Any idea when this announcement will come?

Who knows.  He did concentrate on the poverty, lack of health care, and income inequality issues.  He did mention his wife's cancer.  He specifically talked about how the poor can't get cancer treatment because you can't get chemo in the emergancy room, which is the only health care option that the poor have.

Overall, he sounded more liberal than I have ever heard him.  I figured that it was just because he was speaking at a union hall in Minnesota, where there really isn't such thing as too liberal...

I suspect that this will happen in this case. Which would be a slight win for Clinton. But then again, it'll be different per state, so it's hard to predict.

One thing is certain: the chances of a brokered convention just went from very high to very low.

He wins the debate, or is perceived as her equal, and most likely he wins the nomination.  If he wins, all the momentum will be going his way.

An Edwards aide said that he does not plan to endorse either Clinton or Obama, at this time, but he may do so in the future.

I think that's important because they're a lot of the "ABH" vote. It's also important because there are a lot of people who view Obama and Edwards as representing the same ideology. The "progressive choice" thus far, at least according to supporters, is "Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards." I think, geographically, this is especially true in the South, the Midwest, and the portions of the Northeast that Hillary has either put off, or doesn't firmly have in her grasp (New Jersey.)

We'll see how it all shakes out. An endorsement by Edwards for Obama could really shake things up, as again, his supporters are very committed to him, and could very well trust him and follow what he says. This could also help him in the "no college degree"/poorer economic demographic. It'll also help him among white voters in general, I think.

This is surprising to me.

The best case scenario for Clinton is an Obama gaffe at the debate, followed by a Richardson endorsement on Friday--that might push her to get a clear majority of the Super Tuesday delegates and a big enough margin to basically put it out of reach for Obama.  A few weeks later, Obama concedes, and at the convention she puts him on the ticket.  The Obama era in presidential politics is delayed at least 4 years.

The best case scenario for Obama is a strong performance at the debate(ranging from "he held his own" to "I think he actually won that one") or possibly a win by default through an unforced error on Clinton's part, followed by endorsements by Edwards/Richardson/Gore before 2/5--that might push him to win California and do well enough in her stronghold states and elsewhere to get a clear majority of delegates.  In his case, he doesn't need a big delegate lead over her--any lead at all on 2/6 will likely lead to his winning the nomination, long term.  Clinton hangs in there longer, maybe until March or April, then drops out and endorses.  She doesn't go on the ticket, primarily because she doesn't want it.  The Clinton era in presidential politics is effectively over.

I also saw one mention that Edwards might be the AG for an Obama Administration. It's already pretty clear that the first thing we get with a Clinton victory is the promise of a Bill-Bush No. 1 world tour. That doesn't bode well for any real prosecutions against the current administration. I am not sure that we'd get that with Edwards as AG either, but it would be a lot more likely. And think of all the kinds of pro-working class rulings and prosecutions that someone like an Edwards could bring to that office.

For days, the question of whether he would stay in the race was an off-limits topic of conversation among those in his inner circle, but several major contributors began growing antsy, with some eager to begin lining up with either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.