(would screw up the open thread Andrew set up on account of length, so I post here instead)

I wondered all along if deep down he really wanted the nomination, given Elizabeth's health issues, or was in more to try to get the other candidates to address issues he cares about. When Obama got in there just wasn't enough oxygen left over for him to have more than a slim chance. Sure he made some mistakes and I don't think the media was especially sympathetic this time, as it largely was in 2004.

I wonder if he opted for the more hard-edged populist rhetoric thinking that was his only chance, or that with it he might be able to engage a lot of folks who have felt no one speaks for them, all to the betterment of Dems' chances in the fall as well as his only real chance at the nomination.

It wasn't hard to sense that there were plenty of both Clinton and Obama supporters who despise him and wanted him out. JMO, but I would doubt he would have felt comfortable in a potential "kingmaker" role if neither Hillary nor Barack pulls away.

Can Dems win a general election if we wind up with 25% of the white male vote? Maybe, if Obama wins and can tip the turnout balance in our favor. Hillary is not the devil. I support her if she wins it. Honestly I feel her expertise and leadership in the Senate might be absolutely essential if we are to break the UHC gridlock that looms. That is not meant to demean or diminish her presidential ambitions--I think it's just true.

I have no idea who it helps and hurts. We'll find out soon enough. I was leaning towards voting for Edwards in the Virginia primary (he was the only candidate I have contributed to so far) while reserving judgment until I see how the race was shaping up as of that time. I haven't decided how I'm going to vote now, although I am leaning towards Obama. Virginia may not matter a whole lot after super Tuesday--or it might matter more for Obama if Hillary does well next Tuesday.

I feel sad now but am glad Edwards was in the race. He was talking about the issues I care about the most, more so than the other candidates. In particular, he was openly and unabashedly supportive of unions and of the moral imperative of helping people get out of poverty.

I know it isn't PC in the Democratic party to support a white male over a woman or a person of color. I was simply trying to apply Dr. King's aspiration of a color blind society, where a person would be neither favored nor disfavored on account of gender or skin color. Maybe in our society today inevitably it is either a huge plus or a huge minus for many, many voters. Ceteris paribus, all else equal, I would support a woman or person of color over a white male. For me, all else was not equal this time, and in my experience it rarely is.

I tried not to be, but nonetheless was offended by those who said or implied support for Edwards was for the sexists and racists among us. I don't presume to know what is in their hearts; they surely don't know what's in mine.

The presidency in no way, shape or form should be a white male entitlement and regardless of who wins this election, soon it will no longer be. Thank goodness for that--that is all to the good. But neither should it be an "it's our turn" sort of entitlement of anyone else on account of being a woman or a person of color. I get the sense particularly from some Obama supporters that if you support someone other than Barack you are on that account a racist.

It diminished NY NOW when they implied that Ted Kennedy somehow owed it to women to support the female candidate in the race. Did Caroline have the same obligation? Why did they not focus on her more? We lose out as a society when we are blinded by barriers that favor and disfavor people because of their skin color or gender.

I realize there are many here who also try to operate from a gender and color-blind point of view. Many Hillary supporters, not without some justification, feel Edwards and Obama are inexperienced and/or lightweights not ready for prime time. Many Obama supporters, not without some justification, see transformational possibilities he offers partly on account of his skin color and the narrative he represents and shapes around that. I respect the process and the will of most of my fellow Democrats and willingly "take the pledge" to support the eventual nominee.

A friend of mine, active in Democratic politics in the Tampa area, is royally PO'd about Florida not having a say in who the Democratic nominee is.

A Hillary supporter, he is blaming Howard Dean for what is another file item in his "Democratic Party self-destructiveness" folder. He sees this as de-energizing Florida Dems, whose best efforts obviously will be helpful and quite possibly pivotal if Democrats are to win in November.

Hillary is making a good political move making an issue of this. Especially if we head into the convention with the delegate count difference between the frontrunners within the margin of delegates Florida and Michigan have between them, to not count those delegates is going to be tough for the DNC to stick to, regardless of whether it would be the right thing to do or not. (And, on the merits, I'm inclined to agree that the rules should not be changed in midstream.)

It flies entirely in the face of the Democratic party's occasional/sometimes theme or mantra of "counting every vote", itself tarnished in Nevada. The candidate who says Florida's delegates should count builds good will among all Floridians who agree.

So let's hope this looming trainwreck can be avoided and the nomination doesn't get decided with this issue in the mix. We're making it difficult enough for ourselves as it is.

As someone who spent a lot of time and energy sticking up for Bill Clinton throughout the 90s', including in his many dark hours, I am among the many who are turned off by some of the things he's been saying of late.

I know the Clinton campaign wants to marginalize Obama as another Jesse Jackson--in fact I'd written an earlier blog post about a concern I have that Obama might be so at pains to distinguish himself as the "non-Jesse Jackson candidate" that he might shy away from advocating ideas which some identify as "left" even where those are excellent ideas.

But Obama is not Jesse Jackson and we are seeing some of the blowback that comes from making that association among many savvy and committed Dem activists whose support, or at least lack of total hostility, the Clinton campaign will desperately need.

I am also put off by the robo-calling the Clinton campaign engaged in at the last minute to try to take Edwards out in South Carolina. What they said re his employment with the Wall Street firm making foreclosure money off the misery of others was out of line, I felt. This has been a rare exception of late to the two frontrunners laying off Edwards, at least unless and until they know they can win the nomination without support from him and his supporters.

So the Clinton campaign at the moment is working hard to court this Dem's ill will, at any rate.