I'm starting to think Edwards was the best choice

[quinnox]

At this point I don't think Barack Obama can win against McCain any longer, and Hillary also would have a tough time. Yes I am a Hillary supporter but I am also a realist.

This campaign has caused Democrats to polarize on both candidates sides and they don't like the other candidate, many of them.

Numerous ones will either not vote at all or vote for McCain no matter who the candidate is.

At least with Hillary, even if she lost, Democrats could say we were the first to have a female nominee for president which would be an important historic step.

Edwards would have wiped the mat with McCain in my opinion.

Most of the racists and sexist people who won't vote for Obama nor Hillary would have gone for Edwards in a heartbeat over McCain.

Too bad, Dems might just blow the best chance to win the presidency for years.

[chimpymustgo]

1. I've BEEN thinking that since Day 1.

[Digit]

51. He was the best choice

The corporate owned media would not give JE airtime and chose for us.

[trueblue2007]

93. He was our ONLY choice.

[ecstatic]

2. He didn't have the votes. So how was he the best choice?

Winners get votes.

[frogcycle]

27. geez louise

will people never get it?

he didn't have the votes of dems in primaries.

the thread is about who would have had a chance against the FUCKING REPUBLICAN!

it is lamenting the fact that dems were FUCKING STUPID!

go dance around the maypole adding up all those primary votes and then cry all the way home like McGovern, and Mondale, and Du-fucking KAKIS for god's sakes!

CHRIST ON A FUCKING CRACKER!

[ecstatic]

31. Sorry, the voters trusted HRC and Obama. They rejected Edwards

just like the general public rejected him in 2004. He's a nice guy and all, but facts are facts. I know he has good hair but that's not all it takes these days. WE WANT CHANGE!

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. Boo! Hiss! Boo! Who chased him off and why? Ask yourself that question and then deal with it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Hitler got the most votes. Nixon got the most votes.

"Winner" =/= "best"

[PresidentObama]

3. We told people for months that Edwards was our best bet, and no one listened.

Sadly.

President Edwards is EXACTLY what this country needed.

Fight corporate power and corporate greed.

Fight for universal healthcare for all.

End the war, restore our image around the world, and fight global poverty.

Focus on poverty in America for REAL!! Not just words, actions.

A champion for the middle class and workers.

Sigh. I miss Johnny boy :(

[slick8790]

112. Me too!

P.S when did you switch to Obama?! Welcome aboard!

[Teaser]

4. We've been dealt a hand

Now we play it.

[NJSecularist]

5. I wonder if he would have won North Carolina if he was the nominee

You can never be sure. Especially after the Gore fiasco in Tennessee in 2000. That in itself would have made him worth nominating.

[TAWS]

8. Kerry lost North Carolina by double digits even with Edwards as VP, so I don't think so

[PresidentObama]

14. The Presidential nominee is usually the person on voters mind, not the VP choice.

Plus, isn't NC red as red can be?

[TAWS]

19. People usually pick VP because it helps them win states, Edwards didn't help Kerry at all

[PresidentObama]

21. And Gore lost TN. So? We're in a MUCH different playing field this time around than in 04'

[Tunkamerica]

63. Not in the cities

Dems in lots of state and local positions including Gov

[struggle4progress]

73. NC is purple: state government has been in the hands of both D and R in

the last twenty years, the Congressional House delegation is usually about evenly split, and the Senate has often been 1D-1R

But no D Presidential ticket has carried the state in the last 30 years: some oddities of ballot rules may have contributed to that

Currently, D's rule state government, the House delegation slightly favors D's, and both Senate seats are R

[marions ghost]

113. No

NC is like VA, changing demographics. It's always running 50-50 red/blue in wider elections and could easily have tipped over to Kerry-Edwards. But before 2004 (thanks to HAVA /Help Diebold Vote Act)--40% of NC counties were sold touchscreen voting machines. This is a state with a long history of election corruption. NC was third after FL and OH in voting problems and anomalies in 2004. Bushco did 'take the state' by such a margin, but it was with a lot of Santa's elves working overtime to bring it in for the red team. Since then there have been some significant changes in the election system at state level but more work needs to be done.

[JDPriestly]

61. Elizabeth Edwards stated that Kerry did not buy one ad in N.C.

Not a single ad. You have to buy ads in a state to win it.

[struggle4progress]

74. The 04 national campaign dribbled a bit of money in early in the season, then cut us cold

[TAWS]

6. Edwards had his shot in 2004

[PresidentObama]

10. Yes because if you blow your "shot", it's time to move on. Give me a break.

[frogcycle]

13. "had his shot?"

brilliant political commentary, that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

105. ...

:eyes: Nice try!

[goldcanyonaz]

7. We need a unity ticket to bring this party together. Without it, we lose.

Too many on either side will stay home, some threaten it, but one has to believe that many mean it.

I will get out and vote for a unity ticket.

I will also work hard to get us elected in November with that as our goal.

[quinnox]

25. yes that is true

Maybe Gore can get it somehow and everyone unite but I doubt it, this is going to be ugly in November

[HCE SuiGeneris]

92. You are dreaming. Hillary sabotaged any chance of that ever occurring

with her attack campaign.

[frogcycle]

9. no offense intended, but

you state the bleeding obvious

Biden would have been good too. Or Dodd.

This idiotic "March Madness" primary system is absurd. Good candidates get knocked out early, and then the rest of the electorate has to sift through table scraps.

If all eight were to be back on the ballot, clean slate, a national primary all in one day, who do you suppose would win? Maybe one of the current two after all, but I bet the results would surprise.

[Bluebear]

11. He certainly got my vote.

[Alenne]

12. except for the fact he couldn't get Democrats to vote for him. nt

[PresidentObama]

18. Could Jesus Christ himself get past Clinton or Obama? I don't think so. It wasn't his time. Sadly.

[Alenne]

32. If he was the best choice? Yes. nt

[PresidentObama]

36. So you're saying the best choices always win? So Reagan was the best choice in 1980?

[Alenne]

46. To the people who supported him

he was. If you can't convince people who believe in what you believe to vote for you than you're not the best choice.

[Selatius]

89. It's also about money as well. Need money to reach people in order to convince them.

Edwards had some money, but nowhere near what Obama and Hillary had. A campaigning system that we have tends to give a competitive advantage to people who have money. Poorer folks are disadvantaged there.

[DesEtoiles]

15. the trial lawyer with a $400 haircut who is having an affair? Invulnerable.

[PresidentObama]

24. Having an affair? Excuse me? Lay off the Drudge....

[onehandle]

50. Is there something wrong with you?

I think you're lost.

[JDPriestly]

64. Let's see. Were you talking about Jefferson?

Edwards was not having an affair. And by the way, John Adams was also a trial lawyer and a very dedicated one.

[Inspired]

95. Have you read the cover of the Enquirer lately?

If you believe the crap they wrote about Edwards then you certainly must believe what was published last week about Obama.

[burythehatchet]

99. shut your pie hole, idiot.

[SammyWinstonJack]

107. What crap!

[QC]

16. I proudly voted for him, even though I am one of the disenfranchised.

I wish I could vote for him in November.

Gee, maybe letting Oprah pick our candidate wasn't such a great idea after all.

[cboy4]

17. Don't blame me! =)

[donheld]

47. It's all your fault!

:D

[cboy4]

54. I knew it!

x(

[SammyWinstonJack]

108. Me either! I am an Edwards Democrat!

[StClone]

20. Obama is fine!!! You think Edwards would be

Any less sullied? My choice was Dennis, then Edwards, Obama and then Hill. You can't always get what you want and never what we need. But I will defend Obama to the end, it's Hillary that has to heal us.

[chascarrillo]

22. Your argument is that we should have nominated a white male because of racism and sexism?

"Most of the racists and sexist people who won't vote for Obama nor Hillary would have gone for Edwards in a heartbeat over McCain.

Too bad, Dems might just blow the best chance to win the presidency for years."

:wtf:

That argument is, in itself, racist and sexist. Shame on you. Shame on you twice.

[quinnox]

30. No, it is part of the argument I made

and it is a realistic one.

Unless you believe racism and sexism don't exist.


But the other more important part is that this campaign has polarized both canddiates supporters to a degree that there won't be unity no matter who wins.

[chascarrillo]

40. Okay. Quibble over definitions however you like, but your part of the argument is racist and sexist.

I can't believe that you don't understand how blatantly evil the argument that you're making is.

[Two Americas]

90. objection

Pointing out that racism and sexism exist is not itself racist and sexist. (Can't believe that I even need to say something so self-evident.)

As long as we are losing our minds, how about this -

Calling people sexist and racist who point out that racism and sexism exist is itself racist and sexist!!

Gee this game of gotcha could go on forever.

Calling people sexist and racist who call people racist and sexist for pointing out that racism and sexism exist is itself racist and sexist!!

[chascarrillo]

91. Saying that we should nominate a white male because he's not a woman and not black is ... what?

Que?

[Two Americas]

100. backwards

Were a person saying that a candidate was not qualified because of gender or race, that would be one thing. That is not what the OP said.

What you are defending is tokenism - the idea that the advancement of one individual is a blow against racism or sexism and any opposition to that idea is promoting racism or sexism.

[JDPriestly]

101. Quinnox, another way of putting this which is true and

I think more appropriate is that neither Hillary nor Obama has been able to overcome the gender and race stereotypes in our society to the extent that they are seen not as a woman and a black man, but as the best, most qualified candidate, as what our country needs.

Austria was part of the larger, NAZI nation. It used to be back in the late 70s, early 80s, that if you talked to Austrians long enough and got to know them well enough, you would probably hear, at least from the older ones, anti-Jewish stereotypes. Yet, they elected Bruno Kreisky, a Jew as their Chancellor (title of the person who led the country).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Kreisky

Chancellor Kreisky had a personality and charisma that permitted him to transcend the barrier in his society that would have normally prevented him, as a Jew, from being elected to that leadership role. Neither Hillary nor Obama has succeeded in doing what Kreisky did. Neither has earned the confidence of all Democrats. Each of them appeals to specific demographics and not to others. Sure, each has support outside the demographic, but generally both their campaigns have failed to attract enough votes from each other's demographics to make either of them a viable candidate. Thus, their candidacies have divided the Democratic electorate and therefore neither of them is likely to be succeed in November.

Much of the problem is the press hype about "first woman," "first African-American." The press seems to suggest that voters have to choose one or the other team. And of course, that is what many voters have done. We see that here on DU.

A few weeks ago, I hoped that a compromise might be made that would include both Obama and Hillary on a uniting ticket. But I now realize that, even if the candidates make an agreement, the animosity between their supporters is so great, that the party could not unite around such a ticket. At least not in time to beat McCain. And now, it is also almost too late for one or the other to drop out.

There is no easy solution. In fact, there may be no solution. The judgment of history may be in the end, that the only chance for the salvation of our nation and realization of our dream of self-government has been lost to the egotism of Hillary and Obama and the fanaticism, racism, sexism and ageism of their supporters. A tragic end to a great experiment.

[Johnny__Motown]

23. Edwards campaigned in Iowa for years and couldn't win, couldn't deliver NC in '04

Couldn't retain his senate seat


I like the guy but he can't win elections worth a damn. Sorry. Obama is the right person at the right time.

[TAWS]

38. I don't think he ran for reelection

[Johnny__Motown]

70. You are right, he didn't. but my point still stands, One race won in his entire career

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Senate_career

[BlueStater]

84. Just because someone can't win a primary doesn't mean they can't win an election

The best candidate of them all probably would have been Biden and he didn't go anywhere in the primary.

[stellanoir]

26. He had to take nobly care of his ailing wife.

And his nasal southern drawl effected some.

Hope she will be okay.

Loved her,

[faithfulcitizen]

28. And being able to say we were the 1st to have a black nominee isn't historic?

I still think Obama has the better shot and would make a better president. The media did push all three from the get go. I was a Biden person myself.

[frogcycle]

33. oh fuck a fucking duck!

you think being able to say we were the first to have a black nominee is GOOD ENOUGH!

There won't be another fucking nominee EVER if muckain wins.

They'll finish off the twitching remnants of our government, suspend the constitution, and we'll all be field hands.

But you can sing about having had that moment in the sun, I guess!

[JDPriestly]

79. Obama has a shot if he stays where he was in today's speech, if he

stays as honest and compassionate as he was in today's speech.

I thought it was a great speech. This morning was Obama's "Two Americas" moment.

I'm going to explain this very inadequately. As I recall, Edwards described a point quite late in one of his campaigns when he suddenly realized what he and his campaign were really about: where he came from, the small mill towns where he grew up, and the two Americas, the America represented by the people who worked hard in the mills for very little and the America represented by the people who owned the mills.

In today's speech, Obama talked about his origins. His speech implicitly acknowledged Edwards' two Americans. There are differences between the two Americas of Edwards and the two Americas of Obama, but the similarities are more important than. As a child, Edwards, the first in his family to go to college and at that a state college, was much poorer and less privileged than Obama. Obama, however, and in spite of his relatively advantaged (although by no means wealthy) family background, the private and ivy league schools, the well educated parents, had to face the discrimination that every person who looks like a person of color has to face in our country.

It was a relief to hear Obama finally open up on his personal struggle and pain and acknowledge the struggle and pain of people close to him like Rev. Wright. In so doing, he admitted that deep down he knows that the divisions in America will not just melt away because we hope they will. I think he needs now to explain clearly how he plans to move from hope to unity.

The racial and cultural and economic fissures that Obama described run very deep. He admitted that our society is divided by deep resentments. He now needs to explain how he will bring the opposing factions together. That is not clear. Certainly his words are inspiring, but he will have to develop his ideas on the "hows" and discuss them in detail. He will have to repeat speeches on this theme over and over.

I spoke to a Democrat who supported Biden today and was surprised to learn that this speech did not persuade that person. My friend asked "why now. Why didn't he say these things earlier? Why did he wait to tackle this important theme until the sermons of Rev. Wright became an issue? Why did he refer to Edwards in a debate as 'the white man' when he himself is as white as he is African-American? Why Obama when there were better qualified candidates?"

These are legitimate questions. The suspicion is that Obama's speech today was merely a political ploy. Obama needs to respond.

I remain an Edwards supporter. I think that Edwards is way ahead of Obama in terms of knowing why he should be president and what it will take to win in November. Edwards has a better chance than Obama to win the presidency. Edwards learned a lot in the failed Kerry campaign.

It is really unfortunate that Edwards is not our candidate with Obama as the vice presidential candidate. A ticket with these two men on it would mean real change and would win.

Oh, another thing. Obama did not speak about the divisions caused by gender and age discrimination. Those are not his personal issues. But based on my pretty extensive experience campaigning for Edwards, I would say that age is a huge and ignored cause of the division in our party. Very young voters are strongly behind Obama. The more mature voters are divided between Edwards and Hillary.

Hillary and Obama bested Edwards in the primaries because they had more money and were able to buy better organization and publicity with it. They also did better than he because their candidacies made better stories and journalists believed their stories would drew audiences. The press goes after the sensational, and Obama's and Hillary's candidacies are unusual and sensational in that sense. So, the success of Obama and Hillary over Edwards does not reflect their ability to serve as president. Is till think that Edwards is best qualified to bring the country. But after today, I think Obama would make a good president.

[Fresh_Start]

29. Time for a compromise candidate

The democratic party cannot afford to be so divided

I voted for Edwards on Super Tuesday after he announced his campaign was suspended.
I believed he was the best opportunity to win.
I believed his signature issue is the key issue
Obama today touched on the fact that the issues of poverty are broader than race but wear the same face

[Thurston Howell III]

34. Hell I thought Dean was the best choce in 2004. I have to say

don't start looking back because it will drive you crazy!

[RBInMaine]

35. Well, he's out so let's move on and stop wasting space.

[Bluebear]

37. The OP donates money to this site to express his/her opinion

[TAWS]

39. So we have to donate money to express an opinion?

[Bluebear]

41. No but you can pipe down criticizing someone who does by saying it's "wasting space"

Very nervy.

[TAWS]

45. That wasn't me that said that but I don't think giving money should make an opinion be worth more

[KAZ]

43. Always helps.

[chascarrillo]

44. A sexist and racist opinion. We should allow people to buy rights to air racism and sexism here?

:wtf:

[Lugnut]

77. Wasting space?

Most of the shit that's posted in this section is a waste of space. You obviously don't like the topic the OP chose to make yet here you are insinuating yourself into it. That practice never ceases to amaze me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. Then stop posting.

:evilgrin:

[RazBerryBeret]

42. Except for the fact...

that he couldn't get many democratic votes. and I don't know why, I like him, but he wasn't my first choice.
But he never really caught on.

[onehandle]

48. He was number one here at DU even after he suspended his campaign.

I bet he still is.

He had the longest coattails and the polls showed it.

[Drachasor]

49. Ehh, correct me if I am wrong, but he always seemed too protectionist to me

[JDPriestly]

80. What good is it to have free trade if you can't get a job that

pays enough to buy what you need? Free trade is not working for American workers. Thanks to Edwards, that fact has not been entirely swept under the rug.

[Drachasor]

88. I'm for Fair Trade, but not protectionism

There are legitimate things that need to be dealt with regarding free/fair trade, but they can be handled without protectionism. Job retraining, some government assistance, and effort to keep and encourage businesses are all important. If we become protectionist and then everyone else does too, the entire world suffers -- which is not a good thing.

[JDPriestly]

98. Job retraining is useless for people over 50 and

it gets more useless the age goes up. Also, the investment required for job retraining and the loss of income are just not worth it in a time in which jobs are being outsourced as we speak.

Our nation was built on tariffs. I believe that Alexander Hamilton, the great hero of the right-wing was one of the strongest advocates for tariffs. Tariffs kept us solvent for generations. It is no coincidence that our nation is suddenly virtually bankrupt now that we have been fooled into this "free trade" gimmick. Free trade is a fiasco. It is incompatible with freedom, with local control of the environment and with a healthy economy.

Draft Edwards. He is our only hope.

[JVS]

52. A lot of people thought that, but when it came to voting for Edwards, they didn't do it.

Although he did beat Hillary in Iowa. Other than that, it's been a down hill trip for Edwards.

[Skittles]

57. if he had EVER received the coverage HRC and Obama did

HE MIGHT HAVE STOOD A CHANCE, as would ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES -THE ONES NOT PICKED BY THE CORPORATE MEDIA TO BE OUR FRONTRUNNERS

[JVS]

58. He was plenty well known in Iowa and he lost to Obama. That was the end of his story it seems.

You can lay off the caps, they don't make your post more convincing.

[Skittles]

62. I say this as someone who would NEVER have voted for him

his co-sponsorship of IWR was a complete deal-breaker; however, if you are unable to see how slanted the fawning coverage was for HRC and Obama, that is very, very bad indeed

[JVS]

65. I don't have TV, so that might be part of it. However at a certain point a candidacy...

is responsible to make his or her own news. If all you can do is hope that the press covers you, then you need to work at your publicity skill.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

53. Because a black nominee wouldn't be historic, right?

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

55. He still might be the nominee before its all over

With Clinton and Obama both bloodied up pretty good now he might be able to slide into Denver almost without a glove landed on him.

What they got on him when you stop and think about it? A funny YouTube video of a haircut and a big house? Not much in the grand scheme of things.

He might be our guy?

Don

[gordianot]

56. I wish I had perfect judgment, I really like Edwards, new found respect for Obama.

Obama's speech today was the best I have heard in a decade. Edwards would have made a great President, he was my first choice after Gore refused to run. After today I think Obama may make it after all. Also we have not heard the last of John Edwards.

[elixir]

59. Quinnox, I'm hoping your wrong. Thanks for your honesty.

[quinnox]

66. I hope I am wrong too

[kerry-is-my-prez]

60. Yep - that was my opinion...

n/t

[zulchzulu]

67. If Edwards was a strong candidate, he'd still be in the race

If you think that McCain can beat Obama, you have no idea how simple messaging about the disastrous Iraq War and linking it to the bad economy will be done. Anytime Bush shares the stage with McCain at any event is pure gold footage to use against McCain.

Edwards, while a worthy candidate, couldn't hang....period. I could go into how McCain would absolutely skewer Edwards on his voting record vs. his 2008 schtick, but that is bygones at this point.

Here's a prediction. Obama will beat McCain by 10+%... ask the RNC inner circle, they are actually looking at 2010 at this point in batcave meetings.

[doc03]

68. I have thought that all along n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Agree with your conclusion, disagree with your analysis.

Edwards would have won handily not because "the racists and sexist people won't vote for Obama nor Hillary" but because neither Obama nor Clinton are comfortable being a populist. Edwards is, and that is precisely what this country needs in 2008.

We're not going to get it so the choice is leadership in some unspecified direction or pragmatic and cautious management. Since I can't get populism, I choose the latter, but I can understand why others disagree.

[SnoopDog]

72. No... I think Obama has truly emerged as the correct candidate...

I was first a Kucinich supporter, then a Edwards supporter, and now I am for Obama. I just have to think that the the most patriotic, the most democratic person on earth, and that is Mr. Kucinich, supported Obama for a reason.

[donheld]

75. I believe either HIllary or Barack, if they stick to the issues,

can win easily. The differences have never been clearer.

[Radical Activist]

76. The flip flopper with the least experience and DLC record.

No, I don't think so. Obama can expand the electorate in a way no other candidate can. He will win.

[Spiffarino]

78. I think Edwards is the one who could take on any Republican

If the DNC convention dissolves into anarchy, he'd be my choice for Knight-in-Shining-Armor. I believe he would beat McCain even with minimal prep time. McCain is a terrible candidate and the only way he can win is if the Dems let themselves lose...and they're doing a damn fine job of it right now.

[Cali_Democrat]

81. What a useless thread. Don't cry over spilled milk

[Ichingcarpenter]

82. Edward's voice lately in the meltdown of economy, war and life

Of this nation's calamity.......... SPOKE FUCKING VOLUMES
on not speaking out!!!!

Fuck him, nothing on the economy, nothing on the war
nothing on shit, since he bowed out.


He can go on Leno, and I wonder why
he choses LENO for his expression now.

[Beaverhausen]

111. That's a laugh. When he was still in the race and speaking out - he got no coverage

and he has been speaking out.

here's one example

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/25/politics/horserace/entry3874420.shtml

[Nutmegger]

83. I thought that when I was supporting his candidacy.

Not only did I think that, I also screamed that. And I still think and scream that to this day, and no one will convince me otherwise. I've seen too much to believe that he would have handed McLame his ass.

[Monty__]

85. No comment

Well, yes, actually comment. I've been saying he was the best choice since 2003.

[maximusveritas]

86. No, they would have just played the socialist card instead

The Republicans will do whatever it takes to smear our nominee. What matters more is picking the right person to lead the country. If you want to argue for Edwards on those grounds, fine. But this is just insulting.

[bazoona]

87. There is no doubt (in my mind) that Edwards would be leading now....

if he could have stayed in the race and stayed above the petty bullshit we see going on right now. The honeymoon for Obama and Clinton is over. Everybody who fawned over the "historic" candidates are seeing them warts and all and a lot of them aren't liking what they see. Too bad John couldn't have held out just a little longer.

[Raine]

94. M$M was terrified of Edwards

they never gave him press, the voters never got a chance to know him so he never got the votes. I always thought he was our best hope but alot of good that did. :-(

[JoFerret]

96. Best choice because of best policies

The identity politics only messed things up. And it's the race thing. That poisonous legacy still has strong legs and can be infinitely exploited by everyone for myriad purposes.

[WinkyDink]

97. "Starting"?!

[Seabiscuit]

102. Hell yes he was the best choice. I just hope that either Hillary or Barack adopt

his healthcare plan because it was the best of the three. I hope to see Edwards in either an Clinton or Obama administration.

[SammyWinstonJack]

103. He was and is! Dammit! I miss John!

:cry:

[Armstead]

106. He would have been the best candidate -- But we always eat our own

I supported Edwards because he was the best mix of a real progressive and a mainstream Democrat, as well has having a lot of personal qualities that would have made a good president.

Obama was a good candidate too, but he is not being made to seem unelectable.

[Chovexani]

110. Edwards got a raw deal by the press

You know, they never took my candidate seriously (Kucinich) or any of the others, but it's not as if Edwards were a bottom tier candidate. He was pulling solid crowds.

I think it's criminal the way the media ran him out of the race. Even though I didn't support him due to his stand on marriage equality, I LOVED a lot of what he had to say, and his was a very important message that was silenced in a terrible way. I think there are people--both pro-Obama and pro-Clinton--who are so fanatical about their candidate that they don't question why Edwards was shut out of the race and don't see how terribly unfair it was.

I think the people who insist he lost because "no one voted for him" are hopelessly naive at best, vicious partisans at worst. It's almost like there was a conspiracy by M$M to shut him out entirely. I think it was a combination of him speaking out against corporate interests, and the fact that he didn't fit the "sexy" story they wanted played out: historic election, first viable black candidate vs. first viable female candidate. I think any Democrat--hell, any AMERICAN--ought to be outraged over the fact that the media basically subverted our primary process.

[marions ghost]

114. Ditto yes

that's the way I see what happened to Edwards. He didn't fit the script and so was canned as ruthlessly as any of the factory workers he spoke out for.

Yes, we should all be horrified at what happened there--it was a subversion of the Democratic process.
He deserves credit for even trying...when you consider how the media rammed Bushco down our throats.

At least this is something that Hillary supporters and Obama supporters should be able to agree on.