I have officially earned the ire of some TPM readers because they don't like my analysis of the forthcoming Edwards endorsement ( you can read it here). I forgot, when I posted to TPM, that bloggers are not supposed to criticize Saint Edwards. Oops.

Yeah, he contributed to the debate by articulating policies that pulled the other candidates to the left. It's up to the individual to decide if that in itself is a good thing. Edwards happens to be to the left of me, but that is the least of my problems with him.

What seems to be offending people is that I would criticize the motives of Saint Edwards. Or Hillary, for that matter. It appears to be blogger-blasphemy to say that there are candidates that I like, that I would vote for (Obama, Richardson, Biden), and those that I feel are shameless opportunists (Clinton, Edwards).

Now, before you pick up the virtual pitchforks and come after me, allow me my free speech. Politicians, by definition, are shameless prostitutes. Saying a politician is "authentic" is another way of saying that he has convinced you that he is NOT a shameless prostitute. Edwards never convinced me that he wasn't. Maybe part of the reason is the way he paraded the downtrodden around on the campaign trail. All candidates have anecdotes about poor people they have met on the trail. But bringing the family of the girl who died before she could get a transplant up on stage at a rally is in poor taste. Doesn't anyone remember the Paul Wellstone memorial service in 2002?

In my opinion, demanding that a candidate "sign their name in blood" to fight for the poor in order to get your endorsement is a sign that you have drunk the kool-aid and are completely full of yourself. I am, obviously, no fan of Hillary. But both she and Obama would be out of their minds to compete for his endorsement.

Only the devil makes you sign your name in blood.