Let me preface this by saying that I am a white-female college graduate in California. The type of voter that I keep hearing is going to Obama.

I originally had an open mind and was excited about the top three Democratic candidates. I thought they were all fantastic and it was a feast of riches. Although I thought Obama gave inspiring speeches, I eliminated Obama due to what I preceived as his lack of experience. Rhetoric is great but where's the substance? So my choice was narrowed down between Hillary and Edwards. I liked Edwards fiery spirit and agreed with his call-to-arms against the greedy corporations. I ultimately decided on Hillary because I thought she had the most experience and could do the best job.

I think that there is alot of people out there like me. I'm mystified why the press is beating this drum that the Edwards votes will go to Obama.

John Edwards impresses me. His work for social justice is right on target, he just was up against two celebrity candidates, but I don't think he is done just yet. Why drop out a week before Super Tuesday when he said three days ago that he would take it through Feb 5th? There has to be a strategy here, it has to do with Obama. I think he is going to come out of Obama's corner swinging within the week. Very exciting!

Since when did sleeping with a governor/president then being a Senator for, what was it maybe 1 year longer then Obama Make Hillary a "more qualified" candidate? She stands for the same corporations that you claim to be excited about in Edward's now defunct campaign.

Let me also say I, in no way, endorse Obama. And I will not vote for him or Hilliray. But take some time to think for yourself, read for yourself and realize everything you are saying is complete media propaganda. People are more concerned with "fiery attitudes" and anything else to distract from a candidates actual policies.

Hillary has loads of experience of eating crow. Let’s start with that “vast right wind conspiracy”. What about her bully position on Iraq?
Hillary (and Edwards) are more of the same old partisan crap. I hope that Obama is just using the party to achieve his ends then he tells everyone to go to Hell and does things his way because the way we have been going is pretty shoddy.
And I’m not just talking Bush. Want to export jobs? Well, thank Bill for expanding the roll of the Ex-Im Bank. Want to privatize the military? Bill and Al’s Reinventing Government relied heavily on the likes of KBR, Halliburton and brought Blackwater into the world.
As for Bush, he had one of the most experienced administrations in history – especially in military and foreign affairs. What did that get us?
Apparently all these people had “experience”. All the wrong experience if you ask me.

To 'Jes' in California,

Lemme preface this by saying that I originally had hoped that Dennis Kucinich could have a real chance, but went to Edwards early as a candidate that might have a prayer against the Corporatocracy and Main Stream Media sound [and video] machine. I left the Edwards campaign bandwagon briefly, over his old vote on the original bankruptcy reform legislation and because his staff would not initially respond to that question. I came back though and stayed until today.

I WILL support whoever is ultimately the Democratic nominee.

But, I am curious at your dismay about the SPECULATION that Edwards, who has NOT committed to endorse ANY candidate at this writing, might endorse Obama rather than Clinton.

Here is my perspective, for your consideration:

1) As for 'experience', George Bush had plenty of 'experience' and look what that got us!

2) Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton???? Do you REALLY want the Office of the Presidency to be a family affair; a dynasty to be shared by only two families? Truman was the President when I was born. I may be old, but I prefer CHANGE, and YES, even for the sake of 'change', perhaps.

3) With Hillary we know precisely what we are getting ... and much of it is distasteful and bad for the majority; bad for the American middle-class and lower incomes. Chairperson for Wal-Mart, for instance, campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch, for instance. An advocate of 'Free-Trade' over 'Fair-Trade', for instance. And someone who when pressed about her and ex-President's NAFTA-CAFTA-Anti-American-Labor stances, waffled becuase with her finger in the air, she could feel the breeze changing directions, thanks in large part to John Edwards. No question in my mind that Hillary is Republican-Lite, and a friend of the Corporatocracy. A kept woman.

4) It is said that familiarity breeds contempt. We are all too familiar with Ms. Clinton, and for many of us, the UNKNOWNS you mention about Obama are preferable - by far.

5) Back in the 60s, as a 5th grader, I got into a playground tussle with a 6th grader over the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Even as a young kid I was willing to resort to literally fighting for what JFK represented, instilled, and inspired. JFK's daughter has endorsed Barack Obama this week. That's good enough for this baby-boomer ... that's good enough for me.

Sure, Hillary's husband once shook JFK's hand, but with Caroline, it's in the DNA ... and I suspect you will discover MANY boomers will ultimately feel the same way. JFK left something imprinted upon our very souls. Even if I had been on-the-fence about the remaining two front runners ... Caroline Kennedy's endorsement would be enough to seal-the-deal for me. Hell, I'd vote for her if she ran, so it has nothing to do with gender or race, Jes.

The question white people need to ask themselves about "The Great White Hope" (oh, he gives me Hope!) is, "If Barack Obama were a white guy, would you still vote for him?" If not, you're a racist.

We should judge people on the "content of their character and not the color of their skin", as another black guy once said. Barack has no character ("but looks good in a suit!-like a businessman!")

The ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS...

It's the Corporatism, stupid.

I find it interesting that people some of the other commentators don't agree with my vote for Hillary and seem to think there's a flaw in my logic.

I don't want to respond to all comments, but will address a couple.

1. Why in the world would you base your vote on whom the Kennedys' endorse? What makes their decision smarter or better than one you come to by and for yourself? I always liked the Kennedy's, but I can think for myself and am not influenced by anyone else's endorsement of any candidate. What makes you think that they don't have an ulterior motive for endorsing Obama? Maybe power and influence? I could care less who endorses whom in this race.

But there is an issue that goes with the Kennedy endoresment. How can Obama supporters say that they are for "change" from old Washington and then carry on about the Kennedy "old-politics" endoresment, which has been a political dynasty for decades if there ever was one. In other words, if you're against political dynasty's, how do you justfiy being so reverential towards the Kennedy dynansty?

2. Although I liked Edward's rhetoric against corporations, and agreed with it, I believe that talk is cheap. It's action that counts and that's where Hillary has a record of delivering. If you've done any research on Edward's senate career, you will find that it's rather mediocre.

Do I have some problems with Hillary? Yes, of course. I'm not blind to her faults or issues. Just as I'm not blind to the faults and issues with the other candidates. But I've weighed all those and have come to a decision about whom I will support.

To JES
The polls I've seen say white college educated women were leaning towards Clinton, but I could be wrong.
On the experience issue: Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas before becoming president. In what way did that prepare him any better than the experience of Obama?
Just wondering.
Anything else I might write has been said better than I could by "BloggerRadio"

I'm not voting for Clinton. She gives me the 'willies'. Still, Jes makes a good point: you can't lambaste family political dynasties in one breath and advocate their meaningfulness in another. Just isn't a truthful approach.
I am deeply disappointed that Edwards backed out. I am convinced that he had the strength of conviction, the courage and [sorry, Jes, you're wrong on this one] THE IDEAS to make positive change in this country. I seriously have my doubts about the other two.
Some have argued that it was in the best interest of the MSM to give Obama and Hillary more air time. I think this is likely true. Edwards would have been a far tougher Dem to run against than the others. Very sad.

First I supported Kucinich. He clearly advocated the things I want, such as a single payer health plan, and immediate end to war. He said he was going to keep up the fight. But he dropped out early.

Then I supported Edwards. He promised to take on the Corporatocracy. His stimulus plan featured was the best of the lot, it included real government investment in the future, not just more tax cuts. He said he was going to stay in the fight. I sent him another contribution not long before he dropped out.

Now we're stuck with the two candidates I liked least. Neither one even looks progressive. They're the two sell-out candidates backed by corporations and Wall Street.

But of the two, it's Obama who is worse. He's the one who says "the era of partisanship is over." That's a way to concede before the fight has even begun. And he says the era of racism is over. Huh? He has brought back old triangulating Carter-era advisors like Zbignew Brezhinsky, architect of the Afghanistan-USSR war, who is more responsible for the rise of extremist Islam than anyone else. He was the one who backed (and virtually created) the Mujahadeen, much to the disaster of all.

We need someone who is committed to fighting for us, not caving in. It's not clear how much Hillary will be fighting for us. But at least she will be fighting. Her stimulus plan was a few notches better than Obama's, according to Paul Krugman. Her latest healthcare plan was a notch better than Obama's. And she doesn't blithly talk about bombing Pakistan like Obama.

Unfortunately, it's a tough world in a tough country and Republicans don't just roll over if you gently ask them to.

There's a long tradition in American politics of governors going on to be president - and it makes sense. Only governors have the kind of hands-on executive experience the president needs. But to the point at hand, John Edwards was the only one of the three leading candidates I would have enthusiastically supported - even knowing full well that a "populist" has about as much chance of winning over the electorate as an atheist would. The people don't cotton to someone who vows to unabashedly fight for them. I don't get it, but it's the way it happens to be. As I see it, Obama is a tad more "Republican Lite" than Clinton. Yes, I want change - but I want that change to be...a real, honest to God Democrat in the White House. For a change.

I would like all the people out there who believe they are progressives ... to please shut up for at least 48 hours?
As a passionate Edwards supporter, I feel intensely sad and angry right now, and all this S@#T from the Obama and Hillary camps about whom he will endorse comes across like VULTURES.
It is insensitive to those of us so feel a great sense of loss, that the country has just lost a great rudder to the left.
So, could you please have a little respect for your fellow progressives?

I decided last summer to back John Edwards and since I live in Illinois I helped out with the campaign many times in Iowa. His plan for America was really inspiring to me and I believe we need a president who will push back against the big money that has taken over Washington. I am very sad that he has pulled out and sad that he never got the coverage by the MSM. I will vote for one of the other candidates because Obama and/or Clinton are much better than having another destructive Republithug in that office but we have lost an exceptional candidate who really was fighting for the middle class and the poor! I hope his message continues within the ranks of progressives across the nation and by the remaining candidates. The changes he talked about must happen if we want a stronger country that includes everyone one of us. To Mr. Edwards, you stood up for us and I am sure you will continue to stand up for us and for that THANK YOU!

During the early Democratic debates, when Dennis Kucinich said that our health care crisis is rooted in the for-profit system and that must be changed, I stood up and took notice! When he bowed out I went with Edwards because he spoke out against the "corporatocracy" which I thought was right on the money.

And then there were two: Clinton & Obama. I agree with you Bloggerradio - Hillary has way too much corporate baggage. Michael Moore said Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had (because of NAFTA -CAFTA) and Hillary will keep it all in the family. I can't even begin to consider McCain or Romney (war forever). I want to see an end to war in Iraq and Obama says he will do that. His health care plan is better than anything I've heard from McCain or Romney. Those who say Obama is an unknown, doesn't have enough experience, bought an expensive house with questionable book money, has funny eyes and tilts his head wrong, I ask you this: Which of the four candidates left would you prefer in the bully pulpit?

Folks,
As a true Progressive and working for Edwards it was with a sad heart that I heard that he withdrew. I was shocked, felt empty, and when we Progressives will ever get a candidate out there that will make real change?

After my initial shock it occured to me that the White House maybe out of reach for us again. Do you know why?
1) Polls show that if Hillary is who the Dems go with and she is up against McCain- the Dems will lose the election and the Religious Right, and the Neocons, who hate the Clinton's, will come together with the rest of the Repubs and we will have 4 more years of Repubs in power. Does anyone know of a deserted island I can move to?
2) Obama might make it and might not. Right now he is my choice when I go into the caucus in Colorado on the 5th. Not an Edwards, but I have heard that in Denver today he is starting to speak about the poor. Do I trust that he will change things like John would have? No; and probably not as quickly. Will he win in White America? It remains to be seen.
One thing I know is that I will not support Hillary and I am a White College Educated Women over 50. She is way too corporate, I don't trust her and Bill to run our government anymore and it is time for new blood in the White House and clear the stench from it.

Also, what we as Americans need to do is push for public financing of elections so that the winner of the contest is not the corporation that put up the most money but the American people.

I hope John's influence remains and I hope he becomes the V.P and will accept it again. One thing I do hope is that he didn't pull out because Elizabeth's Cancer has gotten worse. I will hope for them both that she is really is doing fine.

Ultimately, I will support whoever wins the nomination. My top priority, over any individual candidate, is to get a Democratic president in the White House before the Republicans totally destroy this country.

I've been reading quite a few blogs over the last few days and it just seems like people are losing sight of that goal. I'm just amazed at the amount of pettiness and vile spewing about the Democratic candidates by some of the bloggers. You'd think they'd been written by Rupublican hit jobs. I think the media is respsonbile to a large extent and are manipulating the viewers.

I'm not entirely sure where to begin, but I'll start by asking a few questions to everyone who's posted as being an Edward's supporter and also labeled themselves "progressives".

What about John Edwards makes him progressive? Is it simply rhetoric?

Have any of you who are "progressives" bothered to research Edwards at all? What he invests in, who he's worked for, where he keeps his sizable fortune, what he did in the Senate, etc?

Was Edwards a progressive candidate when he was on the Kerry ticket?

That's all I want to know. I got on mj today expecting all the "progressives" to be saying good riddance to bad rubbish, but much to shock not one person has said any such thing.

Jonus--you've been reading too many Republican/Clinton/Obama talking points on Edwards.

For an example of the latter, see:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/dropping-oppo.html

Nobody questioned Bobby Kennedy's advocacy for the disenfranchized on the grounds that he had money. Or is it just okay when you wealth is inherited?

The MSM DID shut out coverage, not only of Edwards, but Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel. What I want to know, is what happened that organized labor split its support? What happened to the "I'll be in all fifty states" promise of John Edwards after NH? Why not stay until Super Tuesday, much less for the whole race? The same goes for Richardson, who might have run stronger in the vote-rich West. Or were both men tired of not coming in first? Not wanting to hear how they're perennial losers? Richardson dropped out the day after NH with money problems, but Edwards kept on competing and said he had enough to make it through the race. One has to wonder if his announcement means he heeded the pundits of that same media who failed to provide a level playing field, when they said over and over that it was time for him to drop out. We may never know for sure and the speculation will soon give way back to the horse race and the scrapping and name calling between the anointed front runners.

What I fear is that the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, enabling a McCain or Romney win in November. No, no candidate is without flaws, but for those who say there was no difference between the parties, between Gore and Bush, I say: the Patriot Act, the elimination of habias corpus and telecom immunity, Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, weakening of environmental laws, the SCHIP veto, the threatened veto on the union card-check law, Roberts and Alito. And the list could go on.

Jonus, rather than put Edward's supporters on the spot to prove his right to be identified as a progressive, why don't you instead articulate why he is not? Perhaps your definition of progressive is so narrow that only a few can squeak through. I think in the recent political climate, someone caring about a future without poverty and with options for sustaining human health is pretty progressive, as in, 'That's progress.'

Jonus,

John Edwards past political and economic life may not have been what one might say is Progressive. But,then John might have "seen the light", had a "calling" "awakening" whatever you want to phrase it. John Edwards truly was working to bring the 2 America's together and ending poverty. He spoke from the heart and physically worked for that change. Maybe John went back to his roots and felt this time he could make a difference. Whatever the case. Yes, Jonus, John Edwards is a Progressive.

I am sorry Edwards dropped out, just as I was even more sorry when Kucinich did earlier.
Kucinich represented what I really wanted to see in government, and to a slightly lesser degree Edwards did too.
Neither really had a chance because the media manipulated coverage to kill their chances.

That leaves Hillary and Obama.

Hillary has done a good job for her constituents.

If you remember, Hillary tried to have national healthcare enacted in 1994 which was rejected by the Repugnicans and is probably the main reason for their hatred of her, but in 1997 she was instrumental in establishing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on healthcare in the 1992 election.

Read about the 1992 healthcare plan spearheaded by Hillary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

Hillary's current healthcare plan has a provision for a choice of single payer government healthcare similar to medicare for those smart enough to want to eliminate private insurance companies dictating what healthcare they can have as well as choices for private for-profit insurance companies for those who are afraid of "socialized medicine". I think Hillary's plan is superior to Obama's.
I have Medicare, chose Original Medicare (government run not run by for-profit insurance companies) and find it fully acceptable except for the drug plan scam enacted by the Repugnicans to gift the insurance companies and big pharma. Hopefully whichever Democrat wins the presidency and with enough of a Democratic majority elected to Congress, that will be fixed. Both Obama and Hillary promise that.

The bottom line is that either Obama or Hillary will be far better than McCain or any of the other Bush acolytes that the Repugnicans are offering. If you liked the last 7 years and want more of the same, vote Repugnican.
I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

Consider that the next president will likely get to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court. We know what the Repugnicans will appoint.
That is probably the best reason to vote Democratic for the presidency and all other elected offices. One more "conservative" appointed to the court will affect the next generation and beyond with retrograde decisions wiping out all the social progress since Roosevelt, so think of that when you vote next year.

Our media is owned and controlled by six or seven mega-corporations, all politically very conservative because that is in their financial interests so don't necessarily believe what you see or hear about Hillary or Obama in the MSM. Investigate for yourselves.

BloggerRadio: one word: CHAPAQUITIC. Two words: DEAD GIRL.

Edwards gave the Democratic presidential campaign backbone? He was asking for *essentially* the same as all the others. Kucinich gave the Democratic presidential campaign backbone - where is his lament?

how can you speak about obamas lack of experience? he has a hell of a lot more experience than W did. all W knew how to do was execute people in Texas and take no advisers comments. i'll take obamas lack of experience anyday.

If you want a Republican in the WH in 2009 then please vote for the Clintons. As has been pointed out by so many people both in and out of the media, the once monolithic, lock-step GOP is currently (and properly so!) in complete disarray as a political party. Even blowhards like Rush Limbaugh are freaking out at the thought of a McCain nomination. However, it's crystal clear that there is absolutely NOTHING which will unite ALL Republicans quicker than a Hillary and Bill run for the coPresidency. Think about this and also recognize that the "experience" crown so touted by Hillary is laughable in the face of her unapologetic Republican-lite votes as a Senator. The Clintons are old, tired, divisive news and this former Edwards donor will now be sending money to Obama...

So no one can offer anything, other than to say trust me he's real?

My definition of a progressive is this: For the people. Not the corporations, not beauracrats, not big oil, or big anything. Someone who is on our side, someone who doesn't spout off about being for the poor and yet invests in companies that made vast sums of money off of "sub-prime" borrowers.

Progressive:

Non-hypocritical(most important)
Pro-Union
Pro-Universal Health care
Anti-drug war
Fare Trade not free trade
Anti-Pentagon

And personally, anyone, and you can argue this with me all you want, who claims to be a "progressive" shouldn't have an off-shore tax haven. Period.

I am saddened to see him go, I was planning on supporting him here tuesday- and I don't fell comfortable giving that support to either of the remaining front runners. If only Obama would ask him to share the ticket- I could support them together with confidence.

Well, Jonus, progress is hard won in a fairy tale world of absolutes such as you seem to believe in. Maybe while we wait for the perfect person to fit your highly articulated idealism, we should just concede the race to the republicans? THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANDIDATES! I know it's a hard pill to swallow...
Your list of progressive traits fit Edwards very nicely so you had to throw in the off-shore tax shelter to show how he isn't good enough for your high standards. That kind of thinking doesn't actually allow for much progress, it just invites us all to bicker about each other's imperfections.

Don't misread me, I'm not looking for a perfect canidate, I just absolutely LOATH hypocrisy. Its as simple as that.

I didn't throw the tax shelter in there to make him not good enough for me, it's exhibit A when it comes to Hypocrisy. Taxes collected from rich help the poor right? If he chooses to hide his sizable wealth from taxation how exactly can he claim to "be for the poor"?

No I don't believe we should concede a thing. He should unite and support the best possible candidate we have available. Simple as that. It just makes me sick when I see how little it takes to fool people.

You may be on to something Jonus, but to John Edwards' credit (and Dennis Kucinich's too), he sees/saw what is going on in this country and the gap that is ever-widening between the rich and the poor, and spoke to it. 4 years ago he announced his candidacy on The Daily Show; this time around in New Orleans. People can and do change their perspective. I was a Republican for the 1st 16 years of my voting age life; and have been a Democrat for the last 22. Many things (Reagan fueled) lead to those changes in my perspective. The last 4 years and what this administration has done to this country, no doubt has fueled the change in John Edwards’.

I don't disagree with your comment and take on the hypocrisy of his having/hiding a small fortune from hedge fund work, but do feel he deserves some respect for his positions and bringing what he brought to the table in this election cycle.

Thank you for actually responding to what I've asked as opposed to either ignoring me or resorting to petty personal attacks.

I will agree with you. People change, everyone is capable of it. I just doubted his sincerity.

Edwards did not withdraw, he suspended his name and will continue to stay on the ballot. Many Many Many of his supporters, including me, who have not had a chance to vote will still vote for him in the upcoming primary. I think the MSM will be surprised, its not just C & O that Edwards are looking at as an option. Personally I could never bring myself to vote for Obama, I did it once and what did it get me? A senator that doesn't do the job we hired him to, rather, he has made his senate career just a long campaign.

To all those who say Edwards wasn't progressive because of his past voting record in the Senate or because of the wealth he earned suing corporations for over 150 million dollars in jury verdicts for their criminal actions:
How about including all the evidence in making a determination and how about stopping with the nonsequiturs about what a progressive is.
People change and grow. You've got to include all the evidence: their past postions, their current plans, their future proposals, their actions, their associations, etc.
By any fair judgment of all of these John Edwards is a progressive. To discount him because he his voting was totally consistent with his changed views as a growing human being is belief bias. To discount him because he earned so much money as a talented lawyer who fought for---very successfully--average Americans is also belief bias. You don't like him for other reasons.

"The theory seems to be that so long as a man is a failure he is one of God's chillun, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil."

~ Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
U. S. Editor and Critic.

This Edwards supporter is still going to vote for Edwards as he is still the best candidate.

Edwards isn't old news, nor will he be a year or a decade from now. I'm not surprised MoJo would treat him and the issues so cavalierly.. they treated those very same issues in the same manner back in 2000 when they dismissed the very real threat, the Bush presidency, their hero Ralph Nader wanted to impose upon us, that "cold shower", Nader wanted rained down upon the most powerless.

I'm voting for John Edwards on 2/5, he is the only candidate who cares passionately about the issues that are the most important.

I can not imagine voting for either Clinton or Obama, both are corrupt corporate shills who have a recorded history of being on the take. My vote goes to the candidate who is committed to ending or renegotiating the bad trade deals, MFN with China, creating jobs with new alternative energy, and incentivizing the creation of manufacturing jobs in the US, for American citizens. Deincentivizing outsourcing, and getting us out of Iraq, plus much more.

Unlike the neo-cons and the neo-left, my vote isn't up for sale, nor is it given without thought and consideration.

edwards is a loser. he lost to cheney in the VP debate years ago. think how easily bill clinton would swept the floor with cheney and/or bush.

Remember that Edwards did well among white males with incomes over $100,000...an interesting point that could mean (perhaps wishful thinking on my part) that his anti-poverty message rings a bell with more people than many pundits think. Either that or there are a lot of lawyers in this country...

Ned, I'd suggest that it more likely means that there are a lot of white male democrats who'll vote for "one of their own", rather than a woman or a black man.

It would be a huge mistake to believe that bigotry is confined to the republican party.

First,I would like to say, I hope Elizabeth is doing good. Another thing that I believe is so important to so many people is universial health care, which John Edwards and Hillary Clinton also believe is so important to so many people. Also our economy is not good either. I really think Hillary is the best candidate we have to address and do something about. She will help the poor and the middle class people. She also very specific in how she will accomplish her goals for the american people. I am praying that John Edwards will endorse her. I feel a lot of what she wants to accomplish is a lot like John Edwards. We need a democratic candidate with experience to go up against a republican candidate with experience. I personally feel Obama will not do good in debates against McCain. Hillary has proven she can hold her own over the many past years and now.

Rich, that's a nice leap -- you're basically saying that white males simply stick to their own, that they put ethnicity and gender first, that the force of a candidate's argument and his convictions can't win out over blood, kin, etc. So rich white males are actually -- robots?