Either that was Edwards in stealth snark mode .... or it was something that should have been discussed in your previous diary.

Is Rosenberg an Obama supporter now?  Lost track.

Why don't we just run Kerry again then? At least he could "unify" the party. Feh.

The democratic party has been divided and conqured by the republican media. AGAIN.

I do agree that destroying the Clintons seem to have a higher priority than actually winning back the WH.  

Now, I'm going to be honest, jump on me if you want, but two effetes on the same ticket?  Nope.

All of this, of course, is completely beside the point of BTD's post, which I agree with 100%.  As my wife was fuming this morning about the "sweetie" thing and wondering how she could live with herself if she voted for this a**** in November, it occurred to me that because she doesn't read blogs much, she has no idea how many women and Clinton supporters there are who are dealing with the exact same feelings she's experiencing.  It's a big issue that no one who cares about winning should ignore.

If Granholm wasn't born in Michigan, she'd make some sense.

I always liked he message, but I find him mildly suspect as the spokesman for the message, and an imperfect candidate to carry labor's message back to well, labor's audience.  I think he's sincere and I agree with much of what he says, but I think he appeals to the liberal wing of the working class rather than the Clinton wing of the working class, he lacks the aura of toughness that Clinton has earned over the course of the campaign, which really does appeal to voters - considerably more voters than Edwards managed to draw.

* Of course, these entitled men have no idea how angry a lot of women are because they do not think about us or worry about us as a voting bloc.  Just as the party leadership does not feel the need to fight misogyny.  It's a given we'll vote democratic until, of course, we don't.  The latest Rasmussen poll has 29% of democrats saying if Clinton isn't the nominee, she should make a third party run.  Any bets on how many of that 29% are women?  

One for region, one for gender, one to match his mood on a given day, one because they photograph well together, and one for the buddy comedy version of this campaign.

"McCain should pray that Obama picks (he won't) John Edwards as VP--he brings no executive record of experience, and offers less ideological balance; he has a poor record of winning primaries over two failed runs for the Presidency, has never appealed to working-class whites, hurt the Kerry ticket as a mediocre VP candidate, did poorly in past and present debates, and went even harder to the left (in scripted fashion) in the primaries. Moreover, he adds to, rather than ameliorates, the sense of elitism and out-of-touchness that plagues Obama. For all the talk of growing up the son of a mill worker, voters remember 'the haircut' and that gargantuan house with the "John's room" inner sanctum. I'm afraid all that outweighs the photogenic youthful appearance and occasional glibness."

And he accuses Clinton supporters of being delusional? I think he and his friends need to get real, especially because it is going to be theirs and Obama's job to unify the party. The winner has to do that.

I thought Edwards was brilliant and great last night, but he was speaking to Democrats and advocating Democratic unity.  I don't know that I think that his appeal in the GE would be as strong.  I would love it if it was, but I am a realist about my guy and I think he has a ways to go to establish the kind of cred that would really help a candidate as unknown as Obama.  Edwards isn't that well known himself.

The issues at hand are profound. Too profound to be addressed by a campaign of good intentions, big egos, zilch experience and unproven competence.

What is this new Democratic Party they envision?  What are its principles?  Where are its constituencies?  I'm just baffled.

Here again is the assumption that women will just dutifully fall into line, once more, behind the party-picked male nominees.  I must say, I am not so sanguine about discovering, after lo these many years of being a Democrat, that I'm just a taken-for-granted cog in the mighty masculine wheel. What, ladies, are we getting out of this?  Disgusting, discriminating, hate-filled slurs against the first serious female candidate, that's what. But just imagine the howls of outrage if a significant number of women publicly vowed their refusal to vote for a male POTUS.  (And we'd probably only have to do it this once.)