Well it's not like it's unexpected but that's too bad.

Agreed. I liked him.

It will be interesting to see how this will change the dynamic.

I'm really disappointed over this news but can only assume that he will be a good running mate for whoever ultimately gets the nomination. But I'm still thinking he would have made a damn good president.

He is not endorsing anyone for now. Any ideas which candidate benefits the most from his departure?

Well that sucks, I thought he was the most progressive candidate. He probably would have had better chances if this hadn't turned into a gender vs. race battle. Wonder if he'll wind up being the running mate again.

I was pulling for Edwards, but as usual, the candidate I like best is out of the race before I get a chance to vote. It didn't help that the media screwed him at every turn.

Edwards' loss is now Obama's gain. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Clinton after she voted for the Iraq War AND voted to let Numbnuts attack Iran.

Crap. Once again, I'm unable to vote for the candidate whose POLICIES I actually believe in. sigh.

I suspect Clinton will gain more because both candidates are popular with working-class voters. Clinton was my clear second choice because of her health plan and economic policies, but I'm warming to Obama a little; even my ultraconservative dad likes him. (Which may be an argument against him as far as a lot of people are concerned!)

You know who benefits most from this?
McCain.

The polls seem to say this is a net benefit for Hillary. Edwards had the blogosphere vote, but otherwise failed to connect with the people his message was most geared to. He picked up some union members and establishment democrats (both more likely to go to Hillary), and otherwise white males, who I think are more likely to stay home. On the issues (and broad themes) Edwards was a little closer to Obama, but he never seemed to get any traction out of it. It really bums me that such a serious, issue oriented campaign could be swamped by a media celebrity circus. I'm stuck making another "lesser of two evils" choice (not evil, I suppose, more lackluster). Just for once, it would have been nice to drop a ballot for a candidate I really believed in.

Edwards was the best candidate when it came to domestic policy, hands down. It's a shame he never had enough support. I will holdout hope for an Obama-Edwards ticket in November, though.

Agreed, ktboo.

I was holding out for Edwards...now I'll be stuck to doing what my father calls "voting against a candidate," that being whoever gets the Republican nomination.

It's absurd that this party system, which is supposed to give us choices, only limits us further.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for another Edwards VP slot. I don't he'd want it, and I don't think anyone would offer it. All three of them need someone to beef up their foreign policy credentials. I would expect someone a little older and experienced (frankly, a Democratic equivalent of Cheney). I think Hillary is leaning towards Wesley Clark. I don't know who Obama would tap.

Oh come on, Edwards is a politician just like all the others.

So he had some smart people write his website... I don't think we can really say that Edwards would have gotten more progressive things done as president than either Obama or Clinton.

Have you noticed that Presidents very rarely do in office exactly what they campaign for? Whichever Democrat wins is going to spend a lot (maybe most) of their time just cleaning up the mess Bush made.

I still think it probably means /something/ that Clinton has the highest % of women on her staff, and Obama and Clinton have the most racially diverse staff. They're going to be able to do some progressive things in office, even if they aren't campaigning primarily on that.

(I guess I'm also slightly biased b/c I thought Edwards seemed pretty dumb in the 2004 VP Presidential debate.)

I think you are on to something, Nina. I don't have anything against Edwards, but...

Only a white male with a successful career in a respectable profession could talk about poverty the way Edwards did.

The other two candidates, a black man and a woman, have to dance certain dances in order to be taken seriously as candidates. A black man talking about "two Americas" would not make it very far; neither would a woman. They'd be accused of "identity politics" even more than they already are!

I liked John Edwards a lot, and definitely think he contributed positively to this race, but:

I don't think he was the only progressive candidate, or even necessarily the most progressive candidate. I think that his status as the only white male in the upper tier ALLOWED him to run as a progressive.

I'm really glad that I got to cast my vote for Edwards here in SC last week (knowing, of course, that in SC, this is totally Obama's race). While I'd love an Obama/Edwards ticket now, I almost think Edwards would better serve the country as the AG. (I've heard a few rumors that Obama may pick Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate, and I'd totally support that, but I also agree that someone strong on foreign policy would be important.)

It's time to end the race vs. gender discussion being forced upon us by the right-wing media! They're trying to divide us now so whoever wants to be George Bush III can win in November and do away with even more of our rights.

Senator Clinton has been a consistent voice for my interests since the day I was born. She's taken time to shake my hand and thank me for my work with other young women for reproductive rights. And, she's got my vote.

He's not endorsing anyone because that would alienate the other. And we don't know who's going to be picking the running mate this fall. He's keeping his options open.

P.S. Always a running mate, never a bride?

Liza - I thought he had already shown a pretty clear preference for Obama, even if he has not outright endorsed him.

I'd be very surprised if Edwards were the VP. He's campaigned on economic populism, which the other two Democrats decidedly have not, so he'd have a difficult time squaring how he ran his primary with being the running mate of either Barack or Hillary. More to the point, though, he brings little to the table in terms of improving electability. He has almost no foreign policy experience, so wouldn't help Obama or Clinton in that regard (especially against someone like McCain), and even though he's "geographically desirable" he proved in '04 that he can't carry the South for the candidate, so there's no reason in terms of geographical electoral math to pick him. I agree with some earlier posters. Both Clinton and Obama would need to burnish their foreign policy credentials. Someone like Biden would be good in that case. Maybe Wes Clarke too, though to be honest he's a bit underwhelming on the campaign trail. I'm not sure who else either of them would pick.

aw crap, I already sent in my absentee ballot...

Perhaps, but it's politically a good move not to come right out and say it. If Hil gets the nomination he won't have shut himself out as a possible VP.

Maybe he could be Attorney General