So a guy who advises the Democratic party to abandon the south wants my candidate to follow the advice of another guy who led the last elected Democratic President down the primrose path to conciliation and capitulation to Republican priorities?

Great. Yeah. Thanks for that.

Go to Hell Shaller!
Voters get to decide not you!

In 1860, Lincoln finished third in the first ballot at the Republican convention. he hadn't won an election in several years, and was criticized as being too radical for his party's good.

just wanted to point that out.

Very odd to hear Dick Morris talking about social justice. Not so odd to hear him talking against Hillary.

Edwards is running to the left of Clinton, Obama to the right. Sure, if Edwards drops out, I'll switch, but not to Edwards' opposite. Makes no sense.

Great post. I'd love to see O offer E the VP slot, but I don't think he'd offer, and I'm afraid E wouldn't accept.

Attorney General, hell! How about Supereme Court Justice John Edwards? I suspect a promise like that might get him to bow out.

But he should bow out after South Carolina, at the latest.

And you arrive at this conclusion based on Dick Morris' assessment? I can't tell which of you is the bigger fool. There is absolutely no good reason for Edwards to drop out, period.

1. The Reno Gazette-Journal poll shows a 3-way statistical tie between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

2. Edwards' delegate count is just fine. He's well within striking distance of Clinton and Obama.

3. In the CNN and Rasmussen polls that provide national head-to-head match-ups of presidential candidates, John Edwards is the Democrats' strongest candidate. With the exception of tying Giuliani, Edwards easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, the latter two by double-digit margins.

And the horse you rode in on, Schaller.

if clinton is getting working-class voters, wouldn't edwards' dropping out send voters to her, not obama?

Anyone who doesn't think Edwards is a complete fake should see this. And, no, it has nothing to do with his hair. Search for his name at my site if you need more reasons.

I don't see Edwards quitting as long as Obama and Clinton's delegate counts are so close.

Why would he? As long as he's slowly accumulating delegates, and neither Clinton nor Obama are on track for enough to clear the 2k threshold, Edwards is sitting quite pretty.

I can totally understand why Clinton or Obama want him to quit, but Edward's best interests seem to be in staying in the game.

Does anyone know if Petey is OK? I haven't seen him comment since about the time of the NH primary, and if a post like this can't rouse him ...

corinne - as one Edwards supporter to another:

1. Even if Edwards wins Nevada, what's the upside? It's still not going to pull him within striking distance of Obama or Hillary in terms of voter support.

2. Delegate counts at this point are irrelevant. The purpose of wins in the early caucuses and primaries isn't to win delegates, but to convince people to vote for you on Super Tuesday, when big piles of delegates will be up for grabs.

3. That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if our guy doesn't have a chance to win the nomination.

Our guy was shut out by the media throughout 2007. His only real chance to change this was to win Iowa. He didn't. That sucks, I know, but life goes on.

Edwards should stay in because it's not about individual votes, it's about delegates. He'll have great control over his delegates the further he goes (assuming he trails a fairly close 3rd) and it's the delegates that will decide the nominee. If at or near the convention he pulls out, he can then instruct all his delegates to back Obama as he seems very supportive of Obama. Most, if they're loyal to Edwards, will follow his wishes. Edwards does more to help Obama by staying in moving a mass of delegates at once than he does by withdrawing and potentially moving disparate groups of individuals towards Obama.

I'm an Edwards supporter who started out this primary season believing Clinton was the last candidate I could vote for. For all the usual reasons; her politics are too centrist, I was concerned about her ability as a campaigner, her vote for the war. I've support Edwards because he is the candidate who best reflects my politics. I always presumed that if he didn't make it, I would support Obama, even though, as a Midwestern Centrist, I don't see much difference between him and Hillary (in terms of policies and support for labor). But, as it begins to look more and more like a two man race, between two candidates who don't really share my politics, I am not so sure. I am now looking at both candidates much more closely than I was when I felt more confident that Edwards had a shot. And I am surprised to see both some strengths in Clinton, and some short-comings in Obama, that I hadn't anticipated.

A man with a resume as short as Obama's can't afford to run anything less than a top notch campaign. But, in my estimation, he has made some mistakes that have to be attributed to inexperience. (In the days between Iowa and NH and even more so since his loss in NH.)

Unfortunately, because of the media's animosity toward Hillary, and Left-leaning blogs' identification with his message of "change," people have been reluctant to criticize Obama's -- and he didn't receive the kind of criticism -- including objective, fair-minded criticism -- most campaigns would receive after a loss like NH. Instead, there have been a lot of excuses made, and paranoid theories put forward, for why Clinton won. Which is too bad, because that means no one was, and no one is, encouraging him to self-correct.

the above post should have read "people have been reluctant to critize Obama's campaign."

He is surely entitled to a key job—Attorney General at the very least—in an Obama Administration, if Obama wins the nomination and the presidency.

Being AG is essentially like being (i) a chief prosecutor or (ii) managing partner of a big law firm. Edwards has done neither of those things. Yes, he is plainly tremendously capable and could probably be an AG if asked, but he could probably also be head of the EPA or the UN Ambassador. If he won't be President -- and I don't think he will be, alas -- I'd rather see him in a position that is a better fit with the issues he's run on.

As an Edwards supporter who would vote for GRAVEL before Obama (after his dog whistle gay baiting with Donnie McClurkin), my vote would go to Hillary if Edwards pulled out.

I know supporters of every candidate imagine that their choice and their choice alone has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous media fortune, but Edwards supporters have a strong case. I imagine that leaves us - and Edwards himself - with little concern about disregarding your advice, Mr. Schaller. I hope Edwards stays in until the convention. As you nearly acknowledge, Edwards' campaign represents the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. His exit would unmoor Clinton and Obama from the left entirely, to our party's lasting detriment. (Not to mention that the day Dems start taking advice from Dick Morris again will be a sad day indeed.)

Run, Edwards, run!

You spend the post talking about how Edwards' promoted the issue of political and economic inequality, and how the two areg inextricably linked and conclude that...he should be AG? No, that's an argument to make him Labor Secretary.

Tom

I will politely say what a poster said higher up in the thread...you don't decide the voters and the candidates do.

And I think that John Edwards role in this race is both honorable and crucial. He is the most progressive now in his policy prescriptions and the most aaggressive in his stance vis a vis big money. He has helped create an environment in which it is not only safe to be a progressive, but mandatory to be a progressive. I think he can keep serving that role in this campaign.

And after Iowa when my candidate, Hillary Clinton, looked like she might make it, I determined that I would support John Edwards...on the basis that both She, Hillary Clinton and he, John Edwards were more progressive than Barack Obama.

So I think you and dick Morris are wrong...and I think NH results bore this out. Obama's numbers stayed the same and Hillary went up and some of that support could have only come from Edwards supporters. When it comes to policies, attitude towrds partisanship and assertiveness they the 2 candidates closest on the spectrum are Clinton and Edwards, not Obama.

I think that many supporters of Edwards would choose Hillary over Obama....so you may not really want your wish to come true.

I am posting some of Kevin Drum of the Washington OMonthly because I think he's much more on target on this than Dick Morris.
".......Then I saw a couple of polling results that gave me pause.

First was the Iowa entrance polls, which showed that Edwards did best among self-described conservatives. That's very odd since Edwards is the most progressive candidate in the race, and it suggests that a fair number of his supporters are voting their demographic, not their ideology. (No surprise there.) If that's the case, then Edwards' populist, working class supporters are more likely to switch to Hillary than to Obama.

Second, there were the results from New Hampshire, where it looks as if a part of Hillary's unexpected surge came from Edwards voters. (Not a big part, but a part.)

Third, there's Gallup's latest poll, which shows Obama's support unchanged from a week earlier, while Hillary is up and Edwards is down. This is too crude to draw any firm conclusions from, but it sure looks as if the 7% of voters who abandoned Edwards all went into the Clinton camp"

The next AG is going to be spending the majority of their time on torture, politicization of the DOJ, NSA overreach, Guantanamo/tribunals, the Patriot Act, and so on. Unless the president wants to make Edwards the 'poverty czar' (or Trade Representative) I don't see him taking a job in the next administration.

Restoring the Middle Class, Prosperity and Quality Jobs in the United States

You must have a viable strategy that will be inherently financially supported and carried forward by the "invisible hand of economic globalization". The US is declining as the global economic leader, only because the Fed Gov and powerful interests do not have a viable strategy.

The US became the Economic Leader of the World only by the recognized hard work of Franklin, Edison, Westinghouse, Henry Ford, Einstein, and the countless technically creative, engineers and scientists, inventors, as strong individual leaders, led the world in INNOVATION. (Greenspan has listed INNOVATION as the missing ingredient in the current US strategy, that was previously was in place, and the related Intellectual Property and Patents, built this country to become the World Leader).

The adverse influence of powerful large entities, major venture capitalists, CEO’s, and other powers using lobbies, now erroneously promote what actually built this US, as high risk, discouraging financial support for qualified individual technologists, inventors, scientists, and engineers. We are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Most important the current US decline can only be eradicated by a new direction to create a quality domestic industry, protected from the “offshore competition” by innovations Americans control with US Patents. Studies at MIT and other entities have proven that these qualified individuals working independently have, always created the most significant inventions and new manufacturing with secure quality jobs.

Restoring the Middle Class, prosperity and quality jobs in the US will only happen when you create approval certification programs for technologists to receive financial backing, and restore tax shelters for financial support of individual qualified engineers, scientists, medical doctors, researchers, inventors, and start-ups. In this way, the current 80% employment that is provided by small entities would generate a wealthy middle class, instead of a group of “hamburger flippers”. This will also solve the problem of math and science leadership of young people, and encourage the neglected 40% of high IQ students to pursue math and science.

As a graduate engineer and small entity inventor, I have started ventures and provided quality jobs, some under now defunct technical tax shelters, and in other instances the corporate large entities, like the old “robber barons” have managed to rob me of some of my important Intellectual Property. My personal experience validates the sad lack of financial support for technologists.

David A. Estabrooks, ScM

estabrooksdavid@yahoo.com 915-613-2116
617-240-2968