why not john edwards?

The bad guys give their money to the ones that will do their bidding. John didn't take their money, was largely ignored by the media and a voting populace too caught up in celebritism to look a little deeper. He was the least threat and probably the one who would have been most responsive to the public. Ron Paul had the most important message about what is really going on so the media (trialateral commission members for one global, corp. govt) avoided his message totally and they should be sued for it under equal time rules. We are in deep ****. We have but moments to turn the tide, but how?

Because John Edwards is fair game.

Whereas Hilary & Obama come under the protected Race & Gender laws.

I think it's because Edwards admitted how he would be paying for universal health care. Democrats seem to want something for free, not for more taxes.

He is not trusted by many ppl. Being a former trial lawyer, and the crap he has done in NC...well, Clinton and Obama are actually the lessor of evils.

Too bad he couldn't hold on 'til Ohio, where the protectionist rhetoric seemed to go over especially well. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

No, castration is cruel and strange punishment. Marital infidelity is immoral yet no longer unlawful. whilst there is one among those undertaking as existed b/wn Sen. Edwards & his egregiously ill spouse, the causal ingredient for infidelity could be extremely complicated, and not gender-particular. generally one better half is awfully overwhelmed with the suffering of her/his better half and inns to untoward behaviour; no rely if self-destructive, e.g. illicit drug or alcohol use, or as subsequently marital infidelity. it rather is rather complicated to climb interior one's head and confirm no rely if this replaced right into a "unsleeping," properly although-out determination or no rely if he merely merely flipped out and engaged in irrelevant behaviour. additionally, one has to contemplate that what a infant-kisser says to "take care of" his impropriety might desire to have an interest by a grain of salt. he's attempting his terrific to do harm administration. we don't have get right of entry to to Ms. Edwards' scientific information to be sure no rely if she replaced into, certainly, in remission and albeit it is not correct as marital infidelity might desire to be controlled between a pair and secular regulation has no business enterprise intervening in this form of ingredient. i discover it appalling, yet then i could might desire to stroll a mile in his shoes formerly I merely yet another man or woman. i do no longer circulate by utilising what the media publicizes, and by no skill by utilising rhetoric provided by utilising a infant-kisser. something like this might desire to be left to the couple to artwork out. Castration serves no good in such circumstances. it rather is frightening that individuals have one among those susceptible information of anatomy and surgical technique that some authors confound castration with resection of the penis. the two are fullyyt distinctive methods, and albeit the only scientific indication for penile resection are in extremely uncommon circumstances of penile carinoma.

Why would the democrats want any of the three? They all have the same stupid views.

Because he is a wuss!

If he would have used his talents to attack Hillary and Obama, he would still be in the race.

...didnt we try electing John Edwards?

Because he's a scummy trial lawyer.