I'm simply citing the facts from DrSteveB's poll, which seem to be the best facts available.  If you read them and discover that they are in error, please note that here and I will change my diary to reflect our new understanding of the facts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /6/74350/23451

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /6/74350/23451

DrSteveB at DailyKos did a poll in which he asked how many people were atheists and agnostics, and he included definitions of both in the diary with which he polled people about their religious/non-religious beliefs.  When DrSteveB's combined figures for atheists and agnostics were totaled it was concluded that the combined total is 65% of DailyKos participants.   http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /6/74350/23451

DrSteveB polls the DailyKos community fairly regularly about its demographics.  

If so, it sounds like a Clinton family "dynasty" is really the least of our worries.

Far from wanting to provoke animosity, I want all of you who do not support Hillary to see the obvious advantages of joining forces behind Barack Obama.  Let's look at this logically and strategically:

Continued at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

You have always been the centerpiece of his campaign.  When he was working as a trial lawyer and collecting 35%(?) of multi-million dollar judgments the "little guy" plaintiff was the centerpiece of his 151 million dollars in income (or was that judgments).

As between him and Kerry, I preferred Kerry.  But when Hillary Clinton tried to institute national health care back in 1993, she convinced me that she was for the little guy, because health care was one of my major issues.

Edwards hadn't even BEGUN to get involved in electoral politics when Hillary was trying to institute national health care.  Barack Obama was a $13,000/year community organizer when Edwards was making himself rich doing multi-million dollar cases, but without apparently doing a much pro-bono work at all!

If Edwards was for the little guy, why wasn't he on the board of his local Legal Services outfit?  Hillary was on the national board of Legal Services all the way back in the 1970's, when Edwards was justing learning how to sign his name on a legal brief.

When we are willing to believe whatever a politician tells us, based only on his own say-so, then we become especially vulnerable to hucksters.

Michael, why do you go by initials here instead of your full name?  When I first saw your initials, I had no idea who you were or why you suddenly appeared and began attacking me so personally.

It was only when you signed a post with both your intials and your name that I knew who you were.

What are you trying to hide when you criticize me from behind initials, criticizing a man whose identity is known to all?  Do you think you might be more civil and respectful if you knew that everyone else knew who was saying the things that you say?

Why would we want to tax our imaginations to find genuine populism in Edwards when Obama's resume is so much more demonstrative of populism.  It's really important that we endeavor to see what his really there instead of straining to imagine what we would LIKE to see there.

Is Edwards REALLY a populist or just learning to talk very much like a populist?  If he was a populist, he would have represented some pro bono clients who couldn't pay for his services, right?  Here's what the New York Times says about that,  

"He would pick the cases that had the largest verdict potential," said Dewey W. Wells, a former state court judge who litigated against Mr. Edwards as a defense lawyer. "He had a good eye for those cases. He said he was the champion of the little guy, and it's true that many of the people who are injured are poor and downtrodden. He can say he was championing their interest, but it was only by coincidence. He was picking the cases with the biggest payoffs."

Another former adversary, James P. Cooney III, who defended a dozen medical malpractice cases brought by Mr. Edwards, agreed that "he was very selective about his cases."

"He only took the best cases, and by that I don't mean the ones with the highest damages,'' Mr. Cooney said. "I mean the ones where somebody had done something really bad."

But Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact.  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politi cs/campaign/14career.html?ex=1247544000& amp;en=870846aae154e1d1&ei=5090& partner=rssuserland

The yearning for populism ought not be ridiculed, but the suspension of disbelief is of great concern.    Personally, I'm less concerned with what candidates say than with who they are.

Barack Obama worked for three years as a community organizer, which is pretty good resume material for a populist.  John Edwards has never done any community organizing, except perhaps to get himself elected to the US Senate.

John Edwards finished law school and went directly to a private law firm in North Carolina with a Republican reputation, defending large corporations in liability suits.  Barack Obama finished law school and went to work with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights while starting his own civil rights law practice.  

Just those facts tell me who IS the populist as opposed to who talks like a populist.  Anyone can talk like a populist, but actually being one is something very different.

Populism is about a revolutionary redirection of society's resources toward those who have less.  If you want to do that, the first step would be to redirect the presidency toward one of the demographic groups that has NEVER held it, like women or Blacks or Latinos.  That would be a populist step, while electing John Edwards is the greatest possible reaffirmation of the elitist group (in the sense of historical privilege) status quo.

The desire to see Edwards as a populist hero reminds me of the Rocky movies.  Look at the historical context of the Rocky movies:  When Blacks had held the heavy weight championship title for damn near two decades, suddenly the white imagination conjures up "Rocky" who comes along as the white hero who beats the Black man.  

But it really WAS a fantasy, because no white man has held the heavy-weight title for as long as I have been watching television.

And so, instead of facing reality, there is often a white flight into fantasy, and I see the image of Edwards as a populist hero as being just that -  a white flight into fantasyland on the wings of John Edwards, who may himself believe the populist identity that he is daily crafting for himself.  It's a pretty narrative, and we certainly want to believe that there is a populist choice, but let's face it:  John Edwards is a wealthy trial lawyer with no particular history as a fighter for the poor, except when he was receiving 35% of their civil awards as his contingency fee.

How much pro bono work did Edwards and his firm do while Obama was working as a civil rights lawyer?  I certainly would like to know the answer to that question?

John Edwards would be a better president than any of the Republicans, but his election as the 44th white male president is would everywhere be seen primarily as a defeat for the advance of a new equality and a reaffirmation of the status quo.

she doesn't have to.  Everything Edwards is doing, from suddenly becoming the "anti-poverty candidate" to suddenly becoming anti-warrior-than-thou is hurting Edwards credibility on a daily basis.  Only "progressives" desperate for someone who talks like a populist can suspend disbelief and belief that Edwards actually is a populist, while to the rest of us he just sounds like a huckster opportunist.

Edwards is a good man, but even a good man sounds incredible when he tries to sell a tomato by claiming that it's a pumpkin.

That's it, right there!

Hillary faced Giuliani in 2004, before Giuliani "got sick" and backed out of the race.  

Is a US Senate seat so uninteresting that no serious Republicans wants to be the Senator from New York.  More likely, no serious Republicans believed s/he could be Hillary, and so they decided not to run at all.

Lazio, who finally ran against Hillary in 2000, was a semi-serious Republican.  He was a lifelong New Yorker and a member of the Legislature, if I remember correctly.  Hillary made him "look" unserious and that's part of why he lost the election.

In 2012 when Hillary is the sitting President, you'll be saying that President Hillary Clinton has never had a serious Republican opponent because she "only" beat Chuck Hagel or Mitt Romney back in 2008, and that didn't count because they weren't serious Republicans.

If the Republicans couldn't take Hillary on or take her down in two historical US Senate contests, I don't think Obama (who has my deep respect) or Edwards (who is a good citizen), neither of them and both of them together are not going to be able to  beat Hillary.

Obama has no motive to help Edwards, because if Edwards wins then Obama gets quickly forgotten, but if Hillary wins, Obama likely becomes the next Vice President of the United States.

Obama has two ways to win in 2008:  as the presidential nominee or as Hillary's vice presidential nominee.  If Edwards wins, then Obama (and his supporters) try valiantly but not very successfully to think of something good to say about Edwards and his white male(?) running mate on the campaign trail.

Anybody who disagrees with me better be ready to assert that Edwards is going to nominate a woman or minority running mate.

Let's face it!  If Edwards supporters don't think it's important to elect the first woman or Black president, they're not going to think it's important to elect the first woman or Black VICE president either.

No one ought be above the law, and the fact that Bush et al have violated so many clear laws is no reason to wilt before the task of vindicating our Constitution and our nation's legal framework.  

Libby was convicted of serious charges, yet others have not been indicted for equally serious acts of illegality.  

The very fact that so many laws have been violated compels us to seek independent counsel for each of the violations, and let the chips fall where they will stack up highest.