If you supported John Edwards...who do you support now?

This is a hard one. I could probably be convinced to go one way or the other. I think I'm going to go with Obama. Here is why:

Clinton has her husband at her side whom is absolutely a proven entity. There is no question Clinton can lead the country out of it's economic issues and also handle foreign affairs from day one. However, part of being the President is working with congress. And, the Republicans have a boat load of bad feelings with the Clintons. It'll be da-ja-vu. The division between LEFT and RIGHT will be so loud that it may very well paralize Congress. And, we need Congress to actually do some work for a change.

Obama doesn't bring the baggage with him to the Oval Office. He represents almost identical ideas to Clinton. And, Obama appears that he's a great listener, which means he won't be anyting like BUSH - sticking his head in the sand or creating his own little teams to get information from instead of - oh lets say - the CIA. I think Obama would bring the country together. Not only can he do it across Republicans and Democrats, but Obama is able to do something that no other candidate can do.... without saying one word on the subject. Obama can bring Blacks and Whites closer together.... which is a healing this country needs. Obama has progressive policies that are nearly identical to Clintons. The big difference is on UHC. But.... think about it.... President Obama signs or veto's legislation.... he doesn't create it. He's not going to veto UHC if it lands on his desk, or if his idea of Medical isn't EXACTLY how he sees it on the campaign trail.

I'll be okay either way it goes.... as long as it isn't some President that still uses FEAR to govern.

John Edwards was the only candidate in either party talking about the growing poverty in this country and the loss of middle class jobs. Hillary Clinton is a globalist and her husbands administration was huge in supporting NAFTA GATT and the WTO. I see Obama as a person who at least sees the intrinsic evil of the brokering of power by the lobbyists and wants to change that. I am not very hopeful for the future.

As for McCain, I do not know how anyone can vote for a candidate that says we will be in Iraq for a hundred years and the loss of middle class jobs cannot be helped and is necessary to keep our economy growing.

I suspect that when they throw the village idiot out of the White House on Jan 29, 2009 someone will probably work and get the economy righted for the ownership class and the corporations.

I plan on voting for Ralph if he runs. Yes I know he can't win, but at least he's talking about the poor, the destruction of the middle class, and the exploitation and propaganda that has been perpetuated on both sides of the aisle for the past 30 years.

I'd loved his populist message and his awareness of the growth of poverty in our country. None of the candidates of either party care about the poor. I'll vote for Obama or Clinton, it doesn't matter, I don't know if either can win against McCain. Clinton has Bill as her baggage plus she's a woman, Obama has his name, religious background, and his race to deal with. Huckabee is a scarier right-wing religious nut than Bush, even Romney has Mormon religious baggage, so McCain is the only one without religious baggage or race or gender working against him.

Since Edwards dropped out I'm supporting McCain..

I see Obama as the lesser evil, so I'll vote for him. When Hillary Clinton said tonight she will create jobs in Mexico that sealed the deal.

neuromansuperhero - I may vote for Nader, and I never thought I would say that.

The lesser of three evils,.........the devil