It's not progressive to want to lop-off Edwards at this point

It's more than a little sleazy to keep telling Edwards supporters their candidate is beaten. Most of the arguments against Edwards continuing after his third place showing in SC are based on precedents and projected polls. However, there haven't been enough votes cast yet to nominate any of the three. It's more than convenient for those with candidates in the lead to want others to drop off, but, it goes without saying that any of the candidates' demise would elevate the others' prospects.

Besides, there's just something wrong -- even anti-progressive -- to these early calls to narrow the representation of our issues and concerns before the majority of regions of the country have had their chance to listen to and question these candidates from their own perspective.

There is certainly a history of these early victories snowballing into an inevitability for the frontrunner(s). And, any amateur prognosticator can forcast a probable outcome to this primary race. But, that's not reality, no matter how much some folks want you to believe it is. Actual votes cast are the realities we should invest our political belief in, not punditry.

We can already see how much the facades and props of these campaigns have given way and exposed some of the unfavorable aspects of their records, careers, or associations. A bit more of that (constructive) unmasking and revelation of these candidates' positions and record would be a benefit to our democracy and a benefit to the issues we intend for them to represent.

If we close the race down now, or try and narrow the choices, now, before most of the country has been able to hear from and question these candidates, we will narrow the issues which will be propelled into the general campaign. We will be narrowing the scope of the 'change' everyone says they want. We need a broadening of the discussion of these issues and concerns, not a tightening or a loping off of representation.

We should celebrate the presence of these three Democrats -- who each carry delegates apportioned according to the hopes and concerns of each region of every state. That's the system our party chose to give voice and visibility to these diverse regions of our nation; unlike the republican, winner-take-all primary system which disregards the voices of voters in favor of their party machine.

It's off to Super Tuesday for our three contenders, and I wish them all well. More than that, I look forward to hearing from voters in these upcoming states as they get their chance to weigh in on the choices in this election. And, I look forward to hearing more from the three candidates about their proposals and solutions to the needs and concerns voters express along the way. That's what I think those interested in advancing a progressive agenda should anticipate and support, as well.

give em up

or else . . . what?

Obama and Clinton supporters (and Obama and Clinton themselves) need to take a good look at their candidate and candidacy, to see why they failed to get the votes of the people who voted for and are voting for Edwards - like me for one. To do this they need to contrast their candidate and their campaign with Edwards' campaign, and the differences will be their answer. In my case, both Obama and Clinton would have to change dramatically between now and the November election if they want to earn my vote.

...taking on corporations ~ has a lot to do with Edwards' appeal. We also have Kucinich to thank for changing the conversation.

Edwards will only stay in because he wants to be kingmaker. He's a politician. He knows how this works, and he knows he can't win.

if he's able.

I don't buy the 'kingmaker' argument. It goes without saying that Edwards' voters expect their issues and concerns to be represented in this process. It's not a coronation. By staying in the race, Edwards has a chance to give more elevation to those interests which are invested in the delegates he's already won.

I think it's the right thing for him to do. If something changes with C. or O. - Edwards will be right there to step in. And I'm also disgusted with the MSM that refuses to give him barely any attention. I was really proud of KO the other night for giving him a highlight.

. . . working to limit representation of the issues and concerns we all say we care so much about before the majority of Americans have had a chance to vote.

about "The Other America" he would join with Obama. John Edward's noble GOALS will NOT be realized through A THIRD (3x) TERM stranglehold under that of a Clintonian DLC stacked Executive Branch.

I hope and pray that John Edwards realizes the above before it's too late. :shrug;

Most Edwards supporters KNOW this...which is why it is presumptuous to assume they will all flock to Obama--I can pretty much promise you that ain't going to happen.

edited to fix grammar error

with the overwhelming charisma of Obama. But, SC is a small state and the Feb. 5th Primary should give the first chance to see how all three candidates do in larger states with more diversity.

...tactics and attitudes that reminds me of: REPUBLICANS (and lately some of the tactics of the two novelty frontrunning candidates - who are just as disgusting these days)

_ _ _ _ _

NO ONE has won yet.

and..

NO ONE has lost yet, either.

I realize that the MEDIA and the supporters of the two corprat-bought, frontrunning, novelty, symbolic-change candidates here are trying to CREATE THE PERCEPTION that someone has won or lost at this point.

But the TRUTH IS: NO ONE HAS WON OR LOST ANYTHING YET --

so there's NO reason for anyone to drop out - unless they WANT to - and THAT, folks, is up to the CANDIDATE.

NOT YOU, NOT the MEDIA. YOU don't get to decide. And NEITHER does the media (unless YOU LET them).


YOUR CANDIDATE has NOT won yet - whoever YOUR candidate is.


YOUR CANDIDATE has NOT lost yet - whoever YOUR candidate is.

SO STOP ACTING LIKE THEY HAVE and get the frick over yourselves.

I really hate sports analogies but can't help myself (it's the only way some
people will ever get it)

It's like stopping an Olympic 50 yard (State) dash after the
the first 5 yards because one of the runners is 1/4 stride ahead.

or

Stopping next weeks "Stupor Bowl" after one quarter just because
someone has 3 points on the board and more fans in the stands.

People calling for his withdrawal are shortsighted at best.
His message is more important than how he "places" in the delegate count.
The fact that he will have a sizable delegate count will matter..Bigtime!
It means the eventual nominee will probably have to agree to a much more progressive platform.

And I agree about the delegates. IF he can't win (and we don't know that yet) he certainly can have a significant effect on the party's platform and the outcome, regardless.

Hard to get excited about corporate candidates where this would have the opposite effect.

;)

Forums. He is getting delegates. Why in the world should anyone suggest that someone should "get out" to make way for an exclusive race. It stinks of an anti-democratic idealogy!

Forget the triangulation... think about it

close down our democracy and narrow our focus to whatever those remaining are willing to represent? frick that.

But he will eventually run out of money, he will be ignored and he will continue his transformation into a latter day Dennis Kucinich in terms of relevance.

but that demise shouldn't be so celebrated by folks who claim to want 'progressive politics'

exclusion politics . . . not very progressive at all.