At least reportedly, he will drop out of the race today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

It will be very interesting to see if he endorses Obama or Clinton or neither.

And he was so cute.

Its too bad IMO that he has decided this, but alas the writing is on the wall. His populist message has been drowned out by Obamas and Hillarys messages to some extent, more from Obama. In fact if Obama was not running, I think he would have had much better results, but given that he could not even carry his home state of S. Carolina, he pretty well had to come to this conclusion. You can count on him supporting Barack. I would wager a million bucks on it. He too has been preaching the change message from day one....

In fact depending on who the Dem. nominee is, lets see if either Hillary or Barack wants him as V.P. choice, AND if he would take it. Time will tell......

It will be interesting to see where his votes go come Super Tuesday. One would think that if its about people wanting a change candidate they would go to Obama. But, Edwards and Clinton appeal to what have been called the Wal-Mart Democrats, so she will probably pick up a good deal of his backers. I think an Edwards VP choice would be smart because he's a southern candidate, and the Democrats have to think about that strategy with McCain's pull of Independents and a possible evangelical/bible beating VP choice for McCain. I've actually said that from the beginning that the Dems need a southern candidate to possibly flip some of those southern states. Then again, if the Dems can just get Ohio or Florida or one of those other states that made the 2004 election so close, they'd be ok too. So, a Clinton/Edwards ticket is a distinct possibility, and I'd be fine with that. I'll be fine with any Democratic ticket. Anything is better than what the Repubs offer. I think he, like Richardson, will not endorse anyone right now. I think he is going to wait until after Super Tuesday, and possibly even further down the line to put his backing behind someone, thinking of a possible VP request. But, ya never know.

I'm a little surprised that Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday but I'm thinking he did it for the good of the party. For one thing, it's smart to do it on the same day that Giuliani drops out and endorses McCain. You don't want to give Repugs the full day's news cycle, which would have happened.

I don't know that Edwards is a good choice for a running mate for either Hillary or Obama. I think you have to take a close look at the electoral map and ask where exactly would Edwards really help. I can't see a single state where he would make a difference. I think a smarter choice would be someone like Richardson who would give the Dems a great shot at winning New Mexico.

Hopefully Edwards didn't have to drop out because of his wife's health. I haven't seen Elizabeth much lately so I'm wondering how she's doing.

I think FSU hit it right on the head.

Four years ago, Edwards couldn't deliver his own state, let alone any other Southern state. There's no reason to think he could do so now. Richardson has immediate credibility, and would be helpful in Western states like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, all of which have large Latin populations. I think all those states were somewhat competitive in the 2004 election, and seem to have trended more Democratic since then, so Richardson could have a very significant impact.

I've also noticed that Elizabeth Edwards has been less visible lately, and had the same concern about her health.

I had intended to vote for Edwards before the media totally marginalized him. I now will vote unenthusiastically for Obama next Tuesday, because I don't see any difference worth voting for between Clinton and McCain.

Thats a good point FSU. I just think his ticket this year would've been stronger than the Kerry/Edwards ticket, thus helping to maybe flip a southern state or two. Richardson could definitely help in some of those southwestern states, paticularly because Latino Republican support is down 12% (I believe) since 2004. However, I just don't think he did well enough in the initial process for people to really feel energized behind him. I don't know. I'm a bit neutral right now. I was initially for Hillary. Then I was for Barack. Now its kind of tied with an edge still to Barack because of the Clinton machine bullcrap, and the fact that Barack inspires me and makes me believe in a way that Hillary does not. If Barack doesn't get the nomination or picked as a Vice President, I worry that all of these new voters and energized youth voters won't come out in November.

If you force McCain to have to spend a lot of time and money in the states of New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada to fight off a Richardson VP candidacy, that would be huge. Those southwestern states have been trending more Democratic in recent elections so I think it makes a lot of sense to pick Richardson.

I talked to two friends of mine who were Edwards supporters, including one who had contributed almost the maximum of $2,300 to the Edwards campaign. They both said they were now voting for Hillary. That's kind of shocking to me. I always thought Edwards' supporters would be more inclined to move to Obama. And I've also had Sirius Out Q and Talk Left on the radio this morning and virtually all the Edwards supporters there said the same thing... it's now Hillary for them. On top of all this, there apparently are two separate polls out now that show Edwards' supporters choosing Hillary over Obama by a slight margin. I'm stunned by this.

I was planning on voting for Edwards on Tuesday, not that it really matters because he had relatively no chance in NY, I just like his message. Now I'll vote and support Clinton. I think she offers more experience than Obama. But I agree with most of us, any ticket is better than what we have now and whatever the GOP can put up.

Edwards has become another state in a way that Clinton and Obama will have to fight over. He has 26 delegates won and whoever he supports will get those. I don’t see him throwing support behind someone until (at the earliest) next week after Super Tuesday, and there’s just something about it, but I have a feeling he'll jump on board with Clinton (but I'm probably way off).

I could definitely see a Clinton/Edwards ticket if he does support her and she does win the nomination. There could be an Obama/Edwards ticket but for some reason I see Obama (if he wins the nomination) picking Kathleen Sebelius the governor from Kansas that gave the response to the Presidents latest State of the Union Address. She's the democratic governor in a state that has nearly always supported Republicans for president (at least in the last 5 elections). And she's popular too. So popular that I definitely feel that she could swing Kansas and maybe some other Midwestern states. With the Dems letting her give the response to the State address, and doing a great job with giving a "nonpartisan, American response" she showed that she will continue to get the support of moderates.

But I don’t see a women/women ticket being successful. Not that I have a problem with it, but I don’t think America is ready for that.

As one of the millions of Independents disenfranchised for refusing to blindly commit to either party's agenda, I am really pissed that Edwards wasn't able to stay in the race.

As for the notion that he is talking about "class warfare", that is an old saw used mostly by Republicans and establishment hacks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo on wealth distribution by any means necessary. When money is earned simply because one already has money to lend it, it does virtually nothing to stimulate a healthy economy. And if the money spent does not encourage production within the country eventually inflation will again impoverish the nation.

Barack Obama is a very good second choice. But his commitment to, and knowledge of how to manage the economy so as to insure its long-term health is questionable.

Hillary Clinton is certainly better on this than any of the Republicans, but she is so in hock to special interests that once elected will - like her husband - put a bandaid on the economy to slow the bleeding without fixing the fundamental problems causing wealth disparity - which is literally the rich making regulations that allow them to rob the poor of their labor.

Obama has to now manage a groundroot campaign, in several states as well. The myriad regulations in the state primaries will determine whether he has already inspired enough new voters to compete on February 5.

It worked so well the last time.

Edwards will never be anyone's VP pick because, as others have said, he does not bring much to the table in terms of electoral votes. And I doubt Edwards will want to be re-cast as second fiddle two election cycles in a row. I suspect he'll hold out on endorsing anyone right away.

That said, I think the best candidates as VP for Clinton would be Richardson. She won't win a single electoral vote in the south, so the only place left to make inroads for her is to pull in more Latino votes in the western interior. With Hillary, the VP choice will all be about identity politics. (But could you imagine being VP under Hillary? Cripes, talk about having a job worth less than a bucket of warm p_ss with Bill acting as co-Pres.)

An Obama VP will need to provide balance, namely someone who has foreign policy experience. The person I see is Jim Webb. With his military experience, he's definitely not a pinko dove, and hardcore Dems will both love him for his criticism of Iraq policy and for telling Bush to shove it. In addition to having foreign policy creds, he'll probably end up pulling Virginia into the D column, which, if the rest of the map stays as it was in 2004, could possibly make for an electoral college win for Obama.

I'm sorry Edwards dropped out. I hate that he was so marginalized by the establishment media (mocked relentlessly, and then just ignored), but he did push progressive issues to the fore, thus forcing both Hillary Clinton and Obama to talk more about them. I was surprised that Edwards did so poorly in all the contests, but he wasn't really winning over anyone in large numbers, and in South Carolina, his native state, he mainly won over white men. This is a problem that both Hillary and Obama are going to face in the South; today's NY Times has an article basically saying that although many Southerners are upset with George W. Bush, they may be willing to bite off their noses to spite their faces, i.e., vote for yet another round of lying Republicans rather than vote for Hillary, or, as the paper notes, the candidate whose very name causes them "discomfort." Obama. In other words, rather than vote for a woman or a black man (Lord forbid!), they may saddle us yet again with Republican incompetence. Now, I still believe that Hillary Clinton can assemble enough electoral votes from outside the South (though she is likely to win Arkansas, maybe Virginia) to win the presidency. She would HAVE TO win every single state Gore won, plus a few more, like Ohio, Colorado, perhaps Missouri. Those three alone would give her the margin of victory. Can she do it? I think so. Can Obama? Well, I'm pulling for him, but I really fear that racism may trump all else, so it'll be a tossup.

That leads me to this next thought, which is that if Hillary picks Richardson, she could be dooming herself if anyone emphasizes his Mexican-American heritage. It will help her in the West, but may harm her in other states. I was surprised that Richardson's support was so minimal, but he didn't seem to excite anyone except people who talked about his resume. And given the extreme animus right now towards Mexicans and Latino immigrants in general (even if they are legal--cf. that NY Times article I noted above), I wonder if he's the best pick for Hillary. I'd gathered that she was thinking of someone like Tom Vilsack. Yawn. Whoever it is, he will have to be tougher than Lieberman was in 2000, or Edwards was in 2004. The Republicans play for keeps, so this person really cannot be a cream puff. I think she'd benefit by choosing someone from a Western state, but let me add that the person cannot damage the Democrats' chances of keeping the Congress, so that rules out people like Jon Tester of Montana, and so on. Montana's current governor, Brian Schweitzer, who is pretty folksy and a farmer, might be the right choice. I just don't know. All I do know is, she is going to have to play her cards carefully if she gets the nomination.

As for Obama, I'm not sure who'd he have to pick to get votes. But Webb, while excellent on many levels--he is an economic populist, though socially pretty conservative--would mean the loss of a US Senate seat from the South, something the Democrats can't really spare, so Obama might have to look elsewhere. The Democratic Southern bench seems pretty thin. Sebelius, if you watched her address, was awful. She seemed like a deer in headlights. I pray pray pray that Obama doesn't make the mistake of selecting her. It'd be a historical choice, but at the same time, I would really fear her going up whoever the Republicans select as VP, unless it were Joe Lieberman. Someone who won't get the nod but seems a lot tougher is Janet Napolitano of Arizona, but she might not help if McCain is the GOP nominee. I assume he'll win his home state, though I could be wrong. Who does that leave? Not many options. There are two Southern Democrats who're to the right of both Obama and Hillary: Mike Easley and Phil Bredesen. Would either one take the job? They've both proved they could win in the South, and might help Obama in some of the border states. I don't know. All in all, I grow more and more nervous about this whole thing, because people just seem as if they cannot help but reward Republican incompetence by giving us more of the same.

The Dems' chances of keeping *any* of those House seats they picked up in red states will be severly contested and perhaps lost to the GOP challenger if Hillary is the nominee. The massive GOP turnout machine will be in full operation if Hillary is the nominee and all the gains of 2006 will be at stake (if not in 2008, then we can expect Republican Revolution 2.0 in 2010 mid-terms). Under that scenario, who cares about one Senate seat?

If, though, someone picks Webb, Tim Kaine gets to name an interim replacement (perhaps Mark Warner?) should the Dems win the presidential race. Actually, Mark Warner could be a decent VP pick for HIllary (white, Southern, popular).

I'm a little surprised people seem to think that John Edwards would bring little to an Obama campaign as the Democratic nominee. I think there is just enough outside the overlap there to make the difference in Obama v "whoever the Republican nominee is".

And, flip-flopper that he is, I wouldn't be surprised if that is Mitt Romney after watching some of the CNN Republican debate tonight. John McCain is showing his age and has zero vision or imagination beyond running a war. And that would run us into some eventual military conflict that would make Iraq look like a tea party. Mike Huckabee has a serious problem with reality, due probably to spending years in a pulpit promoting a fanciful version of Christianity in which the world evolved over some 5000 years. Ron Paul shows too many signs of lucidity on Iraq to ever get through the Republican nomination process.

But back to John Edwards. He is a fearless campaigner and has more emotion and drive than Obama. He also has an appeal to old-time poor southern Democratic men who want to be assured of a place in a new Democratic party in power, and also want a good reason to show that they are not all racists.

I am not so sure that Edwards is not interested in a second go at VP either. Though I would much, much rather see him as attorney general in an Obama administration. In a Hillary Clinton administration he would be constantly having to fend off bogus attempts to have her impeached for one phony issue or another. All-in-all I suspect I will simply hold my nose and vote for the Democrat and then hope for the best.

Oh, I disagree about the Democrats keeping these seats but they have some margin for error in terms of the House. 28 Republicans have stepped down so far, and Democrats have a good chance of picking up 20 seats at least, even if Hillary's the nominee, so they'll be fine. The Senate is another issue. They can't spare a single Democrat, and need to add at least 9 to overcome the Republicans' filibuster tactics. It'll be a huge task no matter whether it's Hillary or Obama, but some of those Senate Republicans, like John Sununu in New Hampshire, and Gordon Smith in Oregon, are teetering on the edge.

Didn't someone on here say he'd vote for McCain over Hillary? The man who was gay-baiting Romney just yesterday?

Bill W says Hillary and McCain are the same. We heard this same crap in 2000 about Gore and Bush. Does anyone--seriously, anyone?--think these two candidates would have governed similarly? Even Gore at his *most* conservative was 1,000 times more competent, liberal and visionary than the cretin who continues to screw up every day he occupies the Oval Office. So let's stop making these kinds of ridiculous comparisons. Hillary may be more conservative than Edwards or even Obama, but she is light years apart from McCain on multiple issues. Do you think she thinks, as McCain (or Romney) does, that we're better off today than we were in 2008? In what way, again, John McCain?

As for Webb, I'd rather he stayed in the Senate, though I think he'd make a great VP. If Kaine is working out a deal with Warner, that's fine, but if not, I'd be worried if he picked any other Democrat.

Speaking of Warner, he's way too DLC. He is already talking about "centrism" without any discussion of what the "center" is. We've had bipartisanship for years under Bush, with the Democrats just caving caving caving, giving us horrible legislation like the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, the Military Commissions Act, the Medicare Bill, that Wiretapping Bill last summer, and on and on. And the Republicans are still not satisfied. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have someone like Schweitzer, who SETS THE AGENDA and dares Republicans to f*ck with him. When they're willing to work with him, he works with them. No more Liebermans who're just wannabe Republicans anyway. And Hillary could win Virginia. She needs a state she probably wouldn't win, like Tennessee. Bredesen is very popular.

Fabulous political commentary by all of you.

I've said that. I think you're talking about the push-calls the McCain camp put out about Romney. Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me and may cause me to simply not vote if it's a McCain-Hillary contest. But to McCain's credit, the calls were pulled after a day or something. Still, it's not something I would want to reward by giving my vote. Doesn't make me want to vote Hillary in the slightest, however.

Speaking of gay voters, Andrew Sullivan made a fairly interesting point about Obama and Clinton on gay people: Obama routinely mentions gay people as part of the American fabric in his speeches, even in front of hostile audiences, like in African-American church congregations. Hillary only mentions gays in front of gay audiences. Which candidate do you think will push gay interests out the window if it means cutting a deal with Trent Lott? History repeats itself.

Good observation. I've noticed that he has deliberately done that on a few issues before potentially hostile audiences. It shows a little political courage.

But Edwards showed even more by eschewing questionable campaign finance contributions though Obama helped write the book so to speak by supporting reform. Granted Edwards was supported by other wealthy trial lawyers. But that just indicates how broken the system is in this country for protecting the weak in the complex and jury-rigged legal system we have.

It takes incentives like a huge payoff to attract lawyers to defend the defenseless. The other alternative is to put someone in office at the highest level who will defend the "least among us" as Obama has called it. I think Ewards realized, perhaps too late, that it was necessary to state that loudly and clearly.

As someone who has set on juries a few times I know it is not easy to get a fair trial unless you have an obviously sympathetic case that gets some public exposure. There are still far too many unknown injustices.

Look, I'll take "trial lawyers" (the term is a central right-wing talking point) over Rupert Murdoch and his ilk any day.

If you're in an accident and a corporation is liable, would you rather your ability to sue and receive compensation lie in the hands of an excellent lawyer of your choosing, a jury of your fellow citizens, and the law, or would you rather that it lie in statutes pushed by corporations seeking to protect themselves at your and any other citizen's expense?

Seriously, let's think a bit more about these right-wing talking points. All the "trial lawyers" together could win their lawsuits and it wouldn't make half a dent in the bottom lines of these corporations. No trial lawyer suing on behalf of homeowners is responsible for the spectacular losses of the huge banking conglomerates, mortgage companies, bond insurers, etc., is s/he? Nope. And even after whatever lawsuits are lodged and won, constrained as they may by "tort reform" laws pushed by the GOP and corporations, the losses will come from bad business practices, poorly managed risk, incompetence, and hucksterism.

I'll take Edwards and any other lawyers (Clinton, Obama, etc.) over the MBA/corporatist president, George W. Bush, any day. But then, Bush's business experience was known to be disastrous, and people, for God knows what reason, looked right past it and voted for him anyways.