Well, clearly, Edwards could finish off Sen. Clinton if he wanted to...

merely by dropping out and endorsing Obama. I think the race would be over. Obama would win pretty easily in NH, and then SC. That should take care of the remainder of Clinton's soft support.

I dunno. Maybe I WOULD do that, if I was Edwards. I'd like to see him win, but I might just go ahead and make sure Clinton lost.

he might try to finish her off by taking second in NH. Then it becomes a two man race. If he loses NH then he should drop out and endorse Obama.

Edwards and Obama split the rest of the vote.

And cause Obama to be nominated, who would then lose the November election?? Why would Edwards want that?

I am not a Hillary fan either, but it is clear to me which Dems can win in November, and which have absolutely no chance.

It's so hard for us to look past the primaries, when all the arrows from the right will be aimed at the one lone nominee, but I can't see anyone except Edwards having a shot in the General.

I'm sending Edwards money for the General campaign. Obama is a Republican and a big disppointment here in IL. His image is all media hype.

and think Obama will lose in November?

Do you have any idea the magnitude of what happened here? Obama was able to bring an unprecedented number of new people to the caucuses. He has the ability to beat the Republicans like no one else.

Obama would have to win the blue states that Kerry won, plus flip enough red states to get to 270. How do you see this working out? How does he win the male swing voters that Kerry and Gore couldn't reach, especially against Romney or Giuliani?

As to the huge crowds: during the last weekend of the 1984 election Mondale was getting gigantic, wild crowds. The media were floating around phrases such as, "Is it possible?" "Republicans worried", etc. Two days later Mondale lost 49 states. I do NOT want to go through that again, nor do I wish to repeat the Dukais disaster of 1988, but I clearly see it happening again.

Seriously?

Mondale was a VP, the presumptive favorite. He was more like Hillary than Obama. Gary Hart was more like Obama, but not nearly as successful or compelling. I haven't seen a campaign with this much energy since Bobby.

All you're doing is saying the same convential wisdom that said Obama wouldn't be able to get young voters to turn out. That the projections in the DMR poll were inconsistent with history and would be unprecedented. Well, it happened. And you can keep underestimating Obama and keep getting proven wrong or you can take a new look and realize there's something special going on here.

with George McGovern in 1972. He was special indeed: the first to lose 48 states.

When you deduct the 40-45% who will loyally vote for each party's nominees you have 10 to 15% left who are the swing voters, and who usually decide the Electoral College. Are these (usually white male) voters going to elect Obama over Romney, McCain or Giuliani?? No, they aren't. But in fairness they won't elect Hillary either.

Yes, Bobby would have won in 1968. I was for McCarthy but would have voted for Bobby had I been 21, and had he been allowed to live. But Obama is not Bobby Kennedy. Not even close.

more people will be brought into the political process and into the democratic party. The democratic party will get a new influx of voters, and this could very well become a generational thing with a new generation of younger voters basically in the dem fold, a transformational thing since they will vote in future elections as well, giving the dems an advantage similar to what happened after Roosevelt. And similar to what happened with the reps after reagan.

How can he win? Now the question is how can he lose? He won lily white iowa against the establishment, against the msm who appointed hillary as the front runner and wound up expanding the number of voters, actually getting the youth vote to vote, and even beat hillary among women! Who else could do that?

56,000 young people turned out in Iowa last night- 3x the number in 2004. Women went for Obama, and liberals and indies. It's clear to me that you're clueless. Obama can win in November. In fact, he has an excellent chance of doing so, and the evidence bears that out. You offer only opinion.

at least through NH, I think.

I hope he does well and eventually wins the nomination. Here's why:

http://www.jedreport.com/2007/12/john-edwards-is.html

Edwards is STILL the only Dem who's a sure winner against any repub they throw at us.

matched how abysmally it "fits" (or rather, doesn't) with what he's saying today.

and endorsing Obama to "make sure Clinton lost."

LMAO

by merely dropping out and endorsing Edwards.

And Clinton could finish off Obama by doing the same thing.

And around and around and around we go.

If he can pull out New Hampshire, he can stay in a while longer and that's what he will do. Look how long he stayed in in 2004 after he knew Kerry had it. Last night he acted as if there were five points between him and Clinton instead of a quarter of a %. He doesn't know how to lose, so as long as he can hold out, he will.

and Republicans. They were both Senators and have not called for the impeachment of Bush. Why is that?