(Updated at 2:28 p.m. EDT and combined with some material from previous posts.)
by John McCormick and Naftali Bendavid
DENVER – Democrat John Edwards formally dropped from the Democratic nomination race this afternoon, saying it was time to step aside "so that history can blaze its path."
Edwards said he is confident that the Democrats can win the White House.
"With our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November," Edwards said, according to an Associated Press dispatch from New Orleans, where he had initially announced his presidential bid.
The Democratic primary battle moved into an even greater state of flux this morning when word broke that Edwards was leaving the race.
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are hoping Edwards might endorse one of them before the more than 20 primaries and caucuses that will be held on Feb. 5.
Edwards, a two-time White House candidate, has stressed poverty issues throughout his campaign. He is expected to call on both Obama and Clinton to keep a focus on those issues in his absence.
In a speech before thousands at the University of Denver, Obama praised Edwards for his role in the campaign.
"He has spent a lifetime fighting to voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling," Obama said. "At a time when our politics is too focused on who is up and who is down, he consistently has made us focus on who matters: the New Orleans child without a home..the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about in Washington."
Although his campaign has ended, Obama said "this cause lives on for all of us who believe that we can achieve one America."
The audience gave Edwards a standing ovation.
Earlier, still dressed in his workout clothes as he returned to a Denver hotel this morning, Obama said Edwards had left the race in a "classy" way. "He's run a great campaign," he said.
Asked whether he would get Edwards' endorsement, Obama smiled and walked inside, saying he would say more on the topic later in the day. Obama said he had spoken to Edwards, but did not provide any additional details about their conversation.
A campaign aide said the two men spoke Tuesday while Obama was in Kansas, and that Edwards indicated that he would likely be dropping out of the race, but did not provide a timetable. They had another brief conversation this morning when Edwards confirmed he would be exiting the contest.
Clinton's campaign had not yet issued a statement on Edwards' departure.
Before speaking at the University of Denver, Obama offered a few additional words on Edwards.
"I congratulated him on a great race and what a gracious way to end by going back to New Orleans," he said.
Asked what impact Edwards' departure would have on the race, Obama said, "I don't know."
Appearing on MSNBC today, a former senior strategist for Edwards said he would lobby against his former client endorsing Clinton.
"I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he does not endorse Hillary Clinton," Dave "Mudcat" Saunders said. "I just don't think the Clintons have been a friend of my people out in rural America."
Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, said voters will now have a clearer choice.
"As we go forward, what it means for the campaign is that change voters now have a clear choice," he said. "Change versus more of the same becomes much more pronounced in this race, and I think Edwards voters have a great home in Barack Obama."
Obama is expected to talk about Edwards at the start of a speech he is about to give at the University of Denver, where he is now nearly an hour behind schedule. Hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, could be seen lining up outside in the cold as the Obama media bus arrived.
The two big questions posed by the withdrawal of John Edwards from the Democratic presidential race are why his candidacy didn’t catch on and how his departure affects the remaining battle between Clinton and Obama.
Edwards always faced an uphill battle against the star power of Clinton—a former first lady with a potential to become the first woman president—and Obama, an electrifying orator and first viable African-American presidential candidate. He was never able to overcome their appeal or ability to generate crowds and turn out voters.
Edwards did not have a long record in politics; he’d served one term in the Senate and did not have a lengthy list of legislative achievements or causes associated with his name. Edwards’ poverty-focused message did catch on with a good number Democratic voters—he did, after all, outperform two respected senators and a popular governor in the Democratic primaries. But ultimately it’s not clear that the message resonated with many middle-class voters. And Edwards was continually dogged by questions about whether he came to the poverty issue late, despite his professed life-long passion for the subject.
Some are surprised by Edwards’ decision to drop out at this stage. Although Edwards did not win any primaries, he’d vowed to stay in the race until the convention, and he made that admittedly standard promise with more conviction than most. Having stayed in this long, it seemed possible he would at least hang in until the Feb. 5 super primary day. And the presidential race seemed like a personal crusade for him; he pressed ahead even when his wife became seriously ill. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards does not have another high-profile job to fall back on.
But the primary contest has now entered a national phase that is difficult for candidates who do not have a tremendous amount of money. And the strongest strategic rationale for his candidacy—that one of the front-runners could stumble, leaving Edwards as the only alternative—seemed less likely by the day.
Looking ahead to the continuing race between Clinton and Obama, it will be interesting to see if either begins emphasizing poverty issues more now in an attempt to win over Edwards’ supporters. Equally interesting will be whether Edwards chooses to endorse one of his rivals. (If so, Obama seems the more likely option, since both Edwards and Obama have run agents of change and have opposed Clinton as representing politics as usual. But this election has been so turbulent that any prediction is dangerous.)
Both Clinton and Obama have some claim on Edwards voters. There is an anti-establishment, anti-Clinton sentiment among some Democrats that suggests an affinity between the Obama and Edwards camps. On the other hand, many of Clinton’s supporters are diehard, partisan Democrats, and Clinton may hold more of an appeal for those individuals.
Another very real possibility is that this breaks down in different ways in different states.
What is certain is that, in a very close Clinton-Obama fight, both campaigns now have to refocus their strategies to win over Edwards’ supporters. Obama has had a good few days, with his resounding win in South Carolina and the endorsement of Sen. Edward Kennedy. But if the polls are correct, he still needs to change the campaign’s dynamic over the next few days to win some of the biggest Feb. 5 states.
Given that, Edwards’ departure puts an enormous emphasis on Thursday’s Democratic debate, which will now be only between Clinton and Obama, and stands out as the best chance of the two candidates to impress voters before Tuesday’s crucial contests in 22 states.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Well, it's happened again. My particular favorite candie has dropped out due to front loaded primaries before I ever had a chance to vote for him.
Some 'democracy' we have going here.
This is not a 'system' we have here by any stretch of the imagination. It's just one big cluster %$#&, with a circle %*&# going on on the side.
This is why we need a national primary day.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 30, 2008 12:27 PM
Why didn't his campaign catch on? Cuz big media IGNORED his contributions of policy platforms to the rock star candidates whose throwns you sniffed.
please! I plan to contribute what I would have given to Edwards to helping save Dennis Kucinich from the wolves going after his senate seat.
Posted by: ann nemo | January 30, 2008 12:40 PM
Why didn't his campaign catch on? Cuz big media IGNORED his contributions of policy platforms to the rock star candidates whose throwns you sniffed.
please! I plan to contribute what I would have given to Edwards to helping save Dennis Kucinich from the wolves going after his senate seat. Deal with Rezko, Obama--deal with it NOW.
Posted by: ann nemo | January 30, 2008 12:44 PM
OBAMA/EDWARDS 2008 GO!
Posted by: Lamartrotti | January 30, 2008 12:46 PM
Edwards was more honest than anyone, at least be believed in what he preached. Obama would come in 2nd in that category but Clinton and the rest are soulless.
Posted by: John Boom | January 30, 2008 12:55 PM
"AND THE SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHA'S DREAM OF CHANGE CONTINUES"
THE SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHERS FROM THE SOUTH STUCK IT TO JOHN JOHN. THE SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHERS FROM THE SOUTH FEEL THE "CHANGE" IN THE AIR.
THE SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHERS MADE SURE A GUY WHO CAN PAY $400.00 FOR A NEW DEW ISN'T IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
IF ONLY THE SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHERS WOULD SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY WITH THE PROPER IDENTIFICATION TO MAKE THAT VOTE COUNT INSTEAD OF THAT SAGGY BOTTOM BROTHERS VOICE.
BECAUSE TALK IS CHEAP!
NEXT.
Posted by: Roger Morris | January 30, 2008 1:08 PM
I am very saddened at the news - of John Edwards withdrawning for the race - I believe he was our only hope at making America the honest country I believe we were once - both Hillary and Obama - are the same old thing - politicians that say one thing and do another - right now there is no hope for us - we will lose the greatness of America - I am very very saddened by the news
Posted by: Sandra Dix | January 30, 2008 1:08 PM
John Edwards' withdrawal from the Dem campaign is sad. The 2 Dem frontrunners now are a shining example of big money & big politicians vying to create yet another big mess for this country. John Edwards' message made sense. I only wish he had the money and momentum to hang on until super Tuesday.
Posted by: Karen Johnson | January 30, 2008 1:58 PM
One additional question/comment: Wasn't the Illinois primary moved up specifically so we could have more influence on who gets to be the candidate?!!?
Yeah, some "influence." What a joke. The local county clerks had to twist themselves into pretzels to finalize/print the ballots in time, the state board of elections had to move up campaign disclosure deadlines, and for what? So we could once again choose between "the lesser of two evils," candidates who don't reflect my views and wishes for this country. Only now we get to go out in even crappier weather to vote! The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Grrrr...
Posted by: iconoclast59 | January 30, 2008 2:02 PM
Edwards is a classy guy, and he definitely has a reason for pulling out of the race now, instead of after Super Tuesday. I believe John Edwards has the welfare of the Democratic party at heart. Like many core Democrats, he has been disgusted by Clinton tactics and understands that it is time for that dynasty to come to an end. His exit speech contained several reverences to 'the hour apon us' to change, and to transformation of the democratic party, and to a government of unity. I bet toward the weekend he, with several other top democrats, maybe Bill Richardson and Jimmy Carter, will join together to endorse Barack Obama.
Posted by: katharine | January 30, 2008 2:03 PM
The guy can't even win in his two home states!!! He's a phony....
Posted by: Stewart | January 30, 2008 2:11 PM
Charisma, charm, smile, facial expression, dynamic range, hip, youth, news darlingness, and a heavy dose of vague are the presidential qualities of today.... and while I'm at it, I should also predict that soon, some American Idol type producer will ask for the 35min age to be dropped to 18.
Posted by: Dos Centavos | January 30, 2008 2:14 PM
I read a lot of disappointment in the comments above. And if you were an Edwards fan then it's natural that you are unhappy. But the visceral slanders and all-caps shouting are unwarranted. Any of these (Democratic) candidates will make great Presidents. The system works, as long as people like Rove and those representing corporate greed don't mess with it too much.
I am still getting over Kerry, but with due respect to Hilary, I think Obama has what Kerry didn't, a vision. Let's settle down a bit and think about what is good for the country, not just how we much we hurt because our choice fell out of the race.
The system works. If we did go to a nationwide primary as C. Morris suggests, the next protest would be, why do we even need a primary, let's just have the election. Primaries serve a purpose. For all their faults, they help us to sift through the candidates. That's why Edwards didn't make it. He will have a place in a Democratic administration.
Posted by: Ullman | January 30, 2008 2:18 PM
Scratch one populist - gone the way of Julius Caesar (also killed by fellow Senators). Maybe he can get his old hedge fund gig back after he talks about the poor folk in New Orleans - just in time for Mardi Gras too.
Ann - Denny K. is a congressman, not a senator. He has spent plenty of time stewing in Congress and campaigning for President, and arguably little for his district in Cleveland. Don't worry though, these are neighbors of the constituents who elected Jim Traficant time and again.
Posted by: Wayne Miller | January 30, 2008 2:19 PM
You Swamp censors are truly priceless. We'll try this again.
Mr. Bendavid wonders why Edwards didn't catch on. Outside of the fact he was up against a former First Lady and the first real black candidate for president, Edwards spoke of putting one group of people against another, something MOST Americans don't share and, of course, the media and Loons on the Left don't get.
Most Americans do not hate Wal Mart. Most Americans do not hate the drug companies, they do not hate the food companies, they do not hate the insurance oompanies, the banks, the investment companies, the food companies, etc. Most Americans do not believe in pitting the rich against the poor. And that is what John Edwards did. Now, most Americans do not like two-bit trial lawyers like Edwards.
And, John Boom, Edwards practiced what he believed in? Tell that to the folks his hedge funds were evicting. Tell that to his neighbors, who don't live in 30,000-square-foot house that costs $10 million. JOhn Edwards never practiced what he preached. And that is why the Breck Girl never got any traction.
Posted by: John D | January 30, 2008 2:27 PM
I'm glad to see John Edwards bow out before Super Tuesday. It gives the leading candidates a better chance to simply go toe-to-toe. Don't worry too much about John, though. He'll be WAY better off than most of us.
Posted by: Obama-man | January 30, 2008 2:28 PM
I was thinking Barack, then lately Edwards was pulling in my vote shame he could not have held on he might have had a chance, well back to Barack because anything is better than Clinton. Hopefully its a Barack Obama / John Edwards ticket in November 2008.
Posted by: Bryan | January 30, 2008 2:53 PM
Message to ann nemo: Dennis Kucinich is not a senator. He is the U. S. Representative from the 10th District of Ohio.
Posted by: Ron Samuels | January 30, 2008 2:54 PM
Edwards was really never given a chance as media attention turned to Clinton and Obama. I really wish we got to hear more from him because I think he had some good ideas and spoke for a part of the population that is being forced to being swept up by the Clinton/Obama blitz. I hope he goes on and endorses Obama and perhaps becomes his running mate. At least he was able to stay out of this childish fued going on between Clinton and Obama ... it makes me wonder if being a Democrat is any good ... Likely, I would have given a vote to Nader again if he was running. Both Clinton and Obama seem to like to chide eachother more than running an efficient campaign ... Edwards may in fact be the better candidate.
Posted by: jeff | January 30, 2008 2:54 PM
as a edwards supporter i will now support clinton. the endorsement of ted kennedy drove me away from obama.kennedy is one of the worst senators and a discrace to the us
Posted by: GEJ | January 30, 2008 3:06 PM
Please people get over it. John Edwards just did not have the pull and personality to catch the public's eye. He seems like the good old boy next door but in politic's they are usually the ones stepped on. I think that if Obama or Clinton take him as a Vice President he is just as good as if he were President. His points will still be heard and he will still have an influence over the decision's that the President makes. He will be verbal and speak his mind and possible get what he wants from time to time. Who ever gets in office will not have complete control over any decision they make because the House and Senate have to approve it. So none of them can promise to do everything they want because it is not just up to them.
Posted by: Temeca | January 30, 2008 3:15 PM
The wrong guy quit. Bottomline, the spirit is willing but the pocket is empty while Obama get a largesse from Kennnedy mystique and the Kerry's loot for last Presidential fund unspent. He did not share it to the Edwards and the loser kept it for 4 more years. I like Edwards than Obama because of his dedication and action. Obama is all talk and rhetorics and pure ambition and inspiration but no concrete action. On the other one, Hillary is divisive or polarized but Obama is childish.
Posted by: Edwin G | January 30, 2008 3:15 PM
No great loss!
Posted by: Mark | January 30, 2008 3:19 PM
How sad that the media now determines our next President. It's sad to see the best candidate go before I ever even had a chance to vote for him. I'd vote for McCain before I'd ever vote for Heckle Obama or Jeckle Clinton. At the very least, he's a candidate with substance!
The Clintons and the Bushs have been involved in the way this country runs since Reagan's administration! I've had enough of them! Obama is a caricature, Does he really have anything behind the smooth talk?
Nope, I guess I'll vote Republican this year. The lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Duke | January 30, 2008 3:20 PM
Edwards may have withdrawn in the hope of getting invited as Hillary's or Obama's running mate. But the media is definitely to be blamed for his failed campaign. Hillary's and Obama's glamor sidetracked Edwards
Posted by: whatthe | January 30, 2008 3:23 PM
I am glad that I did not cast my vote early...now it will count!
Posted by: C.P. | January 30, 2008 3:28 PM
John Edwards is a very honorable man and I do hope he serves as a V.P. Although, my support from the beginning as been with Obama. His remarks about Edwards were very classy as always.
I have always considered myself a Democrat but I will not support Hillary if she is the candidate. I am a woman and I do not vote only on the basis of race, gender or party lines. I want change. TRUE CHANGE! I'm done with the Bush/Clinton dynasty.
Obama has my full support!
Posted by: Erin | January 30, 2008 3:31 PM
I'm still ticked that Tommy Thompson dropped out in August 2007. Of all the the buffoons running, you'd think a 14 year governor and director of Health and Human Services of 4 years would merit at least a looksie. DON'T follow what the East and Left Coast want you to do, follow your convictions instead. Peaceful, voter inspired revolt is coming.
Posted by: Tom | January 30, 2008 3:34 PM
This is so sad...if he were to win the primary, I totally would have considered voting for him even though I'm more conservative than liberal. I hope the other candidates consider his views when they debate and campaign for the presidency-he's fairly intelligent and comes off as being a great guy.
Posted by: Mary | January 30, 2008 3:55 PM
Gore won his last 2004 Presidential Context but lost by default to the wishy, trickery and cunning Bush, John Edwards would then be a Vice President. In that case it would be unlikely for Hiliary Clinton to join in this election. He would make an excellent Vice-President. I hope now I feel very strongly he will now endorse Barrack who will without doubt assist Edward for his Senator's seat.
Posted by: Philip Lau | January 30, 2008 3:57 PM
The results of Florida's primary, a state that is a good mirror of the United States in terms of its diversity of young, old, conservatives, moderates and liberals, indicates that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Sen. Edwards should remain neutral, and push for party platform reforms at the convention instead of endorsements to Obama who is unlikely to win the nomination. Mrs. Clinton would be most wise to select Sen. Edwards either as Vice President or as Attorney General or Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Stevens when he retires. Given the inexperience of Sen. Obama, gauzy hope will not go very far in convincing the Congress and the Federal bureaucracy, the true centers of change in government. The steely experience of Mrs. Clinton and the advice of her husband and a Vice President like John Edwards could be a powerful combination for the execution of change.
Posted by: Christopher Hahin | January 30, 2008 4:09 PM
I voted for John Edwards in our early voting polls. No vote is a "waste" as some people have said.
What a sad day for our Democratic party when the remaining candidates are both corporate politicians who have yet to talk about real Progressive reform in a nation so completely controlled by corporate interests.
God help us now.
Posted by: Mary Margaret | January 30, 2008 4:45 PM
I would have voted for John Edwards this coming Tuesday. I felt he was our best bet for a chance for decency and candor. I will vote for Hillary but only as a second choice.
If JE had been more upbeat and made crazy, empty promises like Obama he would be leading the pack. But, we cant handle the truth!
Posted by: Richard | January 30, 2008 5:02 PM
John Edwards will not be long gone from the next administration. Edwards will probably negotiate himself a VP or cabinet spot with whomever the next Democratic presidential candidate will be. For now, he'll probably speak to both Obama and Clinton to feel the waters and see what "offer" is on the table" - maybe Secretary of Commerce or Attorney General, if not VP.
Posted by: the truth | January 30, 2008 5:12 PM
Sorry to see him go. He was the only candidate that stayed positive. Already today, Senator Barak "I've tried to run a positive campaign" Obama is throwing more negative darts at Senator Clinton. Of course, if she fires back, CNN will blame her for it.
Posted by: terry fisher | January 30, 2008 5:38 PM
My dad lives in a van down by the mill! My hair is simply Kennedyesque! I care about the poor so much I want to give them your money!
Posted by: johnny e | January 30, 2008 5:40 PM
A national campaign is not the answer. In fact, this would guarantee that only established, well-moneyed candidates with the resources to buy TV and radio in all 50 states would even have a chance from Day 1. The current system, while it may place undue weight on a few states, at least allows an unknown to make an impression on voters and then receive some attention nationally if they do well in these states.
I hope that Edwards endorses Obama, and that Obama gives him a place in the administration where he can continue to fight for his worthy causes.
Posted by: Tom | January 30, 2008 5:44 PM
How can Edwards garner a cabinet position in a Clinton administration when she has no chance of winning the general election?!? Get real people, she is too divisive to win a general election.
And I'm a lifelong Dem who is saying this... and I probably won't support HRC should she win the nomination; she is basically just "Bush-Lite" and will only further hurt our image around the world (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... doesn't sound much like a democracy to me).
Posted by: Anybody But Hilary Voter | January 30, 2008 5:46 PM
John Edwards will be back. As a supporter, I encourage John to endorse Senator Obama. John will be back, and we will still be here to support him. Obama/Edwards in 08!
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | January 30, 2008 5:54 PM
This thoughtful commentary from the Israeli media is important in light of the Clintons' racial coding against Obama ...
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
30/01/2008
Obama and the Jewish question
By Haaretz Editorial
Not a year has passed since Danny Ayalon completed his term as Israel's ambassador in Washington, but he has already seen fit to criticize Barack Obama, who may well be the next U.S. president or vice president. In an article published in The Jerusalem Post, Ayalon wrote that during his two meetings with Obama, he got the impression that the Democratic candidate was "not entirely forthright" regarding Israel. Similar and even worse smears can be found in abundance in American blogs and e-mail chain letters.
While Obama was taking advantage of Martin Luther King Day to speak out against anti-Semitism among blacks, Jewish spokesmen were using racist language against him, solely because his father was Muslim. Since it is hard to find so much as a single anti-Jewish statement in Obama's political record, or even support for anti-Israel policies, his defamers base their arguments on the fact that his positions on the Middle East conflict are "leftist" - solely because he rejects the right's positions, which are more acceptable to some Jewish-American leaders.
Obama, Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain have very similar views on the Middle East, and their Senate votes confirm this. ...
The U.S. elections are important to Israel because of the two countries' special relationship and America's support for Israel, whose value cannot be overstated. There is a major contradiction between this fact and a smear campaign against a candidate with a Muslim name, which risks causing many Americans, and especially blacks, to feel alienated from Israel and Jews. Obama is sensitive to Israel's security needs, and he proved this through his Senate votes, his visit to northern Israel during the Second Lebanon War, and his unequivocal statements against both Hezbollah, which violated Israel's sovereignty in the North, and Hamas, which violated Israel's sovereignty in the South.
Obama does not support the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, but believes that the need to solve the refugee problem must be recognized. He supports Israel as the state of the Jews, and does not accept the view, which has struck roots in the global left, that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. He speaks out openly on these issues, as he does about the threat to Israel posed by Iran's nuclear program, and he did so even before becoming a presidential candidate.
Racist attacks against a black American candidate could cause Israel and American Jews a great deal of damage - not to mention shame and disgrace. Obama has been forced to defend himself over things such as nonexistent ties with elements hostile to Israel, an appearance at an event at which Edward Said spoke, and praying at one church rather than another.
Great damage has already been caused because Obama announced that an ugly campaign was being waged against him in the Jewish community. That alone ought to be enough at least to make Israel's leaders say something about Jews who preach against anti-Semitism while employing similar tactics against other minorities.
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=949364
Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | January 30, 2008 6:49 PM
I'm disappointed that my candidate, John Edwards, has dropped out of the presidential race. I truly believe he was the most *electable* candidate in the Democratic field.
For those of you who have jumped on the Obama bandwagon or support Hillary because of nostalgia for the great Bill Clinton years, you're going to have a rude awakening. It's a long road to the White House and it's still anybody's guess who will win.
I already voted for John Edwards via my mail-in ballot. My vote will be counted on Super Tuesday in California. And I will once again vote for Edwards again on November 4th -- as a write-in candidate.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 30, 2008 7:41 PM
And shame, shame, shame on the American media for making the Democratic race into a two-person popularity contest between Obama and Hillary.
You're the same idiots who gave George W. Bush a free pass in the dark years following 9-11.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 30, 2008 7:44 PM
What a bunch of whinners!!! Edwards gave a great concession speech that you should all listen to and stop crying like spoiled children.
Posted by: Reality | January 30, 2008 8:42 PM
Edwards is not the saint some of you make him out to be.
We can't get obstetricians in the Western part of NC, because of the ridiculous amounts that sued for when Edwards was "championing for the poor." Hope the woman that can't get a doctor is glad for him while he sits in his 25,000 sq.ft. house.
Posted by: M K | January 30, 2008 8:44 PM
I very much wanted the opportunity to vote for John Edwards. My state does not care to be relevant. It is time for a combined third party ticket. Bloomberg/Gore or Gore/Bloomberg? Paul/Gore or Gore/Paul? Too bad the media has ADD. They won't pay attention or give credence unless it spins, cries foul, or stomps it's feet. Blasted media.
Posted by: Vivian | January 30, 2008 9:04 PM
Edwards was a nobody. Who is going to rally behind a guy who says he understands the poor. He's very rich, and lives lavishly. The pretty-boy got the boot, from Hillary, who prolly called him and said, "You're out junior. This game is for the Professionals, not a whiney Pretty-boy with no clue, and no powerful connections". He'll be lucky if she hires him to Valet cars at the White House. That is, if McCain/Romney don't beat out her Lez Butt.
Posted by: Oscar | January 30, 2008 9:40 PM
Barack Obama is not running on pure ambition, he is not childish, he is not a politician for the rich and powerful. Barack Obama is probably the smartest and wisest person still in the race for President of the United States. He knows the Constitution of the United States probably better than any other candidate still running. He taught it as a teacher at the University of Chicago. Sure he went to Harvard and Columbia, but he chose to serve his community and enter public life. He could have an easier time, and a more lucrative time, as a corporate lawyer. But he loves America too much and I am proud to be a delegate for him from the state of Iowa. Is everyone fired up and ready to go? Let's get the President America deserves elected! Vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States this November!
Posted by: Jeffrey Webb | January 30, 2008 9:54 PM