She's just an outstanding and authentic woman. Any endorsement she makes will be sincere.

I'm an Obama supporter, and someone who has followed John Edwards's career since he served as my Senator. I do not want him to endorse Hillary Clinton, but I do not believe him to be a "careerist" or an opportunist. I hope that I'm not wrong.

Regardless of his decision, and regardless of Elizabeth Edwards's decision should she choose to endorse a candidate, my feelings about that endorsement mean very little at the end of the day. No one is served by turning our internecine squabbles into a full-on, take-no-prisoners turf war.

"Judas"? "Pilate"? Why go there? What does it help? Who is served?

Personally, I would rather keep focusing on what we want to achieve from this campaign. We won't overcome the kind of politics that have divided and disenfranchised us if we perpetuate them in our own practice.

People here are so biased...! If Edwards endorsed Hillary, it would be sincere because the odds of Hillary being the nominee are long, very long.

Elizabeth feels passionately about health care policy and Hillary is the only candidate proposing universal coverage. This is a huge difference and one that matters to people that actually need government to play an active and supportive role. Honestly, no offense is meant by this, but Obama supporters seem to have the luxury of wanting to "change the tone" or have a "new kind of politics" where his force of personality bowls the Republicans over and they decide they want to sit down and work with him...it strikes me that people who work for wages, worry about health care, food, and gas bills (and may not have 4 hours to go to a caucus) have an obvious ally in Hillary.

Interesting in that I think we have a legitimate difference of opinion (I respect yours). I strongly feel that we need a fighter. The republicans are ruthless and they laugh at the concept of "uniting the silent majority" -- I would argue Obama's efficacy at doing this of late should be viewed with a lot of skepticism.

After what they did to us democrats over the years and the depth of inequality they have brought forth, we need a strong president to push back hard. This is how it works. Once the "silent majority" enjoys the benefits of "Medicare for all" we can hopefully enjoy their acquiescence -- similar to what happened after FDR rolled out the New Deal.

actually, I see that republicans are fearful of Hillary because she can attract more centerist voters. She beats McCain more than Obama in recent polls. Obama appeals to the left--increasingly just the left. A new poll shows just this. Wait till Wright fiasco sinks in more too.

"Medicare for all" is the goal--first we achieve universal coverage that allows for the government to be an option to compete with the private employers. Once people find that it can provide the same/better insurance for cheaper, they will make the rational choice and select it. Eventually we will have Medicare for all. Ask E. Edwards.

Dems tried to compromise with bush, look where that got us. I respect Hillary for trying for health care back in '93. she fought and lost, clearly has learned a lot since.

I think John's problem is he's finding it hard to bring himself to nail shut Obama's coffin. This campaign, he was the default choice of lower income white men. An Edwards endorsement of Hillary would be a significant blow to Obama right now.

Hillary's record in the Senate hasn't been acheived by "fighting" as the many compliments from surprised GOP colleagues have demonstrated.

The Carl Bernstein article of a few weeks ago had a little noticed passage that struck me as emblematic of how Hillary functioned when on her own and for the most part, uncoupled from Bill:

"In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas.

Hillary Clinton’s unique star power, her performance as a senator and fundraiser on behalf of her party are what gave legitimacy to the idea that she might be a credible presidential candidate: all premised on her changed demeanor in the Senate years, compared to her embattled tenure as first lady. As a steward of her state’s interest, and a patient student of senatorial compromise and collegiality, she was widely commended by former skeptics in Congress and the press."

Hillary supporters rarely consider that she was better off, professionally and personally, when she didn't have to focus on "fighting" for Bill or the presidential nomination. At this point, I wonder if even she can recall those years when she made her own way by drawing on those aspects of her persona and attributes that served her so well in the Senate.

As a woman, I can only shake my head at Hillary's inability to recognize that she was better off when uncoupled from her husband's ambitions, interference and liabilities. It's an old, familiar story of a wife clinging to shreds of tattered, rotting narrative but unable rip away and draw upon her own reserves of fiber in order to weave her own tales until forced to do so.

If Hillary loses, which of her conflicting personas will emerge?

The one that relishes being embattled and seeks revenge or the one that her oldest friends saw as:

"happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas".

For her sake, for her constituents sake, for the sake of a slew of shared agendas, I find myself hoping for the latter.

Wishful thinking based on anecdotal evidence.

I can easily give you the opposite view with just a quick surfing of TPM Election Central news today:

"I think he's the weaker candidate, and I've thought that for over a year now," said NRCC Chairman Tom Cole. "He's very inexperienced. He is by any definition liberal and to the left of Hillary Clinton, and he will give us plenty of ideological divisions to work with." link

AP Poll: Hillary Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain -- Among Independents

I have long believed that no one knows who could draw more votes that normally go to Republicans. You have 2/3 of the country wanting to change from Bush, that's all you know for sure. That Hillary starts with a high floor and a low ceiling does not mean that Obama, much less known to the public, will not find himself eventually with ceiling and floor coming to meet. That the GOP nominee ended up as someone with a "maverick" and "independent" reputation throws a wrench in the whole picture as it was before he was chosen. That some Democrats say at this point that they will consider McCain if their favorite is not the nominee is an ominous sign of his potential to pull all kinds of new demographics.

Here's the thing: I think Obama is going to be the nominee bearing any unforeseen disasters. His avid supporters, though, have to get used to the idea of him looking and sounding a lot more like Hillary, cause that's what he's going to do. Let go of parading the differences between him and her, it's not helping him go where he has to go, really. He doesn't want to be painted to the left of Hillary, as the GOP is already trying to do. Informed people from the start know that there's not much difference policy-wise between them and that this primary race has been all about style and personality. Let go and realize he's going to get a lot more like Hillary in the future, as he needs the swing-type voters she's getting now, not just the swing-types he's getting now, he needs them for the general election.