I am still completely undecided about who I will vote for in the Democratic primary, except that I know it will NOT be John Edwards. I voted for him for US Senate, but would not do so again. Why? Because instead of taking the time to learn how to be effective, he pretty much immediately began running for President. I had some professional dealings with his Senate staff during his brief time there, and was astounded at their incompetence. I also was very disappointed in his voting record as a Senator. I see no evidence he is at all qualified to deal with national or international issues.

I wish his ambition and ego were not so large that he believed he did not need to learn to be effective in the national arena. I wish he wanted to be a big fish in a small pond, at least at first. I wish he thought he had some things to learn before he reached for the presidency.

I wish he wanted to be governor of North Carolina. He would be remarkably effective in that capacity, and many Dems. in North Carolina would be most pleased to support him in that. 'ceptin' he ain't interested in such small potatoes.

He does not have particularly strong support among Democrats in his home state for his run at the presidency.

PDQ, what you mistakenly believe is a scathing indictment of Edwards, is simply a commentary on the realities of our legal system. One can insert the name of any private attorney in place of Edwards. No attorney who eventually is successful at making a good living will take a case to bring suit for financial damages that they do not strongly believe they can win. Why? Because if they don't win, they don't get paid. These are always contingency cases. Doesn't matter if you are talking malpractice, a disability appeal, a libel claim, or a personal injury suit.

Cruiser, I hope you are not really saying you would not vote for Hilary Clinton primarily because she did not divorce her husband due to his infidelity? (And I am not any more inclined at this point to vote for Clinton than I am for Obama, Bidens, or any of the other candidates - I'm not trying to encourage you to vote for her.) News flash. The Earth is not flat. The Clintons may be a political powerhouse couple, but many, many couples stay together after infidelity, even repeated infidelities, for many and complex reasons. Maintaining power, position or financial security are certainly some of the reasons, but not all. Not by a long shot.

I am not saying I think infidelity is OK. But to refuse to vote for some one who you otherwise may find approximately represents your own vision of the direction in which this country needs to go because they didn't divorce an unfaithful spouse strikes me as naive at best. FDR and Eisenhower had long-standing extramarital relationships. So, apparently, did Thomas Jefferson. Kennedy was a notable philanderer.   Read some history of world leaders, both religious and political. As far back in recorded history as you can go, well-researched biographies of Kings, Empresses, Popes, Prime Ministers, Bishops, Civil Rights leaders, etc. are rife with illicit and unsanctioned sexual encounters and relationships...and the men and women who did not divorce them. Get real. And I might suggest that the personality traits that are necessary for an individual to be a great public leader are often in direct opposition to the traits that make a person a good "family person." Ghandhi was a terrible family man, for example. People are so very complex. Including those who aspire to be leaders.

LH, I was particularly struck by your comment that Hillary Clinton has a number of discernible flaws. The public has always demanded that our political and moral leaders appear to be flawless. I sometimes wonder if this is at the heart of the general duplicity that seems to be a necessary component of the successful pursuit of power in general, and public office, in particular. I would much prefer that most of the flaws of candidates for office be discernible, for it is absolutely certain they all have flaws, just like the rest of us.

As with anyone, there are a number of things that will ultimately factor into my decision about for whom to vote, including my assessment of their personal integrity.   But the two factors that will carry the most weight are 1. how close does the vision and social philosophy of the candidate match my own? 2. How effective do I think the candidate is likely to be in realizing their vision?

It always comes down to that morally difficult task of determining to just what exent do the ends justify the means.

Janie