So who will he start hanging around with to fuel VP nominee rumors...

The BBC radio news also reported that Giuliani is also thinking about withdrawing.

I like Edwards. I feel sad for him. If I were him, I'd keep my mouth shut to keep my options open. Although I kinda think that once you've lost, you're a loser forever in the minds of the people (although look at McCain! so what do I know).

I think Rudy already dropped out (at least that's the impression I got this morning).

I read that, too, but the statement came from pundits, I thought. I didn't read that he or his people ever said anything.
Although he was making Florida his all-or-nothing, so that major loss would pretty much spell the end.

McCain seems on a roll, but he's also almost out of cash. That's the real BS of the election system. Sure, anyone can run... if you can drum up a couple million dollars.

Damn! I had finally decided I would vote for Edwards. Theory being that vote for Edwards sends a message to the other two.

Now I have to pick ...

I think Hillary is super competent, and would be excellent at everything, and especially I think she would be good at foreign policy. And I like her health care plan more than Obama's.

But I'm mad at the Clintons for their dirty tricks, like the lawsuit in Nevada.

I've been underwhelmed by Obama -- his speeches sound good but they have no particular content. And he seems naive on some stuff. But the endorsements from unions, from Ted Kennedy, makes me think that maybe he is the candidate for Edwards voters.

Decisions, decisions.

I'll be curious to see which way the people who were voting for Edwards swing.

but the statement came from pundits, I thought

Linked article says it came from "an Edwards advisor."

Although I kinda think that once you've lost, you're a loser forever in the minds of the people (although look at McCain! so what do I know).

Or Grover Cleveland, for that matter. Lost his re-election bid to Harrison, who he then went on to defeat four years later. (gotta shout out for the hometown president- wasn't born here, but he got his start as the DA of Erie County.)

Linked article says it came from "an Edwards advisor."

Sorry, I was saying the Rudy statement came from pundits, not the Edwards one. He's scheduled to give a statement in an hour, so that seems 100% legit.

Now, if he endorses Clinton or Obama, do they get the delegates he's earned so far?

I supported Dodd, then Edwards. Now I'll support Obama.

You're welcome, Hillary fans.

I kinda think that once you've lost, you're a loser forever in the minds of the people

I disagree, TPS. Nixon 1960, Reagan 1976, Bush 1980... plus Dole and Gore had each run unsuccessfully before they got the party's nomination.

I think Obama's been relatively detailed, Claudia_SF. As does Clinton. The media prefers to focus on silly stuff like who wouldn't shake whose hand, though, and the candidates aren't exactly forcing them to report on grown-up stuff.

plus Dole and Gore had each run unsuccessfully before they got the party's nomination.

And look how well that went for them ;-) I suppose it all depends on the context of who else is running. I think if the Republicans had someone they could get really excited about (an Obama), McCain wouldn't have a chance. But for a lot of people, he's the best choice of the available choices.

I'm sorry to see him go. He did seem to be the only candidate who regularly spoke about the issue of poverty in this country. (I seethed with anger every time some millionaire talking head bozo started blathering about the "hypocrisy" of this wealthy trial attorney having the gall to actually mention poor people (gasp!) in his speeches. As if only the poor should care about the problems of the poor. Feh!)

I hate to admit this but XKCD's endorsement of Obama finally pushed me over the line from wavering between him and Hillary.

Shit. I liked Edwards better than either of the other two. He seemed to be the only one who wasn't afraid of really talking about the issues I care about - poverty and the erosion of the working/middle class and actual, real health care reform, not some kind of horrible cobbled together solution - make everyone buy health insurance? That we already can't afford and that often doesn't cover hardly anything anyway? Great. Sometimes I despair for this country.

I'm not wildly enthused about either Obama or Clinton - hell, I wasn't wildly enthused about Edwards - but I'll go out and vote and do my bit for either one on the lesser of two evils theory. BF is firmly in the Obama camp - he voted for him in the SC primary - and I trust him, so I'll probably go Obama over Clinton.

Argh. I hate the two party system.

And look how well that went for them ;-)

Y'know, Gore didn't do too poorly in 2000...

I haven't decided who my vote's going to go to, now. I'm extremely disappointed.

Hmm. Okay, this is as good a place to ask this question as any. As you may know, I live in Arkansas. It's a Super Tuesday state, and I can vote in either party primary. Polls currently suggest that Clinton and Huckabee (both of whom have Arkansas ties) are way, way, way ahead. I prefer Obama to Clinton, but I'm not in love with either of them, and, really, I just want to see a Democrat win the general election. Bearing all of this in mind, how should I vote in the primary?

Can you vote in either primary, or both? If I were you, and I could only vote in one primary, I'd vote for McCain in the Republican primary, just because I'm not a fan of Huckabee.

We're caucusing here in Colorado on the 5th, and the two remaining Democratic candidates came through here. Barak Obama and Bill Clinton. Actually I'm not caucusing since I don't belong to a political party, and never have. But, if I did, this would be the first year that my vote would have meant something in the delegate selection process since I've been voting in 1982.

I'm thinking Obama is going to have a hard time on the 5th since he seems to earn his support through campaigning. With all the states voting then he's going to be spread pretty thin. Clinton has the benefit of being in two places at once.

I also decided to post a variant of this question on AskMe.)

Were I in your position, box, I'd vote for Obama.

If the GOP side were closer, I'd urge you to vote for Romney, then Huckabee. I believe that the longer the GOP nomination is uncertain, the better it is for the eventual Democratic nominee. Also, I think that McCain is the toughest opponent of the three in the general election. He has higher positives from moderates and Democrats, and the media just loves him. I think Huckabee is the easiest to beat, but that he doesn't have a shot at the GOP nomination, whereas Romney does.

So, why not vote for the person who you prefer (relatively)?

Pinky: I can vote in either primary (or the Green primary), but not both.

I would have liked to see a presidential campaign between Edwards and McCain. I think we would have seen an actual debate on all issues.

As is from both the Republicans and the Democrats, I think we are destined to see a campaign of personalities and character traits, and I don't think any of the contenders now from either party have the political clout to properly clean up after Bush. Hillary might do the best job of sweeping everything under the rug, but right now, that's the last thing the US needs.

Argh! I was hoping Edwards would stay in the running through Super Tuesday. I didn't want Obama and Clinton being the only ones defining the issues which will determine the nomination.

Damn. I was for Edwards, looking forward to voting for him in three weeks. I no longer believed he had a chance (especially after SC), but respected him for hanging in there. It would get increasingly difficult for him to raise money, though, and he was already scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I chose him not out of any antipathy for Obama or Clinton, but because I genuinely thought his anti-poverty message (a variant of his "Two Americas" message) resonated with my ideals. In fact, I had supported him (less firmly) in 2004.

I think the choice between Obama and Clinton now depends on whether you buy that Obama can be this Kennedy-esque uniter, partly because of his race and partly because of his charisma, or that Clinton will be the better country-runner or campaigner. For sure the confusion on the GOP side is going to evaporate once there's a nominee and the noise machine will get behind whomever. This is an election that will make swiftboating & 2004 look like chlid's play. Even if the Republican electorate is underwhelmed and disaffected, the media ancillaries will be ready for scorched earth. Clinton's ready for that, and I hate to say that I *still* don't know that Obama is.

On the "better president" (or "better for the country") I think I lean Obama.

Turns out Rudy can fail.

I really liked Edwards, but I gave up on him about a week ago. At first I was psyched by the idea of Hillary, but the longer she runs, the more she turns me off. Nowhere on her website can I find any mention of gay/lesbian issues, which is an important issue to me. I'm leaning Obama-wards now, because despite his relative lack of experience, he actually kinda inspires me sometimes.

The next president will likely decide the makeup of the Supreme Court for decades (all of the liberal justices are over retirement age, and Stevens is 87). I'll be supporting and voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. (So I probably won't vote in the primary, although I might vote for Obama since he's closer to my views than Clinton, )

I sent in my early ballot for the AZ Feb 5th primary last week (yes, I live in DC now, but I was too lazy to change my registration). I voted for Edwards. :(

I've been an Obama supporter since I started to hear him speak in NH. I think he'd be the better president, too. Where policy matters are as similar as they are between the two front runners' platforms, it does come down to a very real and very important character or personality concern, and that is simple leadership ability. Obama's got it. Hillary's style is more authoritarian and she's given to contention. Obama's leadership style is authoritative, and he's given to deliberation. He has the ability to lead, the ability to think, the ability to inspire, good judgement, and none of the negative Clinton baggage that is dragging behind Hillary's heels (and which they seem to be unable to resist making more of all the time. WTF Nevada, indeed?).

I am not terribly disappointed to see Edwards drop out. I liked him, he's a principled person. He brought up some very important points about what recent economic policy has done to the middle class - points which I feel sharply and am definitely concerned about. But it was a niche campaign. Most Americans are arguable not in the middle class (which, of course, is exactly the problem), so he was talking to a smallish number of people about a smallish number of people's problems. During a time when we're stomping around the world making war and tossing the domestic agenda on the dungheap, there are more inclusive issues to bring up. The domestic agenda, for me, certainly includes the plight of the middle class and increased corporate accountability, but though those are important they are only only two of many pieces of what I hope will be addressed in a very comprehensive agenda.

Looks like Nader's back. He's getting tiring.

Oh god. Hopefully people know better by now.

Because at least one thing we've learned from 8 years of W is please don't fucking vote for Nader, whatever his merits. Right? Right???

Don't be silly, pup! We KNOW that we would be in the same sad shape resulting from the past 7 years of the Gore administration!

There is just no fucking difference!

/sarcasm

I made up my mind to vote in the Republican primary here in TX (although it may not matter, we vote in March). Why? Because, between Obama and Hillary, I can think of pros and cons for both of them. But, for the Republican side, of the lesser of three evils I'll pick McCain.

Although, I just found out that the Texas Democratic primary awards delegates proportionally, which means votes DO matter...gah!

They always matter, I think. People trying to game the system and vote strategically, in the aggregate, do rally weird things to results and to apparent popular opinion. Whatever the impact of the vote may be, if we can no longer believe the vote reflects true popular support, what good is it?

Is it wrong that I've always been tempted to change my affiliation to Republican just so I could vote for the most useless, unelectable goon in the running?

I thought so... that's why I never did.

The thought did cross my mind that maybe I ought to step over the line next Tuesday and pick up an R ballot to vote against Huckabee, just to be sure.

But after very little consideration, I decided that there is no way in hell I'm giving up an opportunity to vote for Barack Obama at any level.

And with any luck and hope, I'll get to vote for him twice this year.

The thought did cross my mind that maybe I ought to step over the line next Tuesday and pick up an R ballot to vote against Huckabee, just to be sure.

See, to me, I'd do the opposite. Vote for the most right-wing wackjob out there. Just because I know no one that nutty has a chance once we get to the final show.

Just because I know no one that nutty has a chance once we get to the final show.

There's probably a bunch of people who did this for Bush in 2000, and have been violently kicking themselves for eight years.

You know, you're most likely right.
And really, I don't want to miss a chance to vote for Obama.