It was interesting to me to see how, in the aftermath of South Carolina, pundit after pundit gave their guess as to who Edwards was "hurting" more. Some say he helps Obama by splitting the white vote with Hillary. Others think he helps Clinton by splitting the "anti-Clinton" vote. I thought I might try a novel concept. I thought I’d ask.
Before I do, though let me be clear about one thing. Please excuse me for shouting:
I DO NOT THINK EDWARDS SHOULD GET OUT OF THE RACE.
I don't think John Edwards hurts either candidate - I think he helps both. John plays a vital role in keeping the important issues (it’s the economy, stupid) on the front page.
...
Okay, maybe not on the front page – the media’s narrative doesn’t include John on the front page – but at least he keeps the important issues in the paper. Let’s face it, if it weren’t for Edwards the media narrative would be dominated by Bill Clinton’s role in Hillary’s campaign and Obama being the "black candidate" unable to get the "white vote."
...
Damn it...okay, bad example. Let me try this again. In a macro sense Clinton = Experience, Barak = Change, Edwards = Issues that people actually care about. The more we hear from Edwards, the more we move the public’s perception of the Democratic Party as being the party that offers solutions for the stuff you care about. So, I’ll say it again.
I DO NOT WANT EDWARDS TO GET OUT OF THE RACE.
That having been said, if you are an Edwards supporter (and ONLY if you’re an Edwards supporter), if Edwards doesn’t win, who would you rather see win the nomination?