I really don't see any advantage for Edwards to endorse either candidate while they are running 50/50.

If he is looking for a spot in either administration, (and I certainly hope he is,) there is no good reason to alienate either Obama or Clinton.

I read he spoke with Al Gore, and it appeared that they both were going to let the nomination process come to a conclusion. That's not only sensical, it's good "politics."

The general inferiority complex Clinton supporters have shown reflects poorly on Clinton.

Just sayin'.

I wonder will Clinton become the Huckabee of the Democratic party in this race

If I were a supporter of Sen. Clinton (I'm not, btw), I would be very unhappy and, well, angry if she stepped out of the race before Tues. primary in Wisconsin and the March 4th primaries in OH and PA. The fact is that very strong wins by her in two - or all - of those contests would shift things right upside down (again....). If, however, she does poorly in two or all of those primaries, then it might be time to look toward ending the bashing on one another and start getting ready to take on the Republicans.

As an Obama supporter, would I LIKE it if she conceded? I guess so - it would be fun to start celebrating. On the other hand, there would be those disappointed/angry Clinton supporters (see above) who wouldn't be on board. And I couldn't blame them.

A possible scenario: Clinton does not do well enough in WI, TX and OH to keep going without ripping the party in two (e.g., seating MI and FL or convincing superdelegates to go against their districts/states/primary voters). At that point, she turns her back on Mark Penn, Wolfson *and* Bubba and becomes a true stateswoman: stepping back from this race for the good of the party and the country and focusing her considerable strenghts on HERSELF and the future she could easily have: Senate prominance, Majority Leader perhaps, Sup. Ct. perhaps.

But it isn't fair or responsible to expect her to do so before March 5th at the very earliest - her supporters would be (rightfully) up in arms.

This whole playing of the victim by Clinton supporters doesn't reflect well on them.

What about Led Nudd's post was remotely related to bullying Clinton out of the race? He was just stating his opinion that one of the candidates is ahead and the race will probably be over after March 4th. If you're too sensitive to even face that kind of opinion, you probably shouldn't be in politics.

For what it's worth, I logged into Obama's website last night and checked out his supporter's upcoming events in Texas ZIP codes of El Paso (79901-up) and Houston (77001 and up).

Then I went into Hillary's website and did the same.

In El Paso, there is one campaign event for Hillary, and it's a fundraiser where they hope each attendee will donate $1000 to her campaign.

For Obama, there are four events, but two are "from home emailing" campaigns.

In Houston, there are 9 Hillary events, some of them asking for donations of $1000 in order to attend.

For Obama, there are 72 supporter events.

I'll check out Ohio next.

John Edwards thinks he's a greater man than he is.

Okay, I just checked the events for Obama and Hillary in Ohio, based on ZIP codes for various cities, and I have to say there was a lot of overlap, seeing as how Ohio isn't all that huge.

Bowling Green events
Hillary = 7
Obama 62

Akron events
Hillary = 12
Obama = 71

Cleveland events
Hillary = 10
Obama = 59

Toledo events
Hillary = 10
Obama = 64

Cinci events
Hillary = 8
Obama = 95

Dayton events
Hillary = 10
Obama = 116

Columbus events
Hillary = 10
Obama = 124

Two other things I noticed while visiting Hillary's site:

One, a lot of the folks on her blog are writing "Yes we will" in their messages.

Two, the "Calls Made" meter on Hillary's site read 1,420,681 last night at 9:32 pm.

It reads 1,420,681 tonight at 8:23 pm.

Hmm.

workerbee:
How is pointing out that 48/43 is within the margin or error being touchy? They are for all intents and purposes statistically tied. Anything else is wishful semantics.

How is that "within the margin of error"? If you're talking about the delegates then the sample size and population are essentially the same, so there's not really a margin of error. Statistics 101.

The football analogy is a good one. If NY had beat New England 48 to 43, nobody would be saying it was a "tie" and "within the margin of error."

I think what you mean to say is that it's still really close. So that begs the question of whether Obama's pledged delegate lead of 130 or so is insignificant relative to the remaining number still to be decided.

Either way, I think John Edwards has clearly cheapened his endorsement by waffling for too long.

48 hours from now we will find out Clinton's latest excuse.

As an add-on to my comment above, about the stalled meter at the Hillary site, I'd like to add that when I was checking out Obama's site I noticed that he's had 454,358 donations so far in 2008....as of 2/17/08 at 7:59 pm.

I happened to have $10.56 left on a gift card given to me by my managers at work as a holiday gift, so I donated it to Obama to see if his meter would move.

I just checked his site and he now has 454,584 donations....as of 2/17/08 at 9:26 pm.

That's classic stuff.

Save some of that for when you play the big rooms.

I felt compelled to compete with someone explaining how they gave 10.56 just to watch the counter move, i find that classic. duh....

Junionman, how many times have you made Hillary's ticker move?

;-)

Well, that is personal, but i will say i have been involved donating and making calls. Please don't be offended by my humor, I get so tired of all the negativity. Can't I just like someone else besides Obama?

@ WorkerBee

Your reliance on a Gallup poll (because polls have been so reliable this season) doesn't seem touchy, but your petulant manner of slinging names (monkeys, zealots, Oh!bamanic, etc.) and generalizations certainly does. You talk like the same fractious, tired politicians that have kept the system functioning the way it has for decades.

I sent a quick letter to the Edwards campaign asking him to support Obama. Don't know if this will make any difference, but it can't hurt:

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/

Get out the vote in Wisconsin on Tuesday!

The Clinton campaign has already announced that they are in this through the convention. Their strategy is threefold: (1) hang in there and keep Obama's plurality as small as possible going into Denver, (2)challenging the DNC to seat the MI/FL delegates, and (3) getting enough of the superdelegates to put them over.

Strategy (2) is partly accomplished already. Harold Ickes who is on the Credentials Committee that decided that the MI/FL primaries would be null and void, has now declared that as a Clinton adviser, he will fight to seat the MI/FL delegates. How he can simultaneously be on the credentials committee deciding on this issue while being a Clinton adviser I have no idea, but it looks like conflict of interest to me.

Strategy (3) was already in place before the primaries began. The Clintons managed to line up a lot of committed support even before the primary started, and they have been working hard ever since. If you can believe their press releases, they are absolutely convinced they can do this. It is not secret, they have actually announced that they will win with the superdelegates factored in.

As far as throwing the nomination to the candidate who comes in with fewer committed delegates, they are totally comfortable with that. Indeed that is their strategy. This is one reason why Hillary is not breaking a leg or spending millions trying to win in Wisconsin on Tuesday.

Now, does the reality correspond with the plan? What the Clinton team has been pretty silent on is the fact that there is already a movement within the superdelegates away from Clinton, Rep. Lewis being one example of someone who is wobbling on the issue right now. The question is whether if Obama does very well now through Mar. 4, the movement of supers away from Clinton will reach a groundswell.

On name-calling as part of presenting one's views, my opinion is that when people do not have the confidence of their facts, evidence, or logic, or are moved mostly by emotion and prejudice, they inevitably resort to name calling as a substitute for serious communication. So knowing this, it is a good check on one's own habits. If you see yourself beginning to resort to name-calling in writing your post, it is because you are not really relying on your brains to do the hard work of thinking.

I think that all of Edwards supporters have pretty much moved on by now. The only way Edwards is of value to Clinton and Obama is by not endorsing their opponent. An Edwards endorsement at this late date is unlikely to translate into that many voters that haven't already committed. I am disappointed that John did not come out for Obama when it could have really helped. I can't see that he has that much in common with Clinton. A Clinton endorsement would signal to me that he traded his support for favor and not principal.

Maybe you can explain that crap to your readers some time soon. How many employees do you have Josh? Yourself and 3 hamsters? You

I've been thinking the same thing. TPM always seems to be hiring interns, yet the site grinds to a halt every weekend. With the staff that TPM has, how is it possible that lone bloggers sitting at home in their bathrobes are more prolific? Plus, the TPM "blog" is a group effort. Confusing.

I doubt Edwards will endorse at this point.

Everyone's looking at the same pledged delegate math. Yes, Clinton can mount a possible comeback with wins in Wisconsin/Hawaii and big wins in Ohio and Texas. But it's not all that likely that she'll get the kinds of margins she needs even if she does win them all, as even her own campaign concedes.

So I'd expect Edwards will join the ranks of big-name, unaffiliated Dems who can end this sometime between March 4 and April 22 (or, if Clinton does surprisingly well, between April 22 and June 7.) Gore, Pelosi, Biden, Richardson, Edwards -- maybe even Carter -- they'll put their foot down if and when the math gets too lousy for either candidate...and well before the convention.

That way Edwards retains his party poobah stature, without having to bet on either candidate. Since he seems to be genuinely torn (or he'd have already endorsed), this would make the most sense.

That being said, speaking as an Edwards voter in 2004 and an Obama voter in 2008, the fact that Edwards is seemingly still torn at this point encourages me to put some stock in Sen. Feingold's assessment of the man.

Jeff - workerbee claims she's not for Hillary. Hmmmm...... That means.....

Yeah, but whalt, doesn't the endorsee get Edwards's delegates? Or how does that work?

I agree completely.

I canvassed in WI this weekend and made unchangeable travel plans for OH in the days leading up to the primary there, taking the time off work. This is it. If you're a supporter, at a minimum you can make calls from your home in the evenings. It's much easier than you imagine and it makes all the difference in the world -- half the battle is simply reminding supporters to get out and vote, even telling them the times and looking up their polling locations. Plus, when they hear a real person speaking to them, telling them that it's close and that their support is important, I do believe it makes a difference in turnout.

I figure if I can make the difference with even 10 people, and a few thousand others are doing the same thing, that could be the difference in the election.

It sounds like the powers that be are putting pressure on Democrats with influence to remain neutral in order to broker a virtual tie.

I would prefer that they all come out and support Obama, but I have no influence.

I believe that the 2004 general election ( and the manner in which Bush won) sorta radicalized Mr. Edwards. I think that that event was why he became the fire-breathing populist that we saw starting in Iowa, 2006.

I don't question Mr. Edwards sincerity, neccesarily, but I do think that he could sometimes be too clever by half, slick even, and sometimes veered into disingenousness with some of his performances at the debates.

I would like to see Mr. Edwards endorse Senator Obama. However, I also suspect that the train has left the station, and that he blew his chance to really be relevant by hemming and hawwing about it. Plus, I don't feel exactly warm and fuzzy about the idea of his summoning Senators Clinton and Obama to his manse to basically kiss his ring. That rather demeans them both. What, has Mr. Edwards run out of miles?

But, let's suppose that he endorses Senator Clinton. Let's suppose, too, that she is successful in stealing the nomination from Senator Obama. Let's note all of the paid "commenters" who post to these various blogs, pretending to be citizen-voters while the spread the campaigns' daily talking points. And, let's note that she and Senator McCain (good friends that they are) are basically using one another's talking points in their attacks against Senator Obama. I've not been one to beleive that "the system" is stacked against the people, but...

Nader looks more like a Wise Man every day.

Hopefully Edwards will not endorse anyone.

The man who should have been the party's nominee, the only candidate who was truly transformative, should give a speech at the convention urging party unity AFTER the party's nominee is selected.

A plea for unity is the best use of Edwards' and for that matter Gore's standing within the party.

Obama supporters who insist that Edwards endorse their candidate are demonstrating that they are seeking anything but reconciliation and want victory at any cost.

For the record, I am actually expecting that neither Gore nor Edwards make an endorsement, and I think that may work in the favor of all involved ... allowing for the campaigns to basically have to stand on their own merits.

Each endorsement in and of themselves, seems to mean very little ... but Gore and Edwards, having been the presumptive winners of the 2000 election in many a mind of a democrat, have much more national pull. Having the both of them just stay silent in this is actually a powerful mesage in an of itself.

They seem to be stepping aside and saying, hey people of america ... you handle this.

cal1942, why do you think Edwards was the "only candidate who was truly transformative"? He talked about poverty a lot, but what did he do when he was in the Senate - voted for a bankruptcy reform act that was devastating to people who had been bankrupted by medical catastrophes, etc. He voted for the war. His environmental record was abysmal. He voted for the Patriot Act. Hardly transformative. I rewarded his 2007 rhetoric by supporting him, but did so with a degree of skepticism. I would really question whether he's the only candidate who is "transformative". Whatever Democrat can get elected and lead the Congress to enact policies such as health care reform, etc. (and repeal some of the miserable mistakes it has made during the Bush, and yes, Clinton, years, will be "transformative". I believe that candidate is now Obama, but if Hill can do it, I'm all for it. (And no, jabari, Nader is hardly a wise man. Thanks, Nader, for Bush.)

To be "transformative" requires not only the desire but the ability to transform.

Hillary was going to transform our healthcare system in 1992 and it wound up being the way it is now.

It's far from a lock, but Obama has the potential to the imagination of the country and win in a landslide - and turn his oratory gifts to championing specific pieces of legisation.

Hillary would either win by a small margin or lose, or, with her divisive strategy, she might win the presidency with reverse coattails, bringing out enough anti-Clinton Republicans to turn key conressional races.

My question for all of you is: what is so much better about Hillary than Obama that makes it worth leaving all his strengths on the table? His great polling numbers, his non-devisive approach and persona, and his mighty oratory skills? Why take a chance on losing when you've got a shot at a POLITICALLY transformative victory?

Edwards as a Bobby Kennedyesque, take-no-prisoners AG would be ideal

> Obama has the potential to the imagination of the country and win in a landslide - and turn his oratory gifts to championing specific pieces of legisation.

No, no, Timba, it's BAD that he has oratory gifts and that he's inspiring. We don't want a candidate who can capture the imagination of the party, we want one who doesn't inspire any passion in people. Because that's the last thing we want in the leader of our country--the ability to inspire.

And as for Edwards as AG--word.

If Senator Clinton loses Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania, she will concede. The only way she can lose any of those states is for Senator Obama to break out of his Black, upper class liberal, student demographic....
Posted by Billy Glad
February 17, 2008 11:48 PM

Which is what he did in VA, MD and DC last week.

So, your point again was...

Missed one blockquote.

The above post should have read, in part:

I think workerbee's posts pretty much speak for themselves. Which makes the following all the more precious:

And, like, you ...might want to work on that condescending attitude thing. It kinda sorta makes you appear to be up waaaay past your bedtime.

Posted by workerbee
February 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink

All in the same thread... [etc]

Wow. I'm a frequent reader of this site because I find it quite analytical and fairly unbiased... However the comments here demonstrate the rift that is already occurring in the party for absolutely no reason. I hope that when we get to the convention the biggest issue we are ironing out isn't whether to take one candidate over the other, but how to make it less likely in the future that a clear nominee isn't chosen well before the convention. Party disunity is in the end more damaging to our hopes of taking back the White House and staving off another Justice Scalia than whether the weaker of two candidates is chosen. McCain has been getting a nice head start here while we continue to bicker. One way or another, we need to hope this primary finds a way to wrap up within the next month, or you might as well take 1% away from our candidate in the general for each month it drags on.

My question for all of you is: what is so much better about Hillary than Obama that makes it worth leaving all his strengths on the table? His great polling numbers, his non-devisive approach and persona, and his mighty oratory skills?
------------------------------------------------

Not much. I'll hold my nose and vote for who ever wins the nomination. But since you asked.

I don't believe the polling numbers when the repugs have not even started their attack machine. And Obama has a lot that hasn't got a bit of media play. This has been one of the nicest primaries I've ever seen.

Not only don't I believe in his non-divisive approach will work I don't like it. The problem I see in Washington is not enough bitter partisanship. Democrats knuckling under without a fight. Every gain the progressives have made has come after a bitter fight. FDR was hated by the right, he still is. Civil rights for blacks came after fights in the streets with dogs and fire hoses turned on the protesters. Obama and his supporters are naive if they believe any progress will be made without bitter partisanship.

I'm simply unmoved by his oratorical skills. I'm old enough to have seen JFK, Bobby, and MLK. Back before there were teleprompters. When they inspired they also said something. They inspired while talking about issues, not just empty platitudes about change. After I've watched a speech by Obama I'm left feeling empty. I don't know what the hell he stands for.

I don't usually watch speeches anymore. I read transcripts. But I've been watching a lot of Obama's since people have been talking about what a great speech maker he is. Here's something I found by JFK after a quick search on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkryNyxlubY

I haven't seen anything that even remotely compares to this by Obama. And I remember dozens of great speeches like this snippet of JFK.

oceankat said: Not only don't I believe in his non-divisive approach will work I don't like it. The problem I see in Washington is not enough bitter partisanship.

Hahaha! Thank god someone besides me thinks this!

WHO in their right mind wants to cooperate with Republicans? Haven't Democrats done enough cooperating to last for several generations now? It happened to be the perversity of "bipartisanship" that permitted preemptive war and the current quagmire in Iraq, which the next president will inherit. Ironically, Obama preaches bipartisan gospel while criticizing Clinton (Hillary and Bill both) for exercising it.

oceankat, you might enjoy this video where Mike Gravel talks about gridlock in Congress and how Lyndon Johnson got stuff done "not by reaching across the aisle and holding hands; Lyndon Johnson got things done by reaching across the aisle and cracking heads!"

Sorry, gharlane, you're wrong. Obama's demographics in VA, DC, and MD were roughly the same as they were for his other primary wins:

Unfortunately, the exit polls in Virginia and Maryland do not provide much of a clue about whether momentum is coming into play. Obama's best groups are heavily represented in both states—and the exit polls do not really dig deep enough into voter demography to offer a clear answer as to whether Clinton is hemorrhaging parts of her core constituency. For instance, the exit poll shows Obama winning white men in Virginia by 14% and Clinton winning white women by 9%. The white gender gap remains, but it favors Clinton less. In Maryland, the story is the same. White men break more heavily to Obama than they have in the past; white women break less heavily to Clinton. Is this simply a function of wealthy voters, male and female alike, going for Obama? Amazingly, 39% of Virginia Democrats and 41% of Maryland Democrats reported incomes of $100,000 or more—this plays to a major strength of Obama.

If income was a factor in the white vote breaking for Obama in VA and MD, then he's unlikely to win as handily in some of the upcoming primaries.

I think your argument is flawed.

stop thinking and start listening

Surely "bringing it" doesn't apply to Republicans (RN, GHWB, BD, GWB, JM). So how do Republicans win?

Republicans win by default when the Democrats can't bring it. The brain-trust behind the Republicans is richer, smarter, and more ruthless. They control the masses - as they have since the beginning of time - because they're pure and uncompromised in their lust for power and their complete disregard for morality, and they will always win unless you stop them.

And the only way to stop them is to bring it.

Bill Clinton only "brought it" by virtue of being compared with two of the most tongue-tied, pathetic losers the Republicans have ever gotten stuck with, and even then he had Perot turning the electoral college inside out to help him out. McCain is light-years ahead of Bush 41 and Bob Dole. You really think Hillary is gonna beat McCain? As the mayor of Carmel would say, "Are you feelin' lucky, punk?"

Eugene McCarthy ... ah yes ... Eugene McCarthy ... my childhood hero. When I was canvassing for McCarthy, I was thinking like you are now. Bobby Kennedy could bring it, but McCarthy was the real deal.

I was as sad that McCarthy lost in California that night as I was that they shot Bobby Kennedy. But in the end McCarthy couldn't even beat that pompous idiot Hubert H. Humphrey.

Was McCarthy better on the issues than RFK? Yes.

Would McCarthy have been a better president than RFK? Maybe. (Because you have to bring it AFTER you get elected too.)

Would McCarthy have beaten Nixon ... probably not.

Would RFK have beaten Nixon? Hell yes he would have beaten Nixon. Pat Brown beat Nixon! Bobby Kennedy would have mopped the floor with Richard Nixon because Bobby Kennedy could bring it. And it would have changed history.

And this is all a moot point because it's Edwards who's aspiring to be compared to Eugene McCarthy, not Hillary Clinton. She might be smarter than all of them but she can't bring it and she sold her soul to the devil a long time ago.

In the final analysis, it's about changing history. If I had it to do over again, I would pass out leaflets for Bobby Kennedy instead ... for all the good it would have done. But in 2008 there's no analogy to the choice between Kennedy and McCarthy, and the Secret Service has made a hell of a lot more progress than the rest of the government agencies.

Idealism Pragmatism

1968 2008

"We Won't Get Fooled Again" "Yes We Can"

Imagine looking back at it from 2048 if Hillary had been the nominee ... if Obama had been the nominee.

Oceankat right above told a convenient lie:

Obama gave one speech before he was a senator and then shut up about it and voted in lock step with Clinton.

Get your facts straight, you are starting to smell like a republican:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

No she can't!

Oceankat right above told a convenient lie:

Obama gave one speech before he was a senator and then shut up about it and voted in lock step with Clinton.

Get your facts straight, you are starting to smell like a republican:
---------------------------------------------------

Get real, there's a few dozen bills that Obama and Clinton have voted differently on. On some I agree with Obama, some with Clinton. But when it comes to halting the war there's no difference. And comparing either of them to McGovern is a joke.

Wow, some of these comments remind me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "...your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries! ... Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

It's so nice that we can all have a civil discussion. Anyway...

I'm skeptical of endorsements' ability to sway voters under most circumstances; I don't think Edwards' endorsement in itself will help Hillary or Barack win Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas. However, lost among all of the sniping here is the real reason (I think) that both Clinton and Obama really, really want John Edwards' endorsement. Doesn't John have 105 tasty pledged delegates who's votes he can direct? The way things are going, the "Edwards' primary" could very well be the biggest contest left outside of Texahio. And it's winner-take-all...

That's what this is really about (unless I don't get the way delegate voting works, which is most certainly possible).

drw3344 said, "What I want to remind everyone is how critically important it is to put a Democrat in the White House in 2009."

sorry. I believe the most important challenge in the 2008 presidential election is ending the Bush-Clinton lock on the presidency. The nation simply cannot change and move forward if we buy into another dishonest presidency built on lies, family ties and corporate influence.

With two families controlling the White House for decades, and controlling access to presidential records, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS HAPPENING. We do know that Congressional oversight and Constitutional "checks and balances" is a joke, given the current make-up of Congress. Democrats are no different than Republicans, all are pork-driven, corporate-owned and unethical, concerned about their re-election at any cost to the nation.

What we know about Iran Contra, the Clinton abuses of FBI records, George Bush' horrendous abuses of the Constitution could be the tip of an iceberg. We just have no idea the extent of it all. And as long as the Bushes and the Clintons protect each other and dictate by executive order how Presidential records are processed, maintained and accessed, we will never know.

I am enthusiastic about Obama as a presidential candidate. I could accept McCain, if it ends the Bush-Clinton domination of our government.

I agree with Obama that words do matter. They do matter as long as it is yours, not if they are copied, just to create a persona that you are not. Do not make the mistake, we made in 2000 and 2004. Do not follow the hype.

Well just look at the trends if you look at the poll charts its clear Obama has been making a lot of ground and Hillary has been staying flat. Now that the two lines have crossed lets see if it keeps going up or levels off. Depending how Tue and March 4th go this thing could finally be over soon, that said though that much time in politics is a lifetime.

I am a baby boomer that dropped out after Bobby was murdered. 3 years later I traveled in Europe for a year where I met with constant disdain from the European left toward the manner in which many of us on the left in the US had done that.

I remember how filled with hope we were that we were going to change the world-bring peace, end racism solve poverty. And now when I look at the mess our country is in I am ashamed-even though I do not feel responsible for Bush and his ilk.

I just read Posted by michellemybelle
February 18, 2008 3:12 AM -

It is a few comments above and her enthusiasm makes my heart sing. It is part of the reason I support Obama. Whatever else he is, he is also the first candidate since the night Bobby was murdered to turn on the young people.

While Hillary would be light years better than Bush-IF she can get elected, I do not think she will make fundamental changes. And Obama may not be able to do that either. But there is a CHANCE that he might-and I think its time for us Boomers to stand aside and see if today's young people can accomplish what we failed to do.

I have been waiting for a candidate who could turn on our youth for years-because I can still feel the incredible hope I felt-and I have faith in the power of that kind of belief. The facts provide little evidence that we Boomers have done a better job than our parents did.

I for one think it's time to let the next generation have their shot. After all-they are the one's who will be left with the repercussions of our failures!

Obama had to cancel his trip to Wisconsin because the snowstorm made the airports inaccessible, not because he thought meeting Edwards was more important.

I do agree with the sentiment though, that it should have been Edwards visiting the other two, who had campaigning schedules to meet. But we all know that Edwards is a very vain person, not that there is anything wrong with that. So are Obama and Hillary vain, in different ways. All politicians are vain. It is the nature of the beast.

Obama is probably more interested in keeping good relations with Edwards's and his supporters supporters than actually getting an endorsement, because the latter would have to involve some kind of quid pro quo. So to a real extent going to visit Edwards is political symbolism, and the same thing for Hillary.

For Edwards, the value of his endorsement is like milk sitting in the refrigerator: the longer you don't use it the staler it gets.

timba asks: You really think Hillary is gonna beat McCain?

Yes.

Especially using your theory. As you say, just listen to McCain. He loses his place on the teleprompter constantly.

"She has experienced public failure and public humiliation. No doubt she has learned from it."

I note the phrasing of this statement is just an assumption on your part. I keep wondering where the evidence is that in fact she HAS learned something.

Her health care plan in the 90s failed largely because of her arrogance and mismanagement--keeping the process secret, dissing Congressional Dems who had an interest in the issue, etc. And her conduct of this campaign has not shown me anything to make me think that she has changed her methods.

DancingBear said: Her health care plan in the 90s failed largely because of her arrogance and mismanagement--keeping the process secret, dissing Congressional Dems who had an interest in the issue, etc.

Republican talking points: "her arrogance and mismanagement" + "keeping the process secret" + "dissing Congress . . ."

Thanks for breaking a sweat to make an informed contribution.

But regardless, so what if she is arrogant?

btw, Obama is as much of a hawk as Bush.