Does Edwards still have a chance to win the nomination?

He seems to be doing very well in Nevada, and perhaps if he does he will catch fire in South Carolina? Even if Edwards doesn't win, he and Obama may keep Hillary from gathering enough delegates to win. So what do you think?

I'd like to see it.

have had a chance to cast our votes as yet. Anything is possible!

And he isn't far back at all in the Delegate count

Especially if he does well in Nevada and SC.
<><><>

These bumper stickers, t-shirts & more at: http://www.cafepress.com/powerboutique GET OUT THE VOTE!

Anything can happen

even though I had the TV on in the background (and switched channels periodically), I heard the name "John Edwards" more this afternoon than I have in the last month. Granted, the Hillary-Barack clash this week was the bulk of the discussion, but simply hearing Edwards' name mentioned...and them not acting as though it's a two-person race...was almost astonishing.

Maybe it's because of the debate tonight, maybe it's because they all want to get away from the race drama of this week since the parties involved have toned everything down, maybe they want to deflect the potential attention DK will get at the media's expense (for trying to keep him out of the debate) and want to get away from being accused of ignoring Edwards, too. Who knows?

I just wanted to share that observation. The main comment I heard was that he is still viable, but must bring in a win in order to keep money flowing.

BTW, what exactly does that mean when they say that? Are they talking about individual citizens' donating (like us) based upon winning from state to state, or are they talking about endorsements which would translate into the "endorser's" supporters donating? I know it's a stupid question, but I honestly am not sure what "money flow" they're referring to, especially if a candidate has pledged to not accept lobby donations.