Okay, Edwards supporters.

We've had no shortage of inspired diaries urging your candidate to keep fighting.  And lots of derision directed toward those of us who think he has no chance to win the nomination and should support Barack Obama.  Not to mention the outright ridicule of those who compare Edwards's candidacy to Ralph Nader.

I've been thinking about something ever since Ralph Nader endorsed John Edwards for president.  Could John Edwards reprise Nader's role as spoiler and take enough votes from Obama down the stretch to throw the nomination to Hillary?

First, my answer: Not yet, but with last night's results there is a very real possibility that this could happen.

There are some similarities between Edwards and Nader that are too strong to ignore.

Today in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton was greeting a crowd when a group of people, some holding Edwards signs, began loudly shouting "HEY HEY...HO HO...THE STATUS QUO HAS GOT TO GO!"

Senator Clinton walked along the crowd greeting voters, and when she reached the protesters and attempted to greet and speak to them, they ignored her entreaties and continued shouting.  The senator approached several individuals in the group and reached for a handshake, but each person refused to shake her hand or speak with her.

Watch the video here.

Boy, what a disappointment.

As a longtime (and still) Obama supporter, I was ecstatic when he won the Iowa caucuses and delivered a speech that blew those of his rivals out of the water.

Sure, I had some slight concerns about Obama's statements after landing in New Hampshire.  He shouldn't, for example, repeatedly and overtly ask a state that is proud of its independence to "do what Iowa did" in voting for him.

And why even assume the mantle of frontrunner, declaring that if New Hampshire votes for him then "I will be the next president"?  That statement confirmed the Clinton talking point that this primary is now about Obama, when he could have remained the insurgent for one more cycle by instead hanging the "inevitable" mantra on Hillary and challenging New Hampshire not to do Washington's bidding.

But anyway, on to tonight's debate.

On Thursday, the worst-case scenario came true for the Clinton campaign.

1. She was beaten by Obama in almost every demographic grouping:

It isn’t just that Barack Obama won Iowa decisively last night over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. It’s the way he won: by beating his opponents across a stunning demographic spectrum.

Obama won Democrats, Republicans and independents; men and women; and virtually every income bracket. People most worried about the Iraq war gave him their vote. So did voters most concerned about the state of the economy. And those whose top priority is fixing the nation’s health care system.

2. An unprecedented number of independents and republicans turned out, mitigating her strength among core democrats and buttressing Obama's claim that he is the best candidate to forge a winning coalition in November.

3. Clinton finished third in a contest that wasn't even close.  In actual numbers, her support placed merely a half-percentage point behind Edwards, but that third-place finish is likely the biggest psychological blow to her campaign.

I like John Edwards.

If my first choice, Barack Obama, had flamed out tonight, I'd have hoped for Edwards to win over Hillary Clinton.

But the fact is, Edwards had his best chance to gain enough momentum to sustain a prolonged run by winning the Iowa Caucuses.  He and Elizabeth have given it their all, but he has come up short.

The question is, what comes next?

Via Political Wire, it's looking like Ron Paul's candidacy is gathering steam:

In an interview to be aired later today on Bloomberg's Political Capital with Al Hunt, Rep. Ron Paul said he has raised more than $9 million in the past two months and he predicted his presidential campaign will exceed its $12 million fourth-quarter goal.

Paul said he has begun "spending generously" in key early-primary states. He is competing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, and said he expects to have money to campaign through Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when at least 22 states may hold primaries and decide the nomination.

Rolling Stone published a wide-ranging interview with Al Gore in its latest issue, covering the climate crisis, his (lack of) plans in the presidential race and his view of the Bush administration.  When the interview turned to Gore's view of the Bush regime, he issued a stinging condemnation:

I was watching The Chris Matthews show this morning, and in his "tell me something I don't know" segment, John Heilemann of New York Magazine had this to say:

Heilemann: A guy I spent a lot of time with last year, Al Gore, before his movie came out or right on the cusp of it, just won the Nobel prize.  And there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want to get him into this race, there always have been.  Umm, it is not going to happen, it is NOT going to happen. And he's going to endorse Barack Obama.

Matthews: When?

Heilemann: Six weeks.

Matthews: Do you think there's a chance that if the Democrats lose this round John that Al will be back in politics next time around?

Heilemann: Yes.

There is a very disheartening item that was posted this morning on CNN's Political Ticker blog:

Source: Gore thinks Clinton unstoppable

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind.

Josh Marshall posted some criticisms of the Obama campaign, and is being praised in some quarters for urging the Obama campaign to "take it" and "make his move" and "win":

Obama isn't so much running for the nomination in the sense of reaching out and taking it. He's trying to show us how marvelous he is (and this isn't snark, he's really pretty marvelous) so that Democratic voters will recognize it and give him the nomination.

But that's not how it works in this country. I don't know if it really works otherwise anywhere else. But you have to really want it, come out and say it, take it. I thought about qualities that describe what is at issue. 'Toughness' seems to bound up in meta-national security mumbojumbo. 'Ruthlessness' sounds too, well, ruthless. You have to want it enough that you reach out and take it. Which isn't always pretty and admirable. But that's what it takes.

I disagree that Obama has to somehow seize the narrative now, and then struggle to keep control of it over the next three months.  Follow me over the jump and I'll explain my reasons why.

I'll try to make this succinct so as not to harangue and detract from the point I want to make about last night's democratic debate.

My friends, over the past week we have heard some very shocking and disheartening news about the pace and nature of climate change.  We were told that:

Arctic sea ice has melted to its lowest level on record, declining a jaw-dropping 386,100 miles.

One of the most maddening things about Peak Oil is that no one in power will acknowledge it, let alone announce a plan to deal with it.  Those who have followed this issue know that Peak Oil is more imminent than the worst effects of global warming, and will be much more damaging over the coming 20 years.

TPM is doing a series of interviews with the leading presidential candidates and is soliciting questions from readers:

So if you've got a question for Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Richardson or any of the rest, send us an email with the text of the question to our comments address with the subject heading "TPMtv Question: [Candidate's name]". We'll save them up for when we do the interview.

It is time for us to act and bring this issue onto the front burner, or at least get the candidates on record as to WHY they aren't acknowledging Peak Oil.

More on how you can quickly make your voice heard after the jump.

...Nor any other politician with a hand in the Iraq war debacle, for that matter.  Not in the Democratic primary.  But I single out Edwards because of the recent entry by Salo, which happens to be the latest in a countless string of diaries arguing that Edwards' sharp turn on Iraq makes him worthy of our esteem if not our adoration.

Says Salo:

Just as important, especially for Obama supporters who are obsessed with blaming Edwards as if he was the sole reason for the AUMF and Iraq, Obama said that the decisive action of admitting a mistake allows one to earn the respect of the American people and the world - respect that can allow a call for diplomacy to be trusted  later.  Obama recognized the effects of leadership of the type he defined in Edwards.  Can you?  It would be proper for Obama supporters to recognize Edwards's leadership in admitting the mistake and thereafter, rather than trying to use it as a dagger...

I thought Bill Moyers' "Buying the War" was a significant and sorely needed exposé on the U.S. media's failure to perform its most basic duty -- to report the truth -- in the months before the Iraq war.

But did their failures end when the first bombs were unleashed in Baghdad?

We subsist on a steady diet of infotainment news, with cursory war coverage consisting of sanitized images that betray the true human cost of the occupation to "them" as well as "us".

Estimates of the Iraqi war dead range from 64,000 to over 655,000.  We do not see them on our televisions, or read about THEIR stories, THEIR sacrifices, THEIR tragedies, THEIR hopes and dashed dreams.

Today, as we hear words like honor, sacrifice, valor and heroism used to describe our fallen soldiers, let us also take a moment to consider the interconnectedness of all human life and remember the innocents mourned by the Iraqi people.  Please continue...

Time Magazine has caught my ire, again.  No, it's not cover stories on how we should teach the Bible in public schools, or bumping serious issues from the spotlight for its dumbed-down American edition...

I've been a reader of Daily Kos for years, but this is my first diary.

I was reading snout's post on Obama when I came across the following comment:

I like Obama and I like Edwards, not particularly Hilliary.  I am also pragmatic.  I do not believe that America is ready to elect a black president.  Aside from the fact that he is black, he has very little experience in politics.  I also do not believe that America is ready to elect a woman.  That aside, I do not care for Hillary.  That leaves us (me) with Edwards.

My first reaction was one of indignation, perhaps even a faint sense of outrage.  Democrats demoting a candidate because of race or gender?  But then, as I considered how I might respond, I realized that I was less incensed by the statement itself than the fact that someone would dare state it aloud.  Follow me past the jump.