The data appear to show that more people vote for someone they like than pick a candidate based on policies. To me that seems silly. I pick the person who I think will do the best job. I'm never gonna have a beer with them anyway, so what does it matter who I like?

As you say, we can send a message to the party elite, including the two remaining candidates, that we don't want either one of them, AND WE VOTE. Feeling good about the person I voted for is the main issue for me. I've never voted for a winner for President and I started voting in 1972. (I would have voted for Carter the first time he ran, but I moved and didn't re-register in time, thus blowing probably my only chance to be a winner.)

What I'm hoping for is that enough Democrats refuse to succumb to either Clinton or Obama that the whole thing is still up in the air by convention time. Then we'll see what Edwards is offered. I'd love to see him on the Supreme Court; failing that, as AG. He'd kick some corporate butt. We need him. We don't need nice, or triangulation. Both of those have been tried, and they failed utterly.

I'd love Edwards on the Supreme Court. What a trip.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

A blog post in the Guardian's "Comment is Free" section is all about California as more representative of the country than it's usually given credit for. Good post.

It includes this tidbit, slightly relevant to our discussion of whether Edwards might end up with some delegates out of the mess tomorrow.

For Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, 441 delegates out of a national total of 4,049 are available (compared to 22 in New Hampshire). Each of the state's 53 congressional districts offers between three and six delegates, depending on how many Democrats live in that district. What's seldom discussed is that, put together, that equals just 221 delegates. Where do the others come from? Another 129 are still doled out proportionately, among elected leaders, but 66 are superdelegates.

But Obama kept saying and doing things that made me not want my Edwards vote to trickle down (to quote another transformative figure) his way.

To those who compare your position to voting for Nader (and bizarrely, some do), I can only say, um, learn how the electoral process works.

Next week is the Chesapeake Primary (MD, DC, VA) and Edwards is still on the ballot in VA. My position is this is my opportunity to vote for the candidate I truly support, not the one I have to support in the GE.

Unfortunately, the Great Orange Satan is rife with confession diaries, e.g., "Why I voted for Barack Obama" and "Edwards Supporter, Obama Voter."

This diary in particular pissed me off: "Edwards Supporters Still Have a Voice - If They Want It" which advised JRE supporters

I’ve noticed some comments on here from Edwards supporters who say they’ll still vote for JRE, either to make a statement, or try to maybe give him a couple more delegates so he can still be a kingmaker.

I respect that decision, but I would strongly suggest that Edwards supporters let it go. Edwards has been just squeaking by the 15 percent threshold to win delegates, and with him ending the campaign, he will not gain any more delegates. As far as making a "statement" by voting for him, you need to consider that in a number of states and districts, Obama and Clinton will be fighting incredibly tight contests, and by voting for Edwards, you’re ceding your right to make a difference.

Yeah, thanks for that little pat on the head fella.

I reminded the punk ass of something we said during the Dean campaign: My Vote is My Voice. I voted for Howard Dean in June 2004 because he was on the ballot and he was my candidate. I will do the same for John Edwards.

In Michigan we got our primary bumped up regardless of what the people wanted, which got it circular filed, regardless of what the people wanted.

Because, you know, a progressive populist might actually have won here.

We got the choice of voting for HHHillary or HHHillary. Not that either vote would count, unless, of course, HHHillary won.

A word of digression on my trivial name for her: H(ubert)H(oratio)Hillary. The resemblence to Hubert Horatio Humphrey is uncanny. Like him, she's a solid civil liberal progressive seduced by the iron triangle.

Whether her dibs or the Oborg Prime Unit are the Pretender designate, I will vote for them in November. Either beats nuclear war in 2012 with the Rethuglicans holding the Imperial Office.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

kelley b is our winner:

Because, you know, a progressive populist might actually have won here.

people on the bicoasts don't appreciate this, but much of MI's dem electorate is really quite savvy in terms of race and gender. folks have been mixing it up and supporting black and female leaderz here for some time. the edwards gig i went to in detroit was a wonderful mix of black, brown, woman and man, gay and fundie.

MI would've been a much better choice of a state than SC, to 'give black voters an early say.' how off-message it would've been, for an actually diverse black population to split more or less evenly between three candidates? the real point of being an early state- less pressure from the "inevitability" bandwagon of the SCLM. who can say for sure what MI voters- economically depressed and led by a woman gov and racially diverse for over a generation- may have chosen if given their say?

how quickly people forget 1) edwards #2 showing in "virgin" iowa and 2) for a long time, his consistently strong showing, oftimes in double digits, against any republican. sigh. there was a reason for both of those things, as well as the SCLM brutal and total blackout of him. that last will make a good dissertation topic, assuming such things are still performed in departments of communications studies.

Zackly what I've been thinking, but said so much better :) Thanks!

Heading out to drop my absentee ballot in the box right now (I never seem to fill it out far enough in advance to mail it in.)

Edwards. Concern trolls like David Broder constantly advise Dems to dial back their principles; shame-free shills like David Brooks, Peggy Noonan and Chris Matthews decry "angry" progressives in favor of reasonable, "grownup" Republicans. Hell, Sumner Redstone came out and said he preferred Bush over Kerry. I take him at his word. If the past seven years have taught us anything, it's that the M$M does not have the interests of ordinary Americans, or liberals in general, at heart.

If they say 'black", I know it's white. If they say "up", you can be sure it's down. If Broder, Brooks, Tweety et al tell me to disregard John Edwards and choose Obama (and they have come down to him; they're just keeping Hillary around for ad revenue and for sport) I've got to believe that Edwards best represents my philosophy and ideals. I feel compelled to vote for him to signal to the M$M and to my easily manipulated countrymen that I see this farce for what it is, and that I dissent.