First is better than second. Second is better than third.

But as long as no one can consolidate the race, Edwards still has a faint heartbeat.

In a long race, being the consensus second choice candidate has some amount of value.

We're five days into a two or three month race.

I don't know. In some sense, it might be to Edwards's advantage just to have the race prolonged, and Clinton's victory certainly did this.

Edwards's failure to win Iowa looked fatal at the time, and it still kind of does. But part of the reason it looked fatal was because it looked like Obama's momentum might be unstoppable, and that the race would quickly be over.

Obviously, Edwards is eventually going to have to win a primary somewhere, which is kind of hard to imagine right now. But I don't know that an Obama victory tonight would have made that any easier.

What Edwards really needs is to make some noise in Nevada.

What Edwards really needs is for photos of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in flagrante dilecto to surface.

Other than that, he's got no chance.

Which is just as well. He can go back to trying cases. Great trial lawyer, lousy public servant.

New Hampshire voters, especially Democratic and independent voters, tend to like technocrats (Tsongas, Dukakis) and aristocrats who are more like an Adlai Stevenson (Kerry). Edwards never had a chance, but I had hoped he would do better with the strong second place finish in Iowa.

Still, Edwards needs to get the heck out of NH, head to SC and back and forth between Nevada (a surprisingly growing union state) and SC, and keep pounding away with his economically populist message.

Obama and Hillary will have to concentrate on each other and that means Edwards can still punch his way through.

I hope there will be a fractured convention and Gore is drafted. Well, a guy can dream, can't he?

I think that this primary really underscores the need for instant runoff voting. If we assume that a strong majority of Edwards voters would have voted for Obama as their second choice, the real story is that New Hampshire voted for change over Clinton's promise of experience. The lack of instant run off voting results in an entirely false narrative of New Hampshire falling all over itself for Clinton.

"I think that this primary really underscores the need for instant runoff voting"

We have that in Iowa, and all the pundits write stories about how un-American it is.

"If we assume that a strong majority of Edwards voters would have voted for Obama as their second choice"

I think that's a very unsafe assumption.

Don't assume the rest of the Democratic world looks like the blogosphere.

Edwards should bow out and throw his support behind Obama if we wants to really thwart Hillary. He can't win.

Folksy hyper-populism isn't that appealing...even to the Dem base apparently.

He starting to sound like Nader.

I'm going to say it right now, Edwards has no chance of winning the nomination. None. Obama and Clinton will not both detonate themselves. This isn't to say that Edwards hasn't been good for the race. Obama and Clinton have both appropriated quite a bit of his policies and his rhetoric, which has made them stronger candidates. But the dream of President Edwards is certainly dead.

While I completely disagree with Dilan's assessment of Edwards as a candidate (he's the only true progressive of the people with a chance,) unfortunately I have to agree with his assessment of the Edwards' campaign...Its done.

Honestly it was done after Iowa. The only way he could have been successful would have been to build up a snowball effect. A win would've gotten him more money, would've busted him through the media blackout, and would've given him all the soft Obama (of whom there were many pre-Iowa) and soft Clinton (not quite as many, but still worth a couple of points) voters.

It was Iowa or bust for him and unfortunately it was bust. I hope he remains in the race because I think his presence has been important. The only reason he has even been in the mix despite the media blackout of his campaign and enormous spending differential between he and the other two is that his message is resonating and thus it has forced Clinton and Obama to co-opt aspects of the message, which for me has made their campaigns more appealing and more progressive. I'm deeply disappointed that the guy who I really thought was fundamentally different in terms of being more concretely progressive won't be the nominee, but if he can remain viable and force his message into the discourse that will be a decent consolation, just can't say I have any hope that anything more than that could happen.

Edwards is done if we have a short nomination race.

Since we haven't seen a long nomination race in 16 years, most folks tend to assume a long nomination race is impossible.

I'm not one of them. I think there are a lot of dynamics this cycle pulling us towards a long nomination race.

And in a long nomination race, Edwards isn't done.

"

Edwards should bow out and throw his support behind Obama if we wants to really thwart Hillary. He can't win.

Folksy hyper-populism isn't that appealing...even to the Dem base apparently.

He starting to sound like Nader."

See this is ridiculous. You do realize he was outspent 6:1 by both Hilary and Obama. He was treated by the media essentially the same as Richardson was. The narrative for the past six months has been that this was a two person race between the new,fresh, first viable african-american candidate for change vs. the established, experienced, first viable female candidate. The media attempted to paint him as an angry kook because according to the media bipartisanship is the only solution.

Yet somehow despite these tremendous obstacles, and they really were tremendous, he managed to beat Hilary in Iowa and finish second and at the very least show up on the radar in New Hampshire. In fact the ONLY reason that thats the case is because his message DID resonate and IS that appealing.

The bottomline is that when the media and donors decide its a two person race, its all but decided as such. The very fact that Edwards was even able to thrust himself into the equation is a validation of his message.

Petey, I'd love for you to be right. I just can't say I share your optimism. Edwards doesn't have the campaign infrastructure to survive much longer and his best shot was to get 1) more money to help him build it, 2) more support from labor to act as a substitute where he couldn't build his own campaign.

No new unions will be endorsing Edwards and starting tomorrow, several will be jumping on the Obama wagon.

"Petey, I'd love for you to be right. I just can't say I share your optimism. Edwards doesn't have the campaign infrastructure to survive much longer"

Fundrasing post-IA:

$3m Obama
$1.6m Edwards
$1m Clinton

(via Ambinder)

Let's see,

Ezra says, Richardson stay in...

...Edwards get out...

Could MSM get any dumber?

"Petey, I'd love for you to be right. I just can't say I share your optimism"

FWIW, I'm not exactly optimistic.

Edwards doesn't control his own destiny, which is never a good position to be in.

But if we have a long race, odd things can happen. Both Clinton and Obama have some fundamental problems that may end up receiving focus in a long race. As long as he remains alive, Edwards will be a nominatable option waiting in the wings.

This race so far has not been friendly to front-runners in either party.

We have a very unhappy and unsettled electorate this cycle.

"And in a long nomination race, Edwards isn't done."

He is still done. He's the third person in what is now certainly a two-person race. Explain the scenario in which Edwards could become the nominee--not a spoiler, not a broker, but the nominee. It's just not there.

Another important result, which we obviously won't be hearing about, is that the media finished in FOURTH place for the second time in five days.

They completely and totally missed the boat in both cases, and are fully exposed as bumbling fools.

It's clear to me that the media *knows* it can sway elections. While they have partially succeeded so far at least in the case of Edwards, the Clinton win is a nice slap in the face to all the good old boys who've been mocking her since....well, forever, but especially in the last week.

I personally can't stand Clinton, but I have to admit that I took a fair amount of pleasure in seeing Tweety and Tim-ay bitchslapped by the NH voters.

In fact the ONLY reason that thats the case is because his message DID resonate and IS that appealing.

Exactly. I mean, by all rights Edwards should be in Biden/Richardson territory. The only reason he's not is because of his message.

Which, as others point out, as been to some extent co-opted by the other candidates in response to Edwards.

The Edwards campaign is a success story as far as I'm concerned. Obviously, if he falls short of the nomination, which it looks like he probably will, it won't be a complete success. But it was a long shot to begin with, and since it was never about Edwards as an individual, if his agenda is triumphant, so is he.

"Fundrasing post-IA:

$3m Obama
$1.6m Edwards
$1m Clinton"

Sure, he got a slight fundraising boost post-Iowa, but he had so much ground to make up that beating Hilary by $600,000 really doesn't say much. Plus whatever fundraising momentum he may have had is now long gone. He will go back to being a distant third in fundraising. Perhaps if there had been more time between each Iowa and NH he could've teased more money out. But lets not kid ourselves, he is still at a massive money disadvantage to Hilary and Obama and he will not have the cash to put together any type of meaningful campaign infrastructure past South Carolina, where in all honesty it was something of a bare bone operation to begin with.

Petey, I'm not in the mood to search for this but I'm pretty damn sure you said on a comment thread on Yglesias that Edwards needs to come in second in NH.

Stop moving the goalposts. I guess I can see the logic of him giving SC a hail-mary shot, but c'mon, even you must admit after that, he's toast.

If he stays in after SC, he's in danger of turning into a unappealing Kuchinich-like figure.

"But lets not kid ourselves, he is still at a massive money disadvantage to Hilary and Obama and he will not have the cash to put together any type of meaningful campaign infrastructure past South Carolina"

No one will be able to put together a meaningful campaign infrastructure past SC.

After SC, we move to a mainly earned media era for all of the candidates.

-----

Of course, Edwards isn't going to be the fundraising leader going forward.

But he can still keep getting his message out as long as he keeps getting a chunk of the vote. And he has to wait for some combination of his message taking hold and disaffection with the other candidates.

As stated, I think the other two candidates have some core weaknesses. So it makes sense for Edwards to keep running and see if the wheel turns another time before someone can consolidate the party.

"Stop moving the goalposts"

Everyone moves the goalposts in primary season.

"If he stays in after SC, he's in danger of turning into a unappealing Kuchinich-like figure."

I like Dennis Kucinich. I'm a lefty.

-----

Tangentially, I'm not particularly surprised that the more right-wing Obamabots want Edwards to drop out even though it would guarantee the nomination to Senator Clinton.

They're not the most strategically minded bunch.

@ Dilan Esper

"What Edwards really needs is for photos of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in flagrante dilecto to surface"

Actually, photos of them in such a state are quite common, although arguably retouched in the case of Clinton. What you really mean is photos of them "in flagrante delicto" as any Latinist could tell you. For the uninitiated "In flagrante dilecto" = "In obvious delight", while "in flagrante delicto" = "in obvious guilt". I am not sure the world is ready for Hillary "in flagrante delicto" - after all, judging by that astoundingly ugly carpet-remnant suit she is wearing tonight, "in flagrante dilecto" is bad enough!

Petey, what makes you think Edwards or his voters would go for Clinton? If anything, he seems to be aligning with Obama. I can't imagine him endorsing Hillary, who is so obviously the old, establishment candidate, and who he obviously detests. As for your remarks about rightwing Obamabots - I am sorry, but do you really think labelling other people this way is helpful, just because they feel strongly about their chosen candidate? Aren't true liberals supposed to be tolerant and openminded of choices made by others? For the record, I also like Kucinich - but then, as an Englishman, I am susceptible to gallant losers.

"No one will be able to put together a meaningful campaign infrastructure past SC.

After SC, we move to a mainly earned media era for all of the candidates."

Of which Edwards will have none because he would've needed a win in the first two states to break through the media blackout. I don't like it any more than you do, Petey, but I'm fairly resigned to the fact that lack of media (besides the harmful stuff about expensive haircuts) and lack of fundraising have killed the guy.

Literally the only way he could climb back into it, in my eyes, would be for a scandal to hit both Obama and Clinton. Short of that I don't see mere "weaknesses" being enough to allow him to come close to surpassing one of them, let alone both.

@ Petey

"No one will be able to put together a meaningful campaign infrastructure past SC."

"After SC, we move to a mainly earned media era for all of the candidates"

Hmmm... care to explain yourself a little more and dogmatize a little less? I can't see the campaigns just downing tools and starting their vacations early after South Carolina. And what on earth is a "mainly earned media era"? Is this the version of the rapture where the earth is annihilated by fire and only Oprah-viewers can be saved?

"Petey, what makes you think Edwards or his voters would go for Clinton?"

The demographic breakdown of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The main difference between IA and NH is that a big chunk of the exact voters who went to Edwards in IA went to Clinton in NH.

If Edwards had gotten 30% in NH, Obama would have won easily.

"The main difference between IA and NH is that a big chunk of the exact voters who went to Edwards in IA went to Clinton in NH."

That actually implies that the latter group you mention are not "hardcore" Edwards voters at all, and thus their "defection" means less when it comes to the big picture. You simply can't judge anything based on only two cases and hope for it to be significant in statistical terms or for future predictions. Equally, you can't simply assume that Iowa and New Hampshire are the "same thing", and that results among similar groups are necessarily driven by identical dynamics or trends. If they were, you would not be able to observe the differences you find between the two states.

"Literally the only way he could climb back into it, in my eyes, would be for a scandal to hit both Obama and Clinton. Short of that I don't see mere "weaknesses" being enough to allow him to come close to surpassing one of them, let alone both."

If it's a short race, I agree with you. If it's a long race, he has some kind of shot.

We've so far witnessed the collapses of the McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, and Obama front-runner campaigns. It's an odd year, and the electorate is cranky and unsettled.

There main question going forward is whether or not Clinton can consolidate the party out of tonight. If she can, it'll obviously be over. But if she can't, I think Edwards has as good a shot as Obama at eventually moving in.

Actually Petey, I disagree with that. I've been on the ground up in NH for a month and Hillary's base was pretty locked in. Obama's, however, was pretty soft until he tightened it up after Iowa.

If Edwards had gotten 30% (an impossibility without winning Iowa) most of it would've been coming from Obama. I was of the opinion 3 weeks ago, and still am, that if Edwards had managed to win in Iowa, he would've locked up the 20% he was polling at, plus grabbed 6-10 points from Obama and 3-5 from Clinton.

"You simply can't judge anything based on only two cases and hope for it to be significant in statistical terms or for future predictions"

But I can look at all of the polling and results of this campaign and see that Edwards and Clinton are in competition for the same pool of voters.

There's a reason why "it's now a two-way race" was one of the Clinton talking points tonight.

Petey, how do you come up with the theory of the "collapse" of the Obama, McCain, and Clinton "front-runner campaigns?" We are just two states in! McCain has not had front-runner status for any significant stretch of time of late, Clinton has just squeaked out a win in New Hampshire that may put her back on the "inevitable" track, while Obama gained a fine win in Iowa (and was not the frontrunner among the Dems for any serious space of time), and came a close second in NH. In all of this, talk of collapse is simply wide of the mark. Giuliani may have faltered badly - but we won't know until we see what Florida does. Sure, Obama and Clinton have a fight on their hands - but this is not a collapse, and most pundits seem to see McCain enjoying his only shot at a revival. If you mean that Clinton no longer seems inevitable, and that Obama can't now rely on unstoppable momentum, fine - but that's not really what your claim suggests.

Nicely the vote was close .. Obama only losing by 2% (last I checked with like 90% counted) That he and Clinton have won the same number of delegates.

So beside the victory dance they basically tied this one. In a few states time the only thing that will really matter is that neither made any advances on the other in NH.

Im hoping Obama moves out ahead next week. Edwards really should strategize his way into being VP again under Obama this time. He really is more suited to that position. Where Obama is inspirational and motivating Edwards is serious and 'nuts and bolts'. They cooperate nicely enough against Clinton in the debates, they should just use that as practice for the general.

petey....

you must be great to have along on a camping trip in the rain.
...your positive spirit is really heartening!
especially tonight!

tomorrow will be another day.

You simply can't judge anything based on only two cases and hope for it to be significant in statistical terms or for future predictions"

But I can look at all of the polling and results of this campaign and see that Edwards and Clinton are in competition for the same pool of voters.

There's a reason why "it's now a two-way race" was one of the Clinton talking points tonight.

First up, the results so far for the campaign hardly mean much statistically - even if we were talking about two identical states, which is not the case. Most of what we "know" is media spin, driven by the needs of narrative thrills. Rationally, Obama did very well tonight, while Clinton just squeaked out a win in a state which had been massively for her a month before. Of course they are competing for the same pool of voters. This is what we call an election, after all, and unless you are willing to go in for extensive and carefully calibrated micro-polling, it is very unlikely that the results and polls so far would tell you much of anything about blocs of voters and their allegiances. As the old logical rule says: nothing whatever follows from two instances. As for the idea of the two-horse race spin coming out of the Clinton campaign - well, it suits them to try and present Edwards as a failure because it makes his attacks on Clinton seem less meaningful, and may bring some more donors Clinton's way. It hardly means anything factual about the situation on the ground in e.g. South Carolina or Nevada.

"If Edwards had gotten 30% (an impossibility without winning Iowa) most of it would've been coming from Obama."

It's just not what I get out of the numbers, unless you think this is really a gender election. (And if it is a gender election, HRC is the winner no matter who stays in or drops out.)

Edwards and Clinton compete for beer-track voters and older voters - y'know, the ones who tend to determine Democratic nominations.

Obama owns the Paul Tsongas / Bill Bradley coalition. I've thought all along that the only way that Obama could win is if Edwards and Clinton fought to a draw among their shared electorate, as happened in Iowa.

"if it is a gender election, HRC is the winner no matter who stays in or drops out"

So you feel that women will all march to the beat of one drum? That race and class and income and education won't really matter? African-American women on social security will just vote the same way as white female financial analysts? Sorry, but that really is just a bridge too far. We have just seen that women went for Obama in Iowa, less so in New Hampshire. No trend there, because your sample is too small to mean anything. And you are massively over-generalizing such matters as who "owns" what group of voters.

"So you feel that women will all march to the beat of one drum?"

No. My idea of what's going on says that this likely won't end up being a gender election.

But if I'm wrong and this is a gender election, HRC will be our nominee, given who votes in Democratic primaries.

"And you are massively over-generalizing such matters as who "owns" what group of voters."

All such stuff is generalization, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

If Candidate X wins 70% of the Zoroastrian, we can say they own the Zoroastrian vote, even though the other 30% of Zoroastrians may despise Candidate X.

I could vote for Clinton if she wouldn't reunite the Republican party 4 seconds after being sworn in. Nothing would get done in her four years because of the GOP's hatred of her.

So, I'm for Obama. Edwards is taking Obama's voters, so he NEEDS to leave NOW or there will be no change candidate left in the race.

If he stays in this thing past SC, he does damage to Obama, the Democratic Party (Hillary cannot win in a general election), and his hopes for change (because there will be none).

Petey, the whole point is that no candidate has got anything like that percentage of the "groups" you cite. We have results from two states, which are generally acknowledged to be highly idiosyncratic. This is not enough data to generalize from meaningfully, and is a very small fraction of the whole. And no, unfortunately generalizations are of very little use, and none whatsoever as a means of predicting the future with any degree of accuracy or confidence. For all we know, a Clinton "woman voter" in New Hampshire, may turn out to be an Edwards voter in Nevada, because of local circumstances or loyalties. You just can't talk meaningfully about people owning voting groups at this point. Moreover, one gaffe may turn off a whole demographic, just as a brilliant speech may sway the unpersuaded.

My, my. Two small states in, and we're letting the media decide the race for us?

Cmon guys and girls. I won't say i'm not enjoying this politickin' and punditry on this post, but can the dems STOP freaking out and LET a 3 person race go on?

We're starting to sound like the mainstream media here.

Can't take the heat of a 3 person race?

Let's face the challenge. Edwards has done so much for pushing obama and clinton more towards the left (at least in talk). He can do so much more for pushing the party, and honestly I'm not writing him off after iowa and new hampshire share their caucus and voting results. Look at the delegate count -- obama with 25 clinton with 24 edwards with 18. not bad, not bad.

let's stop being persuaded by the mainstream media that the only way to have a solid race is to have a two-candidate race from the beginning.

just sayin'...

Edwards really should strategize his way into being VP again under Obama this time. He really is more suited to that position.

I'm really surprised to see people routinely suggesting this. Obama wouldn't choose Edwards as his VP in a million years, and even if he did, Edwards might very well not even want the job.

If Obama's going to win, it's going to be as the "change, change, change" candidate. It's going to be because he's "new," "refreshing," all that. He can't pick John Kerry's running mate.

And what incentive is there, really, for Edwards to be Obama's VP? It's not the automatic ticket to the presidency some seem to think it is. Plus, it's a shitty job, and his wife has cancer; I'd imagine if he can't be president, he'd just as soon enjoy their lives together back home.

What Los Anjalis said.

I will state right at the jump that Edwards has a 5% chance to win the nomination. How this actually happens I have no idea but....

w) Edwards competes with Obama for the not-Clinton vote

x) Edwards competes with Clinton for the "beer" demographic

y) Edwards seems to have at least a third of the lefty/policy voters.

z) Edwards also appears to have good support among the conservative/"traditional" Dems.

Somehow he has to pull more voters in from w and x while getting money/help from y and z and cobble together a few wins in February or an amazing number of seconds(20/34).
It appears impossible for him to win but increasing the size of his "coalition" certainly seems doable. Maybe Latinos secretly love John Edwards. Maybe one of the other campaigns implodes. Maybe Jesus/Buddha/diety of your choice appears and endorses Edwards during halftime at the Super Bowl.

'a prayer to St. Jude' is in the right ballpark, if slightly too pessimistic.

A surprise to the upside in NV or SC would make this all considerably more real. He could really use a non-third place finish before 2/5.

"It appears impossible for him to win but increasing the size of his "coalition" certainly seems doable."

His coalition would scale up easily in the right conditions. That's why he's nominatable, even more so than Obama in many ways.

He needs to start connecting as folks get buyers' remorse with whoever the frontrunner is at the time.

I think I finally figured out how Clinton did it last night, and she did by poaching voters away from Edwards in a couple of interesting ways.

I take back some of the things I've said about Mark Penn's stupidity.

He may be an anti-progressive asshole, but the last few days of the Clinton campaign were pretty damn clever.

The Clinton campaign should send John Edwards a bottle of champagne for his stupid comments piling on to her emotional reaction. The John Edwards/Chris Matthews Man Show was worth the margin of victory.

Dumbass Edwards. His three-cushion bankshot strategy to make it a two-candidate race between he and Obama failed so badly it made Clinton the front runner again. Nice work oh fighter of the people. You punched yourself in the face.

And in a long nomination race, Edwards isn't done.

I believe that is the case, evidenced by the fact that Clinton lost the first 4 states in 92 and by the fact that Edwards seems to be the 2nd choice of both Obama and Clinton voters. Unfortunately, the fact that this is a 2 candidate race, with him not one of the two, hurts him. It would take a meltdown of one of them, followed by a mass conversation of that one's supporters to Edwards, to pull it off. I don't see it happening unless Edwards somehow pulls a #1 in another state soon.

I really don't think Ezra has the sense here. If Edwards didn't win, a Clinton win was the best outcome. Obama wins and the race is over no matter how well Edwards would have done

Once Obama entered the race (and the Edwards guy from 2004 came with him) Edwards had to know that the money of the ABC contingent as well as the media would go to Obama. His plan since at least mid-2007 had to be 'stay in the race and hope you get a one on one shot.' I assume his campaign was hoping for a Edwards/Clinton/Obama finish in Iowa and he would vault to the #1 not Clinton. When that didn't happen his campaign tried the 'it is me and Barack for change' routine. He needs a one on one contest that he will probably never get.

(I am not sold that it is in either Obama's (beer wins)or Clinton's (not Clinton wins) best interest that Edwards drop out of the race.)

What Los Anjalis said.

Edwards outperformed Romney and McCain in Iowa, and Huckabee in New Hampshire. Yet no one is falling all over themselves demanding that Romney, McCain or Huckabee quit the race.

I agree with the comment that Edwards draws from BOTH Obama and Hillary. Those of us who like him for his ideas probably would go for Obama, but there are plenty of working-class, low-info Edwards supporters who would go for Hillary as a second-choice. It's foolish to assume that his dropping out would ensure Obama's nomination.

And what's so awful about putting yourself in a position to throw your support one way or broker a convention? Why isn't that a legitimate political goal if it works to preserve your policy goals under another candidate?

Prediction: Edwards will NOT bow out as long as the following are true:

1) He keeps getting at least 15% of the vote in most primaries.
2) Obama and Clinton continue to stay neck and neck. If one starts to blow away the other, accumulating delegates like candy -- then Edwards will drop.

Why? Because Edwards is still getting delegates. He won't win, but if he's faced with Obama and Clinton holding 1400 delegates apiece and Edwards holding 600....well, that's time to make a deal.

If you believe Edwards is truly passionate about his issues, he'll make a deal to make sure those issues are front and center. If you believe him to be just a politician pushing the only trick that had even a shot, then he'll parlay those into a cabinent position or voice in the VP pick (or heck, be the VP pick).

I don't expect a brokered convention. I'd imagine that either Clinton or Obama will pull away easily well before this is all over.

Until then, however, Edwards would be a fool to drop out as long as he can keep accumulating delegates and neither of the top two can managed to clear the 2025 mark (or whatever it is) to win. Passionate believer or cynical politician, the end results are the same.

Why would Edwards want the job of being VP.. hmm.. Possible because 14 previous VPs later went on to become president. Its a handy spot to run from if your personality doesnt discourage people while in office. (read as Quayle, or even Gore)

Its a shitty job.. Well that can be said of pretty near every political office. True VP doesnt have the glory to it, but its a darn site better then only laying claim to the title of failed presidential candidate too.

Ive learned through the second election not to underestimate the stupidity in the masses of american voters. So Im not certain that Clinton wont be elected. ..but I do have hope in Obama, and thats a good thing.

Her new meme of being the champion of change for the last 35 years is just idiocy. Its discouraging that people cant see that you cant be a perfect cog in the system over time at the same time that you are naming yourself the number one agent of change in it. Even moreso when your voting record belies that claim, and other competitors have more valid title to it.

I dont even know that Edwards would accept such an invitation. But it would be a powerful thing if the 2 leading candidates for change, 2 of the top three in the whole race were to join forces. As I said before its their cooperation in the debates that has led many to this thought in the first place. Its not too hard to imagine.