Edwards is fading like Dean faded. Sorry to say this, but it is true.

I'm an edwards supporter and I'm indifferent between hillary and obama. They both have pluses and minuses and its impossible to say which would be the "better" president because its impossible to predict what factors int heir personalities, their education, or their advisors will come to the fore over the next four to eight years--or rather what factors will be called upon by world events. So I'll support the nominee, without working for one or the other until the actual election cycle when, as a yellow dog dem, I'll work my heart out.

aimai

While we wonder about this, its worth noting the dynamic that's starting to take shape here: Obama and Edwards have praised one another for not taking lobbyist money, for offering up health care plans, Edwards basically demurring on trashing Obama on foreign policy, etc etc...while Dodd and Biden seem to be trying to one-up one another in their hits on Edwards and Obama, vying maybe for the VP spot on Hillary's ticket?

Edwards and Obama make natural allies: they're more of the same generation with each other than they are with Dodd/Biden/Hillary, they're both committed to similar reforms, they both seem to share a lot of core values. Joe Trippi noted that Obama and Edwards were being attacked by the entire Senate coatroom, or something to that effect, post-debate, lol.

Obama is definitely wooing those voters, and Edwards definitely sees strategic advantage in calling an armistice with Obama (perhaps if Hillary and her surrogates succeed in branding Obama as inexperience, Barack's supporters will flock to him), and the two seemed to be from the same campaign in the way they were on message hitting Hillary about lobbyists.

My two cents, at least.

one of the issues I wonder about is polling and hidden gender and racial biases. That is to say, even liberal democrats do not want to say that they would have a problem voting for a woman or a black man. Not, I would say, because of their own personal prejudcies, but predicated on the perceived baises of the general (independent) electorate. I would wait and see how people pull the levers before I count any top tier white male out of the running.

eric

By the way, John Dickerson from slate predicted this way back when, at the debate at Howard, in late June:

Though Obama clashed with John Edwards in their last meeting, he was particularly solicitous of the former North Carolina senator this time. "John is exactly right," he said about early childhood education. "John is right on this one," he said about treating AIDS. On government contracts for Hurricane Katrina cleanup, Obama said, "Let me finish John's thought, because it's an important one."

How nice. The senator must have really felt bad for clocking Edwards at the last debate. Or, he doesn't think Edwards is a threat any more and wants to court his voters who eventually will come to him as the non-Hillary alternative.

slate

I'm an Edwards supporter, I know he hasn't got a shot at the nomination, but I'm glad that he's pushing Democrats to the left. I hope that recognizing he won't get the nomination he'll stop pulling punches and use his soap box to push further to the left, particularly on economic issues. I'm fine with Hillary because I've become convinced that she is electable. Just another Yellow Dog here...

It's true that Kucinich upstaged Edwards, but I thought Edwards did fine and will get plenty of union support. If he gets few labor endorsements, then I might worry.

BTW, Tom, there have already been several polls showing Clinton with a lead in Iowa dating back to last December. The KCCI poll still shows Edwards with a good lead, and his support is broad enough across all of Iowa to give him a big win in the caucus.

Thisi is a crazy post. You are calling ballgame Tom?

Knowing no one will remember I imagine.

I cry foul on this one.

Really dumb post. Edwards ain't quitting before Iowa and IF he wins there certainly not for a while after that.

If Hillary wins Iowa it is over. If Obama win Iowa, he probably wins.

If Edwards win he has a shot.

You musings on this strike me as utterly irrelevant.

All Edwards has to do for the time being is outlast the rest of the current second and third tier candidates. The nature of the race will change quite a bit once it's down to no more than three people. Edwards also needs to acknowledge that the Inside-the-Beltway media is hunting for his scalp. They're never going to give him a fair shake and he shouldn't waste any time or effort trying to get one. Instead, he needs to chain them rhetorically to the Bush administration, the Republican Party in general and the corporate rich. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he could do his nation a great service by exposing the media phonies for the elitist morons they are.

Want less about the horserace and more about the horses please.

Maybe you could examine why Edwards is losing his lead? does it have anything to do with his message and policies? It doesn't appear that his poverty tour was a good idea, given that he is losing his lead. What did he say exactly in his poverty tour that might have caused Iowa voters to like him less? Or was it that Iowa voters are finally getting exposure to Obamas and Clintons message and statements and like those too?

Try again please.

It's not even clear that Edwards has lost his lead in Iowa. The ARG poll shows Clinton in the lead, but this is the first time they've polled the Iowa caucus, and their numbers have been out of step with the more reliable polls all along.

I can't believe that the Edwards' supporters in the small sample of comments who express a preference for an Edewards alternative are expressing support for Clinton. Six years of Bush's awfulness must have wiped memories of Bill Clinton's constant triangulation and overall mediocrity from your minds.

All together now: Anybody But Clinton (until the general). We don't need another (in this case, moderate) Republican in the White House.

"Thisi is a crazy post. You are calling ballgame Tom?"

I'm not calling the ballgame, but I do think it's an interesting question-- where would the Edwards supporters want to go?

Also, Obama calling Clinton out on campaign finance is a little like the pot calling the kettle. If I were her, I would never sit down and take that. Her campaign needs to look over his financing and prepare a comeback.

Maybe she's holding on to it. To me, this contradiction is the most interesting thing about Obama. As a reformer, I really think he's full of shit. They're neck in neck, pro-business, as far as I can tell.

the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama is her record of not fighting for real democratic values. Give Obama a few more years in teh Senate and he will catch up. I will say it simply: democrats wants proverbial "balls;" had Hillary shown even an inlking of fighting for real hardcore democratic issues she would be the run away front runner. SHe is a tepid politician. Obama gives off an air of liberation from the establishment, but go back and see how it flipped from a HARSH Bush critic to a war supporter back in the day.

BY the way, next politician that uses the phrase "truth to power" should be drawn and quartered.

"BY the way, next politician that uses the phrase "truth to power" should be drawn and quartered."

Well, yeah. Because they *have* real power, if they could get together, figure it out, and decide to exercise it. That they don't is really pretty painful, already. I really cringed looking at the YouTube debate where Obama stood on stage and said they were all rich. Well, yeah. And in the final analysis, that's what's wrong with you.

You have to make a real, decided effort to do anything else. More than we got out of Bill Clinton in the end, despite his humble origins. Who does Chelsea Clinton work for, right now, today? I don't think for a second that it doesn't matter.

In either case, the Edwards windfall voters may decide this nomination, and it's time to start looking a bit closer at who they are.

Maybe I can help. I'm an Edwards supporter, and it's because he's the top-tier candidate who's taken health care most seriously.

If your prediction is true and I have to decide between Obama and Clinton, it's Obama hands-down. I think he's more electable, and I think he'd do a better job passing health care reform legislation.

It seems to me that Clinton has learned the wrong lessons from her '93-'94 experience, meaning: I think she believes there's no point in attempting bold action, and the problem with the Clinton plan was not that it was too bold, it was that it was developed in secret. Also, the time is riper now for a real overhaul, and I don't think she gets that.

I see them going to Richardson, in fact I think they already are. If you take a look at the polling trends, Richardson's uptick coincides with Edwards downturn:

IOWA- http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

NH- http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

I really cringed looking at the YouTube debate where Obama stood on stage and said they were all rich. Well, yeah. And in the final analysis, that's what's wrong with you.

I actually appreciated the honesty of that comment. Especially since it was in response to the question of whether they'd be willing to work as President if they were paid the minimum wage. He wasn't willing to say, "Yeah, I would make that sacrifice because I really believe in public service," when the truth is that it woudln't matter what his salary was because he can live comfortably off of his savings.

I also don't think being rich has to be "what's wrong with" a person, if they're able to appreciate their advantages and how much more difficult life would be without them.

There should be a "common thread" that runs through these candidates, but I have yet to see it.

Take, for example, "card check". Does each candidate support card check and in his or her administration commencing in 2009, make such an effort a priority?

Now, the second part of this question, separates the candidates. Thus, as President would each candidate "insure" and "assure" that card check is included in all the existing Free Trade Agreements?

If so, that means that in those nations residing South of the Rio Grande would be required to have their national Congresses to change their domestic laws in which the affected governments would have no say or control over Organized Labor.

Candidates such as Clinton and Obama would not support card check embedded in the FTAs, and would be rightfully recognized as Neo-libs. Where Edwards and Richardson come down on this two-part issue remains to be seen.

Perhaps, some enterprising journalists can begin asking the question of these candidates?

Jaango

Armando calling someone else irrelevant, that's rich. This post is a bit bold and quick to jump to conclusions, I'll give you, but no more irrelevant than someone who claims that a win in Iowa makes or breaks it for various candidates.

It seems to me that Clinton has learned the wrong lessons from her '93-'94 experience, meaning: I think she believes there's no point in attempting bold action, and the problem with the Clinton plan was not that it was too bold, it was that it was developed in secret. Also, the time is riper now for a real overhaul, and I don't think she gets that.

You know Lauren, I have been leaning Hillary because I like her voting record on women and children's issues. I truly believe she cares and I like that she seems to always be introducing legislation on things that matter to me at least. But you have given me food for thought here by articulating what has kept me from fully supporting her. The cautious way she does things makes me worry not about her intentions, but her follow through. Thanks for the thoughts.

"My gut says that if these are Anybody-But-Hillary Democrats worried about her electability, Obama is going to have one, good late shot of beating her"

I doubt it. If electability is the issue Obama be at a serious disadvantage. Polls released today show he is doing not as well against the GOP as Hillary in swing states. This trend will probably continue. If nominating a woman is risky nominating a black guy with little experience is far more risky.

So if electability becomes an issue Edwards will have an opening. He is an attractive white southern male. The most electable Dem.

Wow, kerril, thanks for those kind words.

"I also don't think being rich has to be "what's wrong with" a person, if they're able to appreciate their advantages and how much more difficult life would be without them.

Posted by: Lauren | August 8, 2007 01:03 PM"

It's not about appreciating it. Appreciating it makes you hold onto it and seek more. This is not irrational in American and is not all irrational given the direction in which we are headed. It is about sitting there knowing you are going to get lopped off and doing it anyway. You see the Clintons did this, and you think somehow Obama, whose wife is a hospital *administrator* and who has multiple children somehow won't? He doesn't want the advantage Bill Clinton got Chelsea?

No. The people who sit there and risk getting lopped off are not people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It's people who can really afford to run the risk. Obama *made his money in politics* just like Bill Clinton is making his off post-presidential speaking engagements. (Which apparently he needed to do to pay the legal bills).

You're going to get the best performance out of people with nothing to lose. That's not Obama.

Y'know the sad bit about this discussion? It's all about people and the political star system in which Americans not only "vote for the (wo)man not the party but are proud of it instead of being embarrassed. Americans seem to imagine that they're hiring a person to do a job rather than voting for a package of policies.

If I were the God of Politics I'd organize the system so that instead of candidates names next to punch out boxes there would be about a dozen or two sliders for different categories of policy: the economy, Iraq, affirmative action/anti-discrimination, healthcare, etc.--preferably cut even more finely than that. Voters would then move the sliders for each policy category to their preferred position between the Left and Right ends of the scales, an average would be computed, and faceless technocrats would take care of the details.

Of course this assumes a population of rational and informed voters, so nobody gets to the polls unless they can pass a political literacy test.

"Y'know the sad bit about this discussion? It's all about people and the political star system in which Americans not only "vote for the (wo)man not the party but are proud of it instead of being embarrassed. Americans seem to imagine that they're hiring a person to do a job rather than voting for a package of policies."

Well, I agree with you. In contrast to the generic Obamamaniac, for example, I think he represents a real low point in American politics. Here's someone who has self fashioned himself into a viable candidate by writing *not one but two* autobiographical books. Then he goes out and plays the naive young-populist hand against the WallStreet financing hand. And did he or did he not flip flop his Pakistan position last night once he saw it didn't go over so good?

No. No, no, no, no, no.

In the next couple years that party needs to clarify what it stands for, how it is going to address what it stands for, and it needs to generate some real party discipline in order to do so.

There is no way that some cute little designer personality is going to deal with the issues facing this nation.

Yup. That's why Obama is my least preferred candidate--though I would of course support him for all I'm worth if he got the nomination. More than anyone else he's running on personality rather than policy. I'll bet right now it's going to be Clinton v. Gulianni, that Clinton will be nominated, and elected, because she's perceived as a mainline pro, which is what most Americans want even if they don't want to admit that they do, and because Gulianni is such a divisive figure for Republicans with so much personal baggage.

"More than anyone else he's running on personality rather than policy."

Yeah, well. That just means he'll probably win.

I have a hard time seeing Hillary bolstered by Edward's decline-- he was the leftmost candidate of the top three. The people backing him weren't centrists fearing the left, they were the left.

John Edwards is too faggy.

At least, that's the not-so-subtle storyline that I keep hearing from the talking heads. It's couched in references to his hairstyle, his strong wife, his wealth. Nobody says on camera that he's just too gay to be elected, but everyone sure as hell implies it.

Am I too sensitive to this under-the-radar homophobia? Maybe so. Chalk it up to my being gay and hearing shit like this all my life.

Tonight's the gay rights debate, yes? I'd love to see Edwards, or anyone, call out the whispering campaign for what it is. But I bet Washington is still too afraid of teh fagz to address the issue head-on.

I like Edwards, but his campaign's repeated missteps convinced me long ago that he'd never be the nominee. I disagree with the contention that he'd be a hard candidate for the GOP; on the contrary, they'd eat him alive. Any candidate who's having trouble against other Dems will never be able to stand up to the GOP machine (witness Edwards' inability to effectively hit back at the haircut nonsense). In my case, I'm supporting Obama, partly because I don't like HRC (too establishment-DLC, Mark Penn, etc.), but mostly because I think he's much more electable. HRC's negatives are just way too high, and I can't imagine any states that didn't go for Kerry going for her.

Hmmmm...Has it ever crossed your mind that some of us won't vote for either one? I absolutely will never vote for Hillary. I still have questions concerning Obama and his statement on merit pay for math and science teachers. I'm an art teacher and I find that kind of talk union busting. I can't imagine voting for him but I know I won't vote for Hillary. Edwards is still in the game. He's got the best message. Not one vote has been cast and you guys all think he's pushing up daisies! I frankly don't believe the polls. Who are they calling? Most people don't answer their phone or they use a cell phone.