The only explanation I have for why Obama and Clinton are trouncing Edwards is a quote from H.L. Mencken:

"The public always prefers nonsense to sense."

P.S. If the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada cannot see that
Obama and Clinton mainly represent the same "politics as usual", then they will surely get the kind of Government that President Carter said the public always gets - the one they deserve.

Well, keep in mind that I don't support Edwards either. If I thought I could trust Edwards, then sure, I'd support him. Trouble is, he's a conservative (look at his voting record, especially on the war) who's trying to get to the nomination by pretending to be Howard Dean. When I hear him say things like how he'll end the corporations' influence in government, I hear Joe Trippi speaking through him, just like he once spoke through Dean. I don't trust Edwards. Obama, at least, I trust to be a centrist and to like Republicans.

How do you know that Edwards isn't sincere? He has spent most of his adult life dealing with corporations, nearly all of which have high-minded "Mission Statements" and that brag about how people are their most important assets, yet when it comes to taking responsibility for their negligence which results in injuring people or property, they hire the most expensive lawyers they can find to evade said responsibility. So, based on their actions, they can't be trusted.

Arianna Huffington was a conservative (i.e. rightwinger), but she finally came to her senses and is now a centrist.

Do you doubt HER sincerity? I don't. John Edwards's life (family background and professional life as a lawyer representing people, not businesses) is more compelling as an indicator of his likely current state of mind than his tenure in the Senate.

Isn't it better to support someone who at least is talking about his desire to be of service to ALL people, not just the wealthy? I think his candidacy deserves being given the benefit of the doubt.

Edwards is the ONLY candidate who still has a chance and espouses at least some progressive views.

The public doesn't trust a guy who worked at a hedge fund (Fortress) between runs as a progressive. That's why Edwards isn't getting more traction.

Re Obama, I sympathize. I so don't want Hillary Clinton to be the first female president. I don't trust her to rule in our best interests. I don't even trust her to be effective, for all her vaunted experience. When she had the power of the presidency behind her, she was unable to craft the necessary coalition to get healthcare reform passed.

I'm not crazy re Obama either. Much less so since he referenced Reagan, who was responsible for the deaths of a lot of good people in Nicaragua during the horrible Iran-Contra affair.

I was wishing Obama had referenced instead the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Now there's a Republican worthy of mention.

But Obama managed to get health care extended in his state, despite serious opposition. So for all his verbal faux pas and other comments, he's at least a doer, and that's much needed at this time.

Re Teddy, although I've read bits and pieces over the years, tonight was the first time I realized Teddy, like his predecessor McKinley before him, was shot at by a crazed assassin. In Teddy's case, it wasn't fatal. He was saved, quite literally, by his speech. He had written it on paper and folded it up and put it in his chest pocket. The bullet was slowed enough by the paper not to have seriously wounded him.

Who knew a speech could save lives? ;-)

Btw, I apologize for not being more active. I was sick nearly all of December, and have been putting in major overtime ever since. I'm training someone at work to help me so I don't have to work 60 hour weeks much longer. I hope to be writing more regularly soon.

one more thought - Jeremy, I agree that while Edwards talks a good game, he's more of a centrist in his voting record. But I'd argue that, if you look at Obama's record in Illinois and in the US Senate, it's solidly liberal, despite his centrist talk.

I'm more interested in actions than words, and that's why Obama, so far, has my vote. Some of what he says is so wrong. But some of what he's done is so right.

I'm surprised nobody is mentioning Kucinich. Obviously, he isn't going to win the Democratic nomination, but throwing support behind him could make his platform more prominent in the media. Aside from Kucinich, all of the "mainstream" Democratic candidates are really little different from the Repubs in that they represent big corporations and big donors at the expense of the American public. This is why the Democrats (unable and unwilling to stand up to the military industrial complex) continues to throw lifelines to Bush's wars.

Teachermom, I'm not a policy-oriented voter, I'm a personality-oriented voter. I'm interested in styles of leadership, and especially in honesty. I don't find Kucinich to be a particularly honest candidate. He changed his views on abortion literally a week before he ran for President in 2003. And he vote-traded with Edwards in Iowa in 2004 and Obama in Iowa in 2008, both of whom were far from the most progressive candidates in the race (Dean and Edwards, respectively, would have been the only reasonable choices). I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him, and I'd like to see a better candidate be the standard-bearer of the progressive cause.

Lisa, take your time -- no worries on this end. Regarding TR, not only was he shot in the speech, he then proceeded to stand up and deliver the speech while a bullet was lodged in his body, in the greatest moment of political theater in American history. Read what he said here -- it's just the epitome of what transformational leadership should be.

Regarding Obama, though, I don't see how his liberal voting record really helps him. Sure, he's secretly a liberal, but he believes so strongly in compromise that he wants to sit down and talk with segregationists. His heart is in the right place, but his head says he has to cut and run every time a contentious issue comes up. Maybe it's better to have someone who'll fight even if his heart's not in the right place than someone who is right on issues but wrong on leadership.

Anonymous, no, I don't believe Arianna is sincere either. She's an attention-mongering flip-flopper who did the only thing she could do after her husband turned out to be gay: switch parties and try to resurrect her career. While I do have doubts about Edwards' sincerity, I trust it way more than I trust Arianna's.