Looks like Edwards is out

[abcdefz]

From CNN:

John Edwards to quit '08 race
Former Sen. John Edwards is quitting the Democratic race for president, two sources inside his campaign told CNN Wednesday. He is
expected to make the announcement in New Orleans at 1 p.m. ET. Edwards does not plan to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Barack
Obama at this time, an aide said, but he may do so in the future.

[jabumbo]

looks like giuliani is out as well. things are starting to shape up nicely, i think!

[abcdefz]

I dunno. Edwards and Obama are the only two candidates I could've voted for with any enthusiasm whatsoever.

[saz]

a sad day indeed. edwards was in a really tough spot: up against two celebrity candidates, who have raised nearly 100 million dollars, with the media gushing all over them and completely ignoring edwards, while elizabeth edwards was diagnosed with uncurable cancer.

and he was the most electable.

anyways, best of luck to whoever gets the nomination, but i don't think that either hillary or obama will be able to beat mccain. hopefully i'm proven wrong.

[DroppinScience]

Edwards out =

Giuliani out =

[DroppinScience]

BTW, with Edwards out of the race, Nader is now becoming more serious about running.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ite-house-bid/

Think Bloomberg will step in the race too? Maybe there'd be some good third-party options for all political stripes?

[QueenAdrock]

Well, I was planing to vote for Edwards but now I have to change my mind yet again.

I'm still undecided between Obama and Hillary, I'll have to think about it more.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by QueenAdrock

Well, I was planing to vote for Edwards but now I have to change my mind yet again.

I'm still undecided between Obama and Hillary, I'll have to think about it more.

Me too. Obama sounds good but I don't think he has substance. He's more conservative than Hillary on issues where I'm not conservative.

[QueenAdrock]

That's what I believe too. But then the people who don't like Hillary just don't like her because of her votes for the war and the patriot act. I agree, I'm completely against those votes of hers, but then again, she is too now. I think it's important to look at what they have to say NOW, what their platforms are, what they admit were mistakes and what they plan to do in the future. Just voting for Obama because you like the way he speaks and how he carries himself as "presidential" is kinda stupid, and it seems that's the main selling point for a lot of people. Looking into the issues more, I wish Obama had Hillary's plans, because I like his personality, but I like her as a politician with good ideas.

It's not as simple just to say "Oh, she's a bitch. She voted for the war." There's a lot to look at for both candidates.

[Documad]

QA, I agree. About 80 percent of Americans were excited when we invaded Iraq. There weren't too many protesters and everyone was glued to their TVs. I, for one, was uncomfortable going in without UN support, so I was against it, but I can understand Hillary's version (and Kerry's) that they believed Colin Powell and the president regarding the intelligence, and they believed that they were voting to give the president the power but that he wouldn't use it until he tried to work with the UN and the inspectors and threaten Saddam first. In retrospect, that was stupid. But at the time, I never dreamed that Bush was such a wacko. I think that many of us believed that he was stupid and weak and thus he would lean on others. Instead, he is an egomaniac who doesn't listen to dissenting voices, even when they're in his own government.

And I also believe that if Obama had been in the Senate he would have voted just like Kerry and Clinton. It's easy to say you're against a war, but it's difficult to vote against what amounts to a vote of confidence in our president a fairly short time after 9/11.

(I'd like to say that one of my US Senators voted against the first Iraq war and was roasted for it. And another of my US Senators voted against this war and was roasted for it. They both look brilliant in retrospect. When the second one stepped down a year ago and we had our convention, I cried at the ovation he got when they mentioned that he was one of the small number of senators who voted against the war. But much of the reason for that ovation was the guilt that his fellow democrats felt for roasting him at the time.)

[Documad]

On NPR tonight, I heard clips of Clinton and Obama talking about the economy. They were short clips but Clinton listed about six concrete things she would do as president and Obama sort of babbled. As I sit here now, I can remember many of Clinton's points, but I can't remember anything Obama said. I feel that way every time Obama talks about something that is supposed to be concrete.

So I'm not sure that I could vote for Obama in the caucuses. I'll probably vote for Clinton. But I realize that in the general election, maybe Obama will be better. Maybe Americans are so dumb that it's smarter to say nothing of substance--then there's nothing you can be criticized for. If you have no policies or real plans on your website, McCain can't attack you for them I suppose.

[saz]

Originally Posted by QueenAdrock

Just voting for Obama because you like the way he speaks and how he carries himself as "presidential" is kinda stupid, and it seems that's the main selling point for a lot of people.

bingo.

a lot of people aren't supporting hillary because well, she's been nothing but a hawk and panderer while in the senate. she also once represented wal-mart in arkansas, and coca-cola from disabled employees. so, considering bill's welfare "reform", implementation of nafta, and deregulation agenda - including the awful telecommunications act - a lot of progressives, or those who care about the interests of the middle and working class aren't interested in supporting hillary.

not only is there bloomberg to consider, who is a lot more progressive than either hillary or obama, but there is also the green party. their ten key values and platform is what the democrats should be advocating.

http://www.gp.org/index.php

[QueenAdrock]

Originally Posted by Documad

If you have no policies or real plans on your website, McCain can't attack you for them I suppose.

Very true. Though I'm pretty sure Clinton could handle herself well against McCain, and I'm also pretty sure that Obama could not. McCain is a seasoned war vet and senator, which is hard to go up against...especially if you're SO new to the senate (and trying to be the nation's first black president, too). It would be an uphill battle for Obama. And he could easily be attacked for having no real plan, being so new, being all talk, etc. Hillary could be attacked on other things, but she couldn't be attacked for those, which I consider HUGE points to consider.

I'm still hoping for Romney to pull through, because he'd be pretty easy to beat.

[yeahwho]

I have many reservations about Hillary Clinton, the ones mentioned above are certainly included. I'm for Barack Obama because of a multitude of reasons, let me say the over-riding reason for my choosing of Obama is his dynamic persona combined with an extremely high IQ. Experience and toughness is something I agree Hillary Clinton has in spades, yet brilliance and a real breath of fresh air is not what Hillary conveys to me.

The final paragraphs of this Atlanta Journal Constitution endorsement sum up much of my feelings about the difference between the two,

For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.

Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.

Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.

[QueenAdrock]

Thus my previous statement, Clinton's plans + Obama's personality= winner!

Clinton has some great ideas for renewable energy, such as taxing oil companies $50 billion and putting it towards alternative energy (which I think is freakin' awesome), and she has a comprehensive economy plan. Both McCain and Obama lack on that. Oh, and she also wants to get rid of No Child Left Behind, whereas Obama wants to "revise it" but hasn't said much else. A few other reasons too, but...why isn't Obama as liberal as he's painted out to be? I mean, I just don't get it.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by QueenAdrock

Thus my previous statement, Clinton's plans + Obama's personality= winner!

Clinton has some great ideas for renewable energy, such as taxing oil companies $50 billion and putting it towards alternative energy (which I think is freakin' awesome), and she has a comprehensive economy plan. Both McCain and Obama lack on that. Oh, and she also wants to get rid of No Child Left Behind, whereas Obama wants to "revise it" but hasn't said much else. A few other reasons too, but...why isn't Obama as liberal as he's painted out to be? I mean, I just don't get it.

I'm not choosing the most liberal candidate (which I'm sure your aware of) I'm choosing the best candidate for the job. He has come this far not because of the dream of some sort of liberal point of view, but because his ability to mobilize millions of Americans to work for and with him. He has some fantastic ideas. I've listed many of them in multiple threads.

Someone here needs to step up to the plate and endorse Hillary. Otherwise it just seems silly to me, the whole "He's not experienced enough" "He's not liberal enough" "He's not married to an ex-president enough" "His voting record is not solid enough" "blah, blah, blah" theory.

The man is a force, I see endearing qualities in Obama I've never seen in a democratic presidential candidate my whole life. A friend of mine sent me an email after hearing his winning speech at SC, he said the difference of hearing him speak and being in the same room is incredible. He captivates, he listens and he delivers on his promise with his oration.

Not a wooden soldier, nope. A force that demands attention. I wish him nothing but the very best delivering his message and heading towards the White House.

[yeahwho]

just because........ Obama in SC

Here is a take I believe best reflects my current thinking of these two candidates and the differences I see and feel, from the Huffington Post a view many other mainstream media outlets ignore.