I really hope you're right.

Oh God. What a way to try to spin Obama's 8-point victory ! LOL
You can't possible believe this, now can you ? I know most of the blogworld like him more than Obama but COME ON !
Spin is spin, whether it comes from Mark Penn or Joe Trippy.

Man, you must be scared of Obama. Returning to the real world: Edwards, without money or resources, will limp into NH, get third slot there, hobble on into SC, maybe get second there, and simply fade away afterwards. If he has any sense, he will kiss the hand and endorse Obama. Judging by tonight's rather graceless effort, he doesn't have enough sense to quit while he still has some credibility. Anyone who thinks that black southern voters are not Obama's prize simply can't read the tealeaves. The independents will move to him en masse, and without them, neither Edwards nor Hillary has a prayer.

LoL, apparently Benjamin never heard of being diplomatic. Edwards did win something. He finished ahead of Clinton, and he did so with a virtual media black out on his message and no real corporate support.

In a year where Obamas cult of personality didn't flood the caucus with young voters, a truly impressive feat, Edwards would be the big story. It doesn't take anything away from the other candidates to recognize that Edwards has helped set the tone of this debate. Nobody could have listened to Clinton's concession speech without acknowledging that.

Im happy he beat clinton.

Also its obvious the race is just beginning not ending here tonight. So its apparent that unless he was pulling out altogether he should move on to the next step of his campaign. Hence.. keeping on with the message, and not sounding defeated.

This story however is blatant spin. ..please.

I'm half with you. I'm very grateful for the role Edwards' populism played in shaping the debate among the Democratic frontrunners. However, to say he "barrels toward New Hampshire with ever more volume" is pretty ignorant of the fact that he lost by 7% when the CW had the 3 in a dead heat.

What a surprise: lots of sore winners in the Obama camp, upset that the other candidates didn't bow down in line behind David Broder and kiss his ring the moment the last delegate-equivalent number came in.

People should read the post. I don't say Edwards will win, or is even in a position to do so. In the previous post, I say his chances are now vanishingly unlikely. But his campaign set the tone for the race, his progressivism achieved broad adoption, and he mattered. He had much more of an impact than anyone could have expected.

Yeah. That's right. And while tonight isn't a happy night for me, it's not a terrible one either.

"I say his chances are now vanishingly unlikely."

As long as he keeps beating Clinton, he'll remain alive.

Obama is beatable down the road.

Edwards' chances aren't great at the moment, but they're more than vanishingly unlikely. And if he beats Clinton in NH, his opening will begin to be a bit more visible.

>This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved.

Richly deserved how exactly? I admit Obama's appeal has always escaped me, but his running to the Right the last few weeks certainly doesn't give me any reason to reconsider. Edwards deserved the win-for the reasons you noted-and the Democrats in Iowa once again shot the party in the foot, as they have so often in the past. Of course I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I won't be happy about it.

I'm with tdraicer. Obama's appeal has gone missing on me and I really believe that his broad speech has set him up to be the one to move furthest to the middle if he is elected. I want to be ok with the idea of Obama as a nominee, but every bone in my body tells me he is Clinton 92 redux. While that may not sound like the worst thing in the world to people who have spent the last 7 years dealing with W, lets not forget that Clinton pulled the whole party very far to the middle and got them to buy into a largely neo-liberal agenda.

I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee and I will hope I am wrong about him, but I fear a sharp and quick move to the center starting in the generals if Obama is nominated. And in a time where I think there is real momentum towards progressive causes, electing a centrist Democrat would be a real tragedy. I hope I'm wrong about him, but he worries me.

"I admit Obama's appeal has always escaped me, but his running to the Right the last few weeks certainly doesn't give me any reason to reconsider. Edwards deserved the win-for the reasons you noted-and the Democrats in Iowa once again shot the party in the foot, as they have so often in the past. Of course I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I won't be happy about it."

Y'know, as long as you don't live in Iowa, you'll still have an opportunity to vote for Edwards.

I'd rather have gotten 1st than 2nd tonight, but this race isn't quite over yet.

Obama's decision to run to the right to get the indies has opened up some daylight for a Democratic candidate.

This is an excellent night. I welcome my new bipartisan overlord and wish John Edwards many fine haircuts.

I think you got it exactly right.

Anybody who doesn't realize that Edwards has both pressured and enabled both Obama and Clinton to move in a significantly more progressive direction than either of their campaigns started out in is just not paying very much attention.

And I'll add that I would bet the populist tone of this race has been one of the major factors behind tonight's incredible turnout. So, it's a bit of a long shot for Edwards get the nomination--sad to say.

But he's done progressives a huge service.

More importantly he's done a great service to the huge percentage of the american population that's been hurt by economic inequality.

Alright. I might be a little annoyed at blogosphere trying to make a hero out of Edwards when Obama won so clearly. Hailing Edwards for his role in the campaign an hour after the 8-point Obama win feels like spin to me. Sorry. I love reading Ezra otherwise and certainly didn't mean to attack him.
I actually made sure not to say anything gloating in comments until I saw Edwards didn't even deign congratulate Obama.
So I don't think I am the sorest of them all if you know what I mean. And I don't feel bad for being happy and a little arrogant.
Trust me we will all go back down to earth tomorrow. I will remember all the hurdles that are still on the road between my candidate and the nomination and hopefully Edwards supporter will realize that the idea of Edwards now being the "alternative" to Obama is ... far-fetched.

The crazed partisans of the liberal blogosphere may not want a candidate who can form a broad coalition to actually get shit done in Washington, DC, but guess what: the rest of America does. Spin this all you want. Your comments will be as irrelevant in the next round as they were in this one. Obama's going the distance. Fire it up, baby!!

Simply Amazing. Almost 20,000 donations to his campaign since the win. 500,000 total donors. This man is the democratic nominee. Hillary will be pressured out, as well Edwards, after New Hampshire. Hillary will suggest that an Obama cousin is linked to al queda. Joe Trippi is a plant. Edwards' misplaced populism is a terrible message.

Ezra,
Tonight nothing happened to Edwards that changes his basic problem which is in the phrase you chose to descirbe him:

"..But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda.."

You have people in public life who "run as" and then you have, once every fifty years or so, a person of the Obama's caliber who needn't pretend or "run as". He clearly IS a statesman, a leader, a person of integrity.

So Obama now isn't running as the centrist candidate, but really believes all his right wing talking points?

This thread redefines 'concern troll'.

Obama's a Manchurian.
Face it--a perfect hedge candidate for the moneymen. A primary-winning Obama a)deflects Edwards' populist cut-and-thrust from the cameras, and b)gives the GOP cover for a Southern Strategy likely as not uglier than we've ever seen...Result: President McCain, the Establishment doesn't have to back off a millimeter, and the GOP-heavy judiciary branch effectively, permanently seals off any possibility of legal redress to lopsided corporate domination. And Obama, ex-candidate, and currently sitting US senator, Obama? As his wife so candidly admitted a few days ago, he plans to get out of touch with his constituents by 2012...
See any holes in this projection?

"'It had no concession,' they fretted. It didn't talk at all about the horserace, or the vote totals. ... It was not about the candidate or the race, but about the ideas, and the individuals they are supposed to help."

When you're losing, don't talk about how you're doing, talk about why you're running. No harm in that, and it was indeed a very good speech.

Of course, some congrats for Obama would have been nice.

jesus christ, this is astounding.

the best, most widely-appealing candidate the Dems have had in a generation, and all anyone can do is bitch.

edwards is an honest man, i think, esp by politicians' standards, but he has one issue--corporate greed--because he doesnt want to talk about the war, a immoral, disastrous catastrophic f**k-up THAT HE VOTED FOR.

this country wants a candidate they could believe in, and tonight they got one.

Dear "stunned":

Corporate greed is the underlying issue behind all the others. THE issue.

And Obama is a sellout, a man who views Joe "I never met a Republican whose ass I wouldn't kiss" Lieberman as his "mentor".

Educate yourself.

Dear "James":

You're an ignorant slut. But please do enjoy watching Obama crush your candidate of choice in the coming weeks.

There were three classy speeches given, post caucus.

This is not a general election, where the boot must be on the neck of the squealing vanquished.

This is one caucus victory. BHO took every advantage of his win in making his speech, and rightfully so.

But JRE and HRC both focused on the progress of the Democratic party - a good focus, I'd say.

ALL of our candidates aid in moving the public debate towards things progressive.

Edwards has been working the progressive work for several years. If Obama carries that ball across the goal, or Edwards does, we win.

This is about right. I'm an Obama supporter and delighted with tonight's outcome and the unbelievable turnout. But Edwards has grown on me. Four years ago he seemed to be playing a role but this time it's clear he believes in something.

Anything to say about the youth vote Ezra?

Wow. Do some of you Obama guys actually think there's something to be gained in mocking the people who've sided against you in the primaries? Politics of hope, indeed.

Seriously, get over it. Assuming he wins, we'll be in your camp when the time comes. For now, can you not shit on a nice thread praising Edwards, who is probably going to be a noble runner-up this year? You've won, at least tonight, so try to be gracious about it.

"Anything to say about the youth vote Ezra?"

I'm not Ezra, but I'll say something about it:

This was a generational win. Obama got 57% of the under 30 vote. That's an astonishing figure. To put it into perspective, it means Obama came in third among over the entire over 30 electorate and still won the caucuses comfortably.

I've never seen results as crazily age dependent as these. Here's Obama's numbers:

57% 17-29
42% 30-44
27% 45-64
18% 65 & up

If Obama doesn't find a way to get old people to warm up to him, he's not going to be taking any oaths of office.

Returning to the real world: Edwards, without money or resources, will limp into NH, get third slot there, hobble on into SC, maybe get second there, and simply fade away afterwards. If he has any sense, he will kiss the hand and endorse Obama. Judging by tonight's rather graceless effort, he doesn't have enough sense to quit while he still has some credibility.

Fortunately, Barack Obama is a good deal classier than nickzi.

No, Edwards will NOT be the next President of the United States. As one of his supporters, I'm disappointed by that.

But for John and Elizabeth Edwards, it's never been about them. So why should he drop out, just because his loss is inevitable, if he can still use the race as a platform for his ideas about how to make this country actually work for its citizens?

He's led the way in this race - on universal health care, on global warming, on further increases in the minimum wage, on education, you name it. If he loses, but LOSES WELL - by ensuring that the eventual nominee will stand and fight for these ideals - then he's won by losing.

Once the primaries are over and the votes are all in, Edwards will undoubtedly endorse and give his full support to the Democratic nominee, whether it's Obama or Clinton. But right now, he continues to change the race, and ultimately the country, just by being in it, even if he's not going to win.

So here's to you, John Edwards. You fought for what was right, you didn't win, but you're continuing to fight. Good on you.

"No, Edwards will NOT be the next President of the United States. As one of his supporters, I'm disappointed by that."

The odds have noticeably gotten longer, but he's not quite as dead as the reports would have it.

Both Clinton and Obama are going to need to hit Barack with a "where's the beef" line soon. Change for what? What will you actually do in your first 100 days.

Sure Obama's vicotry speech was memorable, but I don't think he used the word middle class once. The most he said about health care is that it will be "affordable" like in Illinois. Does Illinois have universal health care coverage, I wasn't aware of that. He's already promising less than Clinton in 92 when the opporunities are much greater for so much more. I reall worred this guy is going to slid way to right now.

"He's already promising less than Clinton in 92 when the opporunities are much greater for so much more."

Welcome to the timidity of hope.

Can't you just let Obama have his win? Why do we constantly have to prop up Edwards, a man who voted for the Iraq War and is himself an elite millionaire with a $400 haircut? Obama won because he is the best candidate - clearly evidenced by his stellar acceptance speech, in which he DID talk about the middle class and about the people he's met on the trail (just like Edwards).

I'm sick of all this Edwards talk on the blogs that I used to like to read, when the real story is Obama.

"Can't you just let Obama have his win? Why do we constantly have to prop up Edwards, a man who voted for the Iraq War and is himself an elite millionaire with a $400 haircut?"

Do you Obama-bots even vaguely understand that Obama has to repeatedly win 50% in primaries to get enough delegates to get the nomination?

Attacking the Democratic base is an odd strategy to get you folks up to 50%.

But his campaign set the tone for the race, his progressivism achieved broad adoption, and he mattered. He had much more of an impact than anyone could have expected.

Ezra: What are you talking about? I wish I knew where you derived your optimism about Edwards's contribution to the race. What I see barreling toward the nomination is a process liberal who is decidedly non-progressive on economic issues. I wish it were Edwards who is "setting the tone" for this race; I'm afraid it's likely to be Grover Norquist.

I really wish we could dispense with the smugness at this stage of the game. The stakes are too high.

I agree with Ezra; though not that John Edwards "won" personally, but his presence in this race, and his refusal to "sit down and shut up" is getting the other candidates to embrace a more progressive message than they would otherwise. I have a sense after watching last night's speech by Edwards, that it's less about whether he himself is elected and more about whether the changes he advocates get enacted.

I am still not convinced about Obama. I don't like the way he uses right-wing framing, and I don't like his naivete that you can "reach across the aisle" to Republicans and get something back other than a bloody stump where your hand used to be.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

"I am still not convinced about Obama. I don't like the way he uses right-wing framing, and I don't like his naivete that you can "reach across the aisle" to Republicans and get something back other than a bloody stump where your hand used to be. I hope I'm wrong, though."

Believe it or not, Obama hasn't sealed up the nomination yet.

"No, Edwards will NOT be the next President of the United States."

And this is why the Democratic primary process is FUBAR.

Not because Obama won, good for him, but because one caucus in one midwestern state seals the whole deal for the rest of us.

(Although not for Republicans apparently; Huckabee's win means zilch according to the panicked Villagers.)

"Not because Obama won, good for him, but because one caucus in one midwestern state seals the whole deal for the rest of us."

Only, it doesn't.

It does make Obama's path easier, and everyone else's path harder.

But no one has to get serious for 4 weeks now. We get to see how NH, NV, and SC play out, and then deals start getting sealed.

First the Edwards supporters on the thread attack Obama as a rightwinger, which is a frankly silly way for someone who voted for the war to attack a community organizer from Chicago who spoke out against the war because we wouldn't be able to keep the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds together - back in 2002. Then when Obama supporters fight back, suddenly they're stupid for attacking the base, which Edwards supporters now see themselves as even though Edwards won among the conservative Democrats in Iowa and lost among union members. Note to Edwards supporters: you are not the totality of liberal America. Anyone who voted for the war, making the biggest mistake a member of Congress could make in the past 10 years, is not a yardstick against which should measure their progressivism. If you want to worry about having a redux of Clinton '92, go with the DLC's heart throb, which was Edwards back in the Senate. You guys would have called FDR a rightwinger because he criticized Hoover for failing to balance the budget.

I can't believe all this talk about Obama running away with it. I mean really, if every candidate is to give up after Iowa, where a whole 300K out of 300 million people voted, then what is the point of the primary season?

I'd like my chance to vote for my candidate, thank you very much. You ought to ashamed of yourselves.

Obama supporters apparently attribute magical power to the words "community organizer." It is their answer to almost every criticism of Obama.

That, and the fact that he opposed the war, which would be much more convincing if he hadn't started supporting the war since the day he took office.

These guys, daily kos guys, like HRC. They hate obama.

Well, DUH, Ezra. Get prepared for more negative media onslaught against Edwards and more pumping up of the Republicans' unwitting ringer for this election, Obama.

It's SO obvious, people, why this piece of crap candidate is being pumped up. He cannot win; I'd stake my life savings on it.

If Edwards doesn't knock him off, we better pray Clinton does, for the Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will destroy Obama in a landslide.

That's a fact, and the young people who are too naive or too stupid had better realize it.

Today's Republicans don't need to employ dirty tricks except as a last resort. They have the media to do their work for them.

These morons who support Obama, and they ARE morons, can't articulate WHAT their fraud of a candidate stands for. They don't know; they have bought every bit of hype about this guy that the media have vomited: He's JFK, MLK, RFK, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ, and American Idol all wrapped into one package. The tragedy is, Obama believes the crap, too, and his ego has gotten the better of him.

That's why I hate the s.o.b. and refuse to EVER back him, for he is too dumb to realize that when the media talks you up, you're not worth a damn as a candidate.

Pay attention to the issues and candidate positions, not the "personalities". Nice Obama will mean triangulating Obama and more of the same. Let's not be fooled again by the nice guy stuff -- George Bush was such a "regular guy". If O sees Lieberman as his mentor that can't be good eh?

"LoL, apparently Benjamin never heard of being diplomatic. Edwards did win something. He finished ahead of Clinton, and he did so with a virtual media black out on his message and no real corporate support."

Yeah, I agree. Anyone who really supports Obama ought to be a little more humble about the victory. It's only one, for one thing. For another, "inevitability" does not seem to be playing with the electorate thus far.

I find the demands for early concession incredibly arrogant, whether they're coming from Billary or anyone else.

Maybe I missed the etiquette class but I don't see why Edwards has to congratulate Obama nor why Obama has to mention the other candidates. They are in a race to win here. I'm saying they should be nasty, but if they are staying it it, they should continue to play their game.

The idea that the GOP is going to be swept off its feet by Obama's charm and agree to work with him in bipartisan fashion is delusional. To the GOP bipartisanship is "date rape" with them as the rapist. Edwards understands this. Obama's supporters, who apparently have been sleeping through the last decade, are in a rude surprise.

The youth turnout in Iowa would be great if so many people, particularly the young, didn't pick their candidate based on thirty-second ads. I have to part ways with John Edwards when he says the "status quo" lost in Iowa; I think it won big time.

Obama, if he represents anything beyond a warm and fuzzy hope that America can leap its racial divide, promises more of the same old Washington doublespeak about "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done in the spirit of bipartisanship." Yes, those of us over 40 have heard it all before. The result, always, is incremental change that pads the profits of corporations, who then line the pockets of politicians, and delays the bold solutinos this country needs. If Democrats were serious about climate change, air pollution, and energy independence, the Clinton administration would have done something about CAFE standards fifteen years ago, but oh no, don't focus on what needs to be done, only on what is achievable.

Obama hasn't been in the Senate long enough to become sickened by the way things work there, as Edwards has, and it's too bad because I wanted to like him. The policies he has set forth--the pretends-to-be-universal health care plan, the environmental insanity of building nuclear power plants and liquefying coal--and his close ties to lobbyists even while he pushed for toothless ethics reform reveal an unwillingness to commit to more than incremental change, the political equivalent of continental drift. As president, he would be more Wizard of Oz (no magic behind all the pomp and glitter) than true leader. Worse, his erratic performance during the campaign suggests he will fold pretty quickly under the Republican onslaught.

What is truly depressing is that at a time when most of the nation seeks alternatives to the Republican status quo, Democrats, rather than offering a true, pre-Clinton progressive who can veer this country away from the disastrous policies of George Bush, seem to be succumbing to spin. Not only is Obama running to the right of Hillary Clinton but he's doing it with one hand extended across the aisle and the other in the pocket of Goldman Sachs, Exelon, and the HMO's.

Even IF Edwards ultimately loses (and I am not ready to concede it, nor is he) - he has established one thing at the very least:

You can run a credible, serious and substantive PROGRESSIVE campaign for President in the United States and not sound like Kucinich or Jerry Brown.

I did think it was a little class-less to not at least give a nod to your competitors, or at least the one who beat you at the start of the speech, but appreciated Edwards' speech for for what it was. Which was more about his animating cause than the race itself. It doesn't resonate with me, but hey, I do see what he was doing.

Much like some say they don't "get" Obama's rhetorical appeal, I don't "get" Edwards' in the least. Just about anyone can make their voice shake as they discuss some young child in a bad situation somewhere in America; we've seen countless politicians do it before. Since Bobby, though, it's always struck me as coming off as more opportunistic and (as such) unseemly as anything else. The same feeling I got when Edwards did the whole "lesbian daughter" bit with Cheney in 04. It seems...exploitive

But hey, if that gets you going, more power to it.

Man, though, are some people ever graceless, both in victory and defeat, in this thread. Both the Edwards partisans and Obama partisans should take a deep breath and relax. This is the self-immolation that Democrats are so famous for. And it's stupid.

On the topic of Edwards' effect on the primary, I have to say I'm very thankful for the way he pulled the campaign to the left, and he deserves all the kudos in the world for that. And I do think now is the appropriate time to be doffing your cap to him on that point since his campaign is effectively dead in the water at this point. It's a nice eulogy to a good campaign.

Petey, for one: shouldn't you be refraining from making predictions right now? I recall you calling Iowa for Edwards by a comfortable margin, and I believe you had Obama in 3rd.

You also seem quite confident that Edwards' rhetoric is better-matched to the mood of the party, even though Obama beat Edwards amongst registered Dems, and handily at that. He beat Edwards overall in that demograph by a comfortable margin, trounced him amongst "very liberal" Dems, and beat him badly in "somewhat liberal" and "moderate" Dems.

The only demograph of Democratic voters that Edwards' pitch seemed to resonate stronger than Obama's was self-identified "conservative" Dems, who made up all of, what was it, 6% of the Iowa electorate? What makes you think NH, SC, or the Feb 5th states will be any different? And how do you expect Edwards to survive to the Feb 5th states, let alone compete in them, given his financing issues?

Much like some say they don't "get" Obama's rhetorical appeal, I don't "get" Edwards' in the least. Just about anyone can make their voice shake as they discuss some young child in a bad situation somewhere in America; we've seen countless politicians do it before.

Have you considered the possibility that it's the substance of Edwards's campaign that his supporters are attracted to? Just because Obama's supporters seem to be something of a personality cult doesn't mean everyone else's are.

Americans don't know, understand, or even care about the issues.

How about Attorney General John Edwards?

"Edwards supporter will realize that the idea of Edwards now being the "alternative" to Obama is ... far-fetched."

Oh, really. Maybe after Obama is done fixing the "social security crises," informing us on the horrors of universal healthcare, and doing little to change the stagnant economic situation, we will realize there is no difference.

"You have people in public life who "run as" and then you have, once every fifty years or so, a person of the Obama's caliber who needn't pretend or "run as". He clearly IS a statesman, a leader, a person of integrity."

This is pure, vacuous garbage. Obama is a "once every 50 year or so" candidate based upon what. His charisma. Why not just elect George Clooney, he is pretty great. Oh, its his "leadership" and integrity. Any time someone runs on their personality and not their policy position be wary. Obama fans like to believe in totally intangible qualities that have no basis in reality. Please support someone for their policies, not because you like them.

Congratulations to Barack Obama on his win in Iowa. He does make exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is doing this. I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States.

I think down the road we will see how right Edwards really was. Except for the health plan which I dont't see working out for the people he professed to want to represent.

Of course now that Hillary has that mess, defeating her is imperative.

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!