out scenarios, at least in terms of #s of SDs vs. # of delegates necessary to win the endorsement.

claudialong - "yeah, dave, but didn't that work out pretty well for him?"
It did and that was my point (but Reagan is to this day labeled as only a big picture guy and that is simply not correct).

I don't know how you can call the McCain/Romney back and forth 'nasty'. The last Dem debate was 'nasty', this is run of the mill election politics.

John Edwards never had a chance. America is besotted with the novelty of having a choice between a woman and a black man for the first time in America's history. We are so giddy with that fact, so dazzled, that voters and the press have shut out the white male in the race. Even though he could well be the best person for the job.
Here's what I think: John Edwards would make an honest, intelligent, competent president. I believe he would roll back the excesses of presidential power grabbed by the Bush White House. And, what the Democrats need right now, in the short term, is a candidate whom middle grounders and moderate Republicans could comfortably agree to support. Faced with the prospect of two idealogues, namely Huckabee and Romney, and the warhorse McCain, a hefty percentage of Republicans are patently uncomfortable. That is why we are seeing such a fragmented outcome in the GOP primaries.
Hillary is, rightly or wrongly, not palatable to Republicans and Obama isn't going to get the votes of nervous economic conservatives.
But John Edwards could get crossover votes when the November elections roll around.

I believe Edwards when he says that he will get the troops out of Iraq pronto and I believe him more than I do Hillary or Obama when he lists the details of a national healthcare plan. But what convinces me most of all that Edwards is the right man, trapped in a race at the wrong time, is that he has the heart and soul of a liberal Southern Democrat. And that species of politician comes with all kinds of good qualities. Populism; concern for the working man and woman; a keen sense of fair play and justice; a perspective on race and class that none of his GOP opponents share.
I never thought the day would come when I would vote against a woman for president. And it sorrows me that the woman who is now before us as a candidate has voted consistently as a Hawk on the war in Iraq and even a possible war in Iran.
So now, my desire for peace trumps my feminism. John Edwards, of the three Dems in the front tier, is the only Dove among Hawks.
But he doesn't stand a chance as blacks line up for Obama and women and Clinton fans line up for Hillary.
I really wish it were otherwise. In any other election year, y'all would love the guy.

Dave wrote: "I think that we are past the point of name recognition problems for any of the candidates still running - we are definitely in the deciding on one phase."

Puh-leeze! For that comment to have any validity, you'd have to see the campaigns coasting now, thinking their job is done, that they've got the word out, the rest is in the hands of the voters. No, Dave, that's not what's happening. The campaigns are furiously doing what they are supposed to be doing, deciding which of 22 states to concentrate on, running ads, criss-crossing the country making speeches, manning hundreds of volunteers at the phone banks and on the streets, desperately trying to win the hearts and minds of the uncommitted voters and getting out the vote in record-breaking fashion.

Meanwhile, here in Florida, on voting day, January 29, 2008, the sun shines, the waves lap the beach and a calmness pervades, a calmness of apathy because there is no democratic campaigning here, no call for the young to rise up and cast their first vote of their lives.

Now, to quantify this detachment Florida feels for this primary, I would point out that 753,762 Floridians voted in the 2004 democratic primary. This was after Kerry had effectively wrapped up the nomination. Here, we are a contested race early in the process. If the vote total tonight isn't big multiple of that total, you'll know Floridians were not paying attention in 2008.

The only legitimate reaction to tonight's democratic results: Whatever!

CC:

I agree with anthony.powell -- can't you interpret Super-Duper Tuesday, at least on the Dem side in many states, as a fight over congressional districts rather than whole states?

And, look at a district map of states like TN or AL and remember how racially segregated their districts are (in order to create majority-minority districts). So, can't Edwards engage in guerrilla warfare to pick off delegates in mostly white districts in states that, overall, Clinton is ceding to Obama?

If so, I don't know who that hurts; would those folks otherwise go to Obama or to Clinton? I doubt anybody knows...

I agree it is a real longshot for this plan to work -- it essentially requires that neither Obama nor Clinton really pulls away from the other, on 2/5 or beyond, in order to make Edwards a king- (or queen-) maker. But I don't see that Edwards' continued campaign predictably helps or hurts one or the other of them achieving that liftoff.

'he lack of detail tag given his style. Reagan comes to mind in discussing this topic.'

yeah, dave, but didn't that work out pretty well for him?

meanwhile, it's getting nasty in FLA--

"John McCain has a new radio ad ridiculing Romney's technocrat image, bringing up some "numbers" that Mitt might not like:

• Romney's health plan in Massachusetts has gone $400 million over budget.

• Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts by $700 million.

• Romney loses to Hillary Clinton by 16 points in a national poll.

"Republicans lose," the announcer says. "We can't afford Mitt Romney."

Late Update: A response from Romney spokesman Kevin Madden, via-email, is available after the jump.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden:

"Senator McCain has, once again, launched a last-minute, negative ambush against Governor Romney with radio ads, flyers--you name it.

"This is just the McCain way. Senator McCain always sinks to a lower level and offers distortions and flailing attacks against his opponents when a campaign is close. His agitation is always on display when a race gets close.

"If you ever needed proof that the Washington insider with the wrong record on Republican policies is threatened by the new ideas and strong record of Governor Romney, now you have it."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/mccain_radio_ad_republicans_cant_afford_mitt_romney.php

claudia, I think you have a valid point, although I seriously doubt anyone has intelligence on OBL that the WH doesn't have...are you in DC? e salvador 69 at yh...got it?

Blarg,
I think that there is a valid perception that Obama does not have detailed plans (accurate perception is a different thing). I think that bsimon is accurate with his comments on the different style of campaigns as well as the fact that the press has appeared to focus on but two topics: the war, a new type of leadership, wrt Obama. Obama does tend to speak at the 60,000 ft level and, web site notwithstanding, has not done a good job of detailing many of his plans. Don't take that to mean that I think this is not a valid approach but his approach has lead to this perception. But the perception becomes the CW and, should he be the candidate, will follow him through the general election unless he starts to change his style. I am not arguing that he should, but I think that he will just have to live with the lack of detail tag given his style. Reagan comes to mind in discussing this topic.

Edwards has become an afterthought. There is no way he can have enough clout at the convention to play king maker. Unless the race is super-tight...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Chris -

I don't understand the analysis that "Edwards' focus on the southern and rural states that should be Obama strongholds is designed to weaken Obama more than Clinton."

What evidence is there to support the claim that the votes Edwards is attracting in these southern rural areas would otherwise go to Obama?

Maybe, he is taking more voters from Hillary. Indeed in SC on the day of the primary the Clinton camp robo calls were attacks of Edwards, indicating that the Clinton team felt that Edwards was taking more votes from Hillary than Barack.

Chris - I know you will reply by pointing to how well Obama did with rural voters in Iowa and NH, but those were caucus states where organizing was more relevant and they were not southern states.

Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? "Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken."

bsimon and erlkind--isn't this McCain saying he hasn't, in fact, shared his ideas with The Resident? I just find this weird. It's like a secret plan for ending the Vietnam war, nome sayin?

Florida voters!!! Please remember, as you go to your respective voting locations today, that two weeks ago, Mitt Romney promised the voters in Michigan that their jobs have not gone away forever. He refused to tell the truth in Michigan just like he's doing in Florida.

In an interview from 2005, Mitt Romney said "U.S. businesses must globalize or whither away and die."

"That's the message the Massachusetts' governor said at the Forrester Research executive strategy summit in Boston.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a former Bain Capital venture capitalist who was, at the time, mulling a presidential run in 2008, said jobs will continue to be lost to emerging economies but U.S. businesses have far more to gain by selling their products into massive markets such as China and India than they risk losing by not participating at all.

He advised CIOs and technology executives to stop worrying about lost jobs and concentrate on innovating globally that will grow jobs here and abroad.

Romney said "I'm not happy exporting jobs but we must move ahead in technology and patents. I don't like losing any jobs but we'll see new opportunities created selling products there. We'll have a net net increase in economic activity, just as we did with free trade,"

He added "It's tempting to want to protect our markets and stay closed. But at some point it all comes crashing down and you're hopelessly left behind. Then you are Russia."

Gee, Mitt. That's not quite what you told them in Detroit two weeks ago. But, hey, I'm sure they know that you didn't really mean it when you promised them a 20 billion dollar bail out plan, or when you promised that their jobs would come back.

In fact, the Boston Globe said of Mitt's record as governor, "Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country."

http://www.theweeklydonut.com/index.php/2008/01/23/americas-best-choice-for-president/

he still would make the best President

FYI - I pulled my delegate count from the WaPo Primary and Caucuses site (and the SuperDelegate wrinkle did not occur to me at the time). Thanks.

Well, BJ, now I'm confused! You complained before that Obama doesn't have concrete ideas or detailed plans. Now you're criticizing specific aspects of his plans, and saying they're harder to implement than Edwards' plans would be. Isn't that a completely different criticism of Obama, one that contradicts your first complaint?

optimyst writes
"One more point/question. If the delegations from Michigan and Florida are excluded, will the delegate total needed to win be revised to account for the fewer total delegates? If not, that makes a brokered convention even more likely."


I too wonder about that. Chris? Anyone else?

dmoralestx reasons for voting do not sound like 'name recognition' to me.

Dave wrote: "Right now, the percentage of delegates won breaks down like this:
HRC: 53% BHO: 35% JRE: 12%"

Your analysis includes super delegates which really can't be counted as "won." A super delegate can follow the dynamics of the race and vote completely unfettered at the convention. Whereas delegates won in primaries and caucuses are bound to their candidate, at least through the first ballot.

So far, 137 delegates have been "won." The breakdown, by percent, is:
Obama 46% Clinton 35% Edwards 19%

Your point about Edwards potential as spoiler is still valid. Unless somebody walks into that convention with 2025 delegates, there will be a lot of horse trading going on.

One more point/question. If the delegations from Michigan and Florida are excluded, will the delegate total needed to win be revised to account for the fewer total delegates? If not, that makes a brokered convention even more likely.

optimyst and jimd,
I think the "name recognition" argument is getting a little dated at this point, IMO. I look to my wife who, while she votes, is perhaps the opposite of a political junkie. Our primary is post TBD Tuesday so there has been exacly zero campaigning in this region. In talking to her just last night, she is aware of the candidates on both sides, where they stand for the most part and definitely has an opinion of who she likes, does not like and will likely vote for. I think that we are past the point of name recognition problems for any of the candidates still running - we are definately in the deciding on one phase. To just dismiss a win by any candidate simply to name recognition is being disingenuous at best.

Some of the lawyers in the group, wasn't there a case argued about FL and/or MI and the Dems response? I was under the impression that because it was an internal party issue, the party could determine any process they wanted to decide on candidates.

If not, I would think superdelegates would get thrown out, too.

claudia...let's talk about this some more.

****
And government transparency. That's why we elect people. So we don't have to emerge ourselves in every contract, bill and hiring that takes place. We do have our own lives.
****

BJLeone, I actually see this as a big plus from Obama, so I'm interested in your thinking on this. I don't plan on reading everything going on in Congress all the time, but I think lack of transparency has been a big problem in the current administration. Having someone that plans on going far to the other side doesn't sound too bad to me...

I am curious as to what makes a national party hierarchy believe they can determine the date of a primary, and then nullify the elected wishes of the voters of the entire party of a state when THEY go against the wishes of the party hierarchy. The hierarchy doesn't even live in the state! As the primary is a vote which determines which candidate represents the State, not the hierarchy, the rights of the citizens of the state are being violated by the party hierarchy. Was this some ploy by one of the candidates who thought he/she would lose the state? I think the Constitutional rights of the people of Florida have been violated by the Democratic Executive Committee, and somebody needs to do something about this, and to clarify what the rights of the people are as to primaries. Somebody who lives in New York or Idaho should not be determining that Floridians have NO Choice!

I have to agree with PatrickNYC1 about Obama using the Rev.Donnie McClurkin at campaign events. As a gay latino, I took that as a slap in the face by a democratic candidate when Obama refused to denouce McClurkin's views. It was nothing more than pandering to religious black voters. A true candidate should stand up and denounce the bigotry and hatred in the black community toward gays and lesbians who are also a vital dem voting block.

I find it interesting in this whole race a similar campaign style of Clinton/McCain targeting traditional Blue states and Edwards/Obama/Huckabee targeting the Red states. Everyone is pandering to their base, Edwards with rural America, Obama with blacks, Huckabee with religious voters, and then Clinton/McCain with moderates.

I voted for Hillary this morning in FL and a significant part of my vote was based on who could deliver for the Latino community as President and I believe she can.

For the record, I do like Edwards and McCain too.

Florida is obviously irrelevant in the delegate count for the Democrats, but could be critical in the general election as we know. No point making these people feel too diss'd at the Democrats for ignoring them. A lot of campaigning will be happening there soon enough. And I would submit that an enthusiastic endorsement from the voters of Florida at large is just as attractive an endorsement as one from the nationally unpopular Ted Kennedy. This is not spin, it's a simple fact.

bsimon, I'm pretty sure that you're right about the superdelegates. Also, my understanding is that the majority of superdelegates haven't pledged either way.

On delegates from a primary/caucus, Obama leads right now.

Claudia, McCain also has a secret plan to win the GOP nomination, why else would he stay in when the GOP base hates his guts. Need not to worry about McCain, Romney will be our nominee, so go and do your oppo research on him.

Optymist,
"this is just a passive name-recognition beauty contest."

So is Iowa when you really think about it there delgate count is almost nothing, but when Obama won that race it propelled him to the front-runner status. If he wins FL when Clinton and her people are talking it up it would be a big win for him. Come on try and be optimistic about it :-)

Au Contraire Blarg, I have read his web site. The healthcare plan alone would not take 4 years like he promises, it wouldn't even get done in 8 years. Does he really think private insurance companies are going to submit to those demands to insure people who can't afford healthcare. The number of people alone hospitals would have to hire to comply with his changes to make this plan work would only add to costs. No wonder he won't go into detail about this plan, the Republicans would wipe him off the map with costs, and that's only the beginning. He's basically trying to rip apart and rebuild American hospitals and insurance companies, and I doubt that will be attainable in four years. Meanwhile what happens to the uninsured in the four years. They wait? At least Edwards would include them in the Congressional plan which already exists. And what does he give as experience for understanding the complexities of getting this plan done? Two meager paragraphs that don't relate to anything that would happen in the trenches with both business and Republicans blocking every step of the plan. Oh I forgot, once he's in office his skills of bringing everyone together will make everyone see the light. And Americans buying drugs overseas? What made here, sold overseas and then sold back again? Unclear. And government transparency. That's why we elect people. So we don't have to emerge ourselves in every contract, bill and hiring that takes place. We do have our own lives. That too will increase the cost of running the government. And won't all these new Obamaites and newly brought together adversaries mean we won't have all that going on? All I see in his plans are costs and red tape and setting the stage for massive battles as to who can do what.

Mark, you mentioned above that Edwards is thinking he would be an option if the race is deadlocked by the convention -- I hadn't heard that. If that's true, it seems like he's pretty out of touch.

My guess is that he's staying in this because he actually does see this as a personal thing. This time, however, I don't think that's a good enough reason.

And I guess I don't get the critique of JRE supporters that he provides more policy than Obama -- I just think that Edwards tells more stories about people than Obama. It's fair to say that he had the first health care plan and had the Social Security donut-hole idea before the others discussed it, but I don't see a big difference between how much the two talk issues in debates, for example.

dave writes
"Right now, the percentage of delegates won breaks down like this:
HRC: 53%
BHO: 35%
JRE: 12%

Given the Obama rising/HRC falling trend, it looks as if things continue along the same lines, JRE might just have a say at the convention."

In addition, my understanding is that the above delegate breakouts include some superdelegates who've pledged to support Clinton, but are not obligated to actually support her. Can anyone confirm or correct that understanding?

claudialong - "He has his "own ideas," which presumably he won't share -- even in private, with the Commander in Chief -- unless he's elected.'"

Given the current administration's record on effective implementation and performance, would you share it with them?

In addition in regards to Florida, I feel that the Clinton's are hoping that if the race goes all the way to the convention, the delegates are split, AND Michigan and Florida will put her over the top they will sue to get those delegates reinstated. I don't doubt for a second that they have a brief in waiting for that exact situation. I would if I were in their situation.
Obviously, they won't say a word about it until it is needed, but I would bet money they have that plan as a contingency.

Chris,

I think you are wrong that Edwards's strategy hurts Obama; it looks like it actually hurts Clinton more.

Look at the South Carolina delegate count; Obama got 25, Clinton 12, and Edwards 8. The singificance is Obama's delegate lead over Clinton; this is the biggest delegate win of the race, and it occurs because Edwards split the white vote with Clinton. Edwards traditionally attracts lower scale, union, and rural voters. This crowd seems to be going for Clinton, at least in rural and northern states. Obama is gonna get 45% to 55% of the South on the strength off of his coalition of black voters, young voters, and "wine drinking" democrats. The fewer delegates Clinton gets out of the South, the better for Obama.

"He has his "own ideas," which presumably he won't share -- even in private, with the Commander in Chief -- unless he's elected.'"

Isn't that a presumptive interpretation? As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. W