<p>^^totally agree, Novelisto</p>
<p>yes he will be good as AG or Secretary of Labor or EPA</p>
<p>"He’d bring decency and honor back to the Justice Dept and there’d be no more ‘I don’t recall’ and ‘Quaint Geneva Convention’ or “Waterboarding’s just like a day at the spa’ nonsense.”</p>
<p>Probably true (and unfortuantely, also probably true with McCain), but there would also be more terrorists attacks. I think I’d rather not have the terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>I think it’s unlikely that he’d be appointed Attorney General. His experience is not what is usually sought for that position. I imagine that he’d probably be tapped for some position in a new Democratic administration but AG, in my opinion, would not be the best use of his talents.</p>
<p>Well, I agree about AG; I think he’d make an excellent one. I’m thinking someone will come up with a new cabinet position that speaks specifically to his interests. He gave a speech in May 2007 to the Council on Foreign Relations (still on his website, I think), where he spoke about creating a new cabinet position that would speak to global poverty.</p>
<p>I’m sad that he dropped out and I hope he will find a meaningful place in a new administration. My son has a photo with him, arm in arm, taken when he came to speak at his university two years ago. The topic: Two Americas. S is a huge Edwards fan and really thought he had an underdog chance to win the nomination.</p>
<p>There was a CC poll done a while back that showed Edwards was the most popular candidate for members of this forum. Would any of you care to explain why Edwards did not catch on?</p>
<p>It is hard to say. Maybe the democrats arn’t ready for him yet and prefer a little less socialism than what edwards was proposing.</p>
<p>I’m going to repeat. Big media ignored him because they’re controlled by big corporate. Big corporate is trying to gain control of virtually everything and they are succeeding at this point. Not a pretty picture. He’d make an incredible AG.</p>
<p>“Would any of you care to explain why Edwards did not catch on?”</p>
<p>we simply aren’t a representative sample of america.</p>
<p>Actually a more important question should be being asked. Why don’t candidates with common sense catch on. It is obvious that both the Republicans and Democrats have failed, but yet no one will ever leave them.</p>
<p>momof2inca: Oh, that’s really interesting-- how great to have that photo. I also thought he had an underdog chance of winning. Again, I’m just flabbergasted that he dropped out so close to Feb 5.</p>
<p>About not “catching on,” I do think bethievt has a point; the media controls so much of this, and they are owned by big corporations. They completely ignored him. I also think it’s a tough year for any white male candidate-- white males in power? Been there, done that-- having a woman and an African American getting this close to a presidential nomination is big news, though. Frankly, I didn’t think I’d ever see that in my lifetime. As a result, Edwards was pretty much ignored, and if you can’t get the media to cover you, it’s hard to get people to listen to your issues, and it’s hard to get money. He didn’t take money from special interests groups, so his election wouldn’t have had to answer to all those people-- so they knew they weren’t gonna get anything from him.</p>
<p>Does anybody but me think that a Clinton/Obama ticket has a better chance to defeat the republicans better than either one of them separately?</p>
<p>IMO, if Obama was vp for 4 (8?) years, and things were going well, he’d be a shoe in for president.</p>
<p>I just have this sinking feeling that so many people will be disappointed that Clinton or Obama is Not the candidate, that they will not bother to vote and we could get stuck with Republicans for another 4/8 years.</p>
<p>I agree with janieblue’s comments about Edwards. The poor guy got no media coverage. Today, he praised both Obama and Clinton, but said he was running against two celebrities. It’s so true. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I support Obama!!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>He didn’t catch on with me because class warfare doesn’t resonate with me.</p>
<p>Edwards was transparently inauthentic. Passionate maybe. But no more so than in one of his closing arguments for a bad baby lawsuit (which financed his only Senatorial campaign.)</p>
<p>“Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month.”</p>
<p>[Edwards</a> exits presidential race - John Edwards News - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22913001/]Edwards”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22913001/)</p>
<p>FF – Gee, you sound so positive. Shouldn’t you be talking to Homeland Security or somebody? </p>
<p>I wish you on the right would stop with the ‘booga-booga…be scared, be very scared’ stuff. If a bunch of stumblebums like the Bush Administration can keep off terrorists by doing so very little besides talking a good game, imagine what a group of competent people can do. Maybe even a drop in terrorist activity around the world? Worldwide, terrorist incidents have risen precipitately during Bush’s tenure…or is it okay as long as somebody else is bearing the brunt of his absurdity?</p>
<p>Another view from the younger member of family. Edwards might have been pressured by the party insiders to call it quits.</p>
<p>[New</a> Gallup Poll: Obama cuts Clinton lead to 6 points - On Politics - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/new-gallup-poll.html]New”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/new-gallup-poll.html)</p>
<p>I guess the (ex) Edward’s supporters will be very important. It looks like the momentum is going toward Obama.</p>
<p>1sokkermom: I did think Obama’s comments today in Denver (about Edwards), and later comments that suggested he’s been vocal about wanting his endorsement-- yeah, I’m thinking maybe he’ll go with Obama. I don’t have a clue. While I think that would make the most sense, some of his policies (though obviously not all) were closely aligned with Hillary’s.</p>
<p>While I think Obama has been more about rhetoric than substance, I do think he’s smart, and I think he’ll be smart enough to gather smart people around him, if elected. Hillary just doesn’t exude trust (for me).</p>
<p>simba: I wondered if his own strategists told him that it was the smarter thing to do. If he didn’t fare well on Feb 6, he might have had less of an impact on the other candidates going forward. Not knowing how he would fare, he now has a better chance of making a deal. I’m guessing. So, strategically, for him-- and for his causes-- it may have been the smarter thing to do.</p>