He's the guy that ran with Kerry in 04, right? I'm not american, but if I were I'd vote for him as well :) Good luck you guys! Don't disappoint us (the rest of the world) again please!

How about an Edwards/Obama ticket or an Obama/Edwards ticket? They're both from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party... they're both populists who aren't afraid to talk about helping the less fortunate, they're both charismatic and are good (disciplined) campaigners. Is it the Dream Team?

John Edwards has a lot going for him, but even though Barack Obama hasn't officially declared, he is the real deal. He is intelligent, well-spoken, and concerned about the right issues, including Universal Health Care. Oh, and unlike John Edwards, he voted against the war in Iraq from the start, showing that he has wisdom as well.

I think he is electable because he has wide appeal, from both the left and the right.

In a sane world, no person who voted for both the Patriot Act and the Iraq massacre would ever be described as "electable."

That said, we live in an insane world, and at least Edwards, unlike Hillary and Barack "The Fraud" Obama, doesn't induce unbearable nausea.

While I like John a lot, I was dissapointed with his lack of maturity and sophistication during the VP debates of 2004. I haven't made up my mind yet. Let's see how the landscape plays out.

Cheney would make a better prez - Edwards lost for Kerry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQd7mGarWY

Al Gore should run again.

At least he had said and done something for his convictions before running on his convictions i.e,. global warming.

"unlike John Edwards, Obama voted against the war in Iraq from the start, showing that he has wisdom as well."

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the vote on the Iraq slaughter was taken, so this must have taken place in a dream you had.

Here is "The Fraud"'s first Senate vote, in case you're interested:

http://tinyurl.com/6h9ra

Quite impressive . . .

If Edwards were to run with Obama as VP... well I can see 2024 from there (that's 4 terms).

I'll pass on Edwards (Clinton and Obama as well).

Id vote for an edwards obama ticket. If you really think cheney on that debate clip your crazy, he resorted to personal attacks, trying to make edwards look like he doesnt care about iraqis, cause edwards was right on the issues. so whys everybody calling obama a fraud?

Go John!

"unlike John Edwards, Obama voted against the war in Iraq from the start, showing that he has wisdom as well."

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the vote on the Iraq slaughter was taken, so this must have taken place in a dream you had.

Thanks for the correction. I should have said his position was against going into Iraq from the start.

BTW,calling a politician a fraud is a bit redundant don't you think?

I still don't think America is ready enough for a black president or vice president.

"BTW, calling a politician a fraud is a bit redundant don't you think?"

Point taken.

"I still don't think America is ready enough for a black president or vice president."

On the other hand, take away Obama's color and he's not even in this discussion . . .

"I should have said his position was against going into Iraq from the start."

Very interesting article on Obama from Harper's:

http://tinyurl.com/y4tff4

"Since taking office, Obama has become far more measured in his position. After Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha called for withdrawal from Iraq last fall, Obama rejected such a move in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, saying the United States needed 'to manage our exit in a responsible way—with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future.' His stance won him praise from Washington Post columnist David Broder, the veritable weather vane of political conventional wisdom. Murtha’s was 'not a carefully reasoned analysis of the strategic consequences of leaving Iraq,' Broder wrote, whereas Obama was helping his party define 'a sensible common ground' and had 'pointed the administration and the country toward a realistic and modestly hopeful course on Iraq.' Obama continues to reject any specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, even as public opposition to the war grows and as the military rationale for staying becomes less and less apparent."

I'll take Edwards over H. Clinton and Obama. But all three seem to be a product of the fact that he seem to think our candidates have expiration dates. Of all these three, Edwards is really the only one who has been through a serious, tough campaign (and that was only as VP candidate). Facing Vader (before the boy had completed his training!) was a bigger feat than the entire political careers of Obama and Hillary. Edwards has more personal charisma than RFK, in my view, but the ol' stump speech rings a bit hollow since he's never done anything about those issues while in power. If he agrees with Jon Stewart that forming non-profit organizations is a bigger deal than being president of the United States, then why is he running? If he doesn't beleive that, then he should say why he was such a dud as an elected official.

Same with Clinton and Obama. Quick name their major accomplishments while in office. Obama was poor when he was a kid! And you know he got into Harvard! But then again Hillary was really great as the wife in that show in the 1990s. How about some political accomplishments, please?

People should realize that with these three candidates, as much as we may like them and their views, we're doing basically that same thing that the GOP did in 2000 by nominating Bush. This really is the age where people become famous and powerful for really not much reason at all. Maybe we should have a reality show to pick our nominee.

That said, I'll vote for Obama or Edwards; who knows they could turn out all right.

"Very interesting article on Obama from Harper's:"

Wow! The last time I checked, Harpers didn't have very much material online. Thanks for the link.

The article does note that Obama is often criticized for compromising with the Republicans. I think that will help get him elected in some "red states." I still respect him because much of his early public service was for the poorest of society.

As to the issue of when to withdraw troops from Iraq, I think Murtha will be viewed as having the best idea out of many bad ideas. Two or three years from now we will be asking why we let more people including troops die for a lost cause when we could have reduced the loss years ago.

I would also like to see Gore run again. Nobody else seems to want to talk about our environmental issues. I don't think Gore is willing to go far enough, but he goes further than just about any other politicians do.

It also seems like Gore has loosened up a lot since the last time, he's gotten better at joking and showing charisma, which is important. I also think that Gore has enough of a platform that nobody can claim that there is no difference between him and xyz republican candidate.

As for his running mate? I think Jon Stewart would be a good choice.