Is Clinton the right candidate? The fact that she voted for the Iraq war was inevitable: it would have been political suicide for her not to vote for it with all her Jewish constituents. However, she is certainly not my first choice. Edwards holds that position for simple reasons. His message is progressive...he is appealing...yes, he voted for the Iraq incursion but he denounces it...I like his position on corporations...and above all, he will have wide appeal whereas Clinton and Obama could be fighting the woman president and black president battles all the way. I don't think that Americans can lay down racial and gender issues to the extent that we would like them to. It worries me greatly and I would hate it if the Democrats managed yet again to wrest defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I hope Iowa will pick a candidate who doesn't have to face an uphill battle over gender and race.

Edwards is very appealing and his campaign is very progressive. Plus, I think Democrats would figure out that they have to give to the DNC to get Edwards elected. He is very electable.

Bloomberg changes parties like he changes his expensive clothes. Besides being for Israel, this man is otherwise vacuous. How on earth could anyone think he's an alternative to anything? His candidacy is ludicrous and downright irritating!!!!

Obama's popularity demonstrates the hypnotic trance a crowd can fall into when they hear a consummate speaker. His appeal draws on the human yearning for a Utopian state. Like the charismatic evangelist, Obama taps into a crowd's desire for a soothing, simple answer. His oratory is superb and his voting record does not shoot him in the foot. He is a fresh face.

I like him but I doubt that his appeal would crack into the hard shell of a conservative independent or overcome the racial prejudice still lurking under the American surface. Most of all, I worry that he is too compliant. I want a fighter who when worse comes to worse knows how to compromise but who will put up the good fight to achieve his/her dreams and who knows how to maneuver in the political swamp. I'm unconvinced that Obama has yet attained that kind of expertise.

Bush and his right-wing cohorts which include Scalia and Thomas have tried to make torture and harsh punishment politically correct in this country. They all have undermined the very foundations of our constitution and continue to erode our decency and respectability at home and abroad.

I am so worried that the Democrats will select a candidate which will allow the Republicans another White House victory. First and foremost, we must win the presidency. That means we must offer a candidate who will put up the good fight and who has broad appeal because the Republican hooligans will stop at nothing to achieve the prize...they have no decency. Obama and Clinton will have to fight an uphill battle with racial and gender issues, plus I fear both of them are too milk-toasty...too willing to compromise in order to get a consensus. We should all be worried. It is not enough to like a candidate...we must offer a candidate with full-ranging appeal and a gladiator spirit for the big fight ahead. Hillary will get in there and scrap but she is not universally liked...Obama is the supreme orator but can he overcome the racial issues lurking under the American skin.

I like Edwards...he represents my values.

It is interesting to see that there are others who feel that Obama is too compliant.

We have had enough of Democrats rubber stamping Republican disasters. I want someone different. Edwards seems to be the only candidate who doesn't apologize for being a Democrat~!

Shapiro's analysis rings true. Obama has charisma and he has money, too which put him over the top! But I am still convinced that Edwards would have broader appeal than Obama in a general election. Hillary suffers from her conservative approach and her voting record which might appeal to a wider audience in a national election but not to Democrats who want change. I want change, too...however, I don't see Obama bringing on great change; on the other hand, Edwards would try to implement a real Democratic agenda. Obama would just try to keep the fires low in an effort to mollify everyone. That never works!

This article is disappointing. Like the rest of the media, it completely ignores Edwards. Is there some kind of guru who tells the media what to right about...even Conason. It appears that Edwards doesn't exist and that his pushing aside of Hillary is not even newsworthy. I am disgusted!

I doubt the Repuglicans will talk only about terror, though it will be the most campaigned about. There are taxes and those evil illegal immigrants to pounce on and unpatriotic Democrats who would dare question whether Iraq should have been invaded...and let's not forget family values....The sickening litany of disgusting, hackneyed campaign slogans which have brought them victory in the past.

I hope the Democrats will manage to offer the voters a candidate who is attractive to them, a candidate who can appeal to a broad spectrum of people. The election is ours to lose and it could easily happen!

Rebecca, everyone is tired, including John Edwards, and your trashing him is disgusting on its own! Personally, I think the press has made a mountain out of a mole hill on the watery eyes story! It is one thing to well up because someone has been attacked personally; it is another thing to well up when stating one's heartfelt goals and aspirations...and beliefs as Hillary was doing. It is nauseating to watch the press go on and on over nothing!!!