To be sure, Edwards took on the populism of Kucinich, clearly after many debates, to separate himself from middle of the road Obama and Clinton. Populism, i.e. caring for the poor, providing stop gap measures to raise education as well as living standards for those below the poverty line, is really stench in the noses of those Americans who call such measures communist, handouts, welfare frauds, welfare mothers, etc.

That is what the Klintons took on as they moved the Democratic party to the right and corporate welfare. The chasm between the rich and the poor has so widened that America now looks and acts like "third" world countries with corruption at the top and rampant illiteracy and poverty at the bottom.

Hillary can never claim the road to that because after all it was she and her cuckold husband who wiped out the very sustainance of these people. Obama is afraid to venture into that territory, because he would lose all the Reagan Democrats who voted for Klinton for that very reason. Kucinich was the only candidate who took this road and look what everyone did to him, including Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Enter Edwards.

I am willing to buy this story and see where that goes. Obama is afraid to lose the right of center Repubcrats and he should in all honesty address the issue of poverty without blaming the victims.

Many on Salon, most notably LJWalker is afraid of just that, about Obama and Barbara Ehrenreich who she ridicules as hanging on to the fringe when in fact, she is one of the most celebrated social commentators of our times. I don't doubt that LJWalker will hold her nose and vote for Obama when the time comes, but the anxiety of bringing in that block of voters disenfranchised by the Klintons is quite noxious for many Americans. But people below the poverty line are Americans too and Democracy is not only the rule of the majority but also the protection for the least amongst us.

I completely agree that Joan is quite pathetic. She is now reduced to get Obama every which way she can, even if it means that her entire blog is lifted from another source. I am ot sure that she even realizes that she sneers on TV everytime she talks about Obama. She needs to turn in her credentials and just go volunteer for HRC.

I am no fan of hillary. But Christopher Hitchens is not the person I would run to for any modicum of truth.

Edwards was pretty pissed that John Kerry did not endorse him while he was still in the race. Could it be that he is willing to let things twist in the wind and then endorse hillary? Would not surprise in the least. This article is so plagued with inuendo and gossip that it is hard to take seriously.

Thanks. I read the article. I don't put anything past hillary. I am confounded that she is still standing and allowed to keep going after so much of her duplicity is exposed.

Economic Left/Right: -1.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama? Don't know about the Dalai Lama but glad to look up to my man Mandela

DeeperTruth: "There are two sides to every story."

I always cringe when I hear people say this line, because it assumes everything can be reduced to two sides. There are often many more than just two sides. See "Rashomon" some time.

Often, there are no 2 sides or many sides as well. Slavery, the holocaust, the killing fields, acts of brutality have only one side - extreme cruelty of the perpetrator.

http://www.nysun.com/news/national/some-republicans-emerge-endorse-obama

Call them the Obamacans: They are against continuing the Iraq war and reject what they see as Mr. Bush’s unconstitutional buildup of executive power. While the conservative Republican base rejected Senator McCain in the early primaries for his push for bipartisan campaign finance regulation and amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Arizona senator’s hawkish support for the Iraq war has alienated what was once his national constituency, anti-Bush Republicans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/texas_delegates

Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths about the state of the Democratic nomination race, with the debunking they sorely need.

http://alternet.org/election08/80870/

Oh, dear me, from the way that you hear the Clinton fabulists tell it, Hillary again faced the threat of a fusillade of bullets – albeit of the right-wing caliber – when she ventured into an editorial board meeting sitting side by side with the key financier of the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons in the early ‘90s, Richard Mellon Scaife.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/075

You are full of yourself for suggesting that Kate is Pastor Wright. I don't think you have a clue about what you are talking about. If you are even harboring a thought that Wright practices reverse racism, you are stubbornly ill informed and gratituously fanning the flames of racism.

Perceived as having better chance than Clinton of winning in November

A new Gallup Panel survey finds a majority of both Republicans and Democrats saying Barack Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of defeating Republican John McCain in the November presidential election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx

This should lay to rest all the Klinton blather of McCain in the GE

Senator Clinton will make a fine Majority Leader.

Hoping that Clintons retire from politics forever or join the republicans to become who they really are.

Can someone post the correct link to Edwards' response to the NY Times article? The link below does not work http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23914511

Better still, is there a transcript available?

Can someone post the correct link to Edwards' response to the NY Times article? The link below does not work http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23914511

Better still, is there a transcript available?