>I do think his [Edward's] support comes from people who think a
>kenyan-american and
> woman is going to cause a race war, and more
> of the "it has to get worse before it gets better" crowd. I don't like
> him,
> and I don't believe his newfound pro-labor values. I gave
> $25 to Obama.
I also am somewhat skeptical of Edwards. Of the three, he espouses the most progressive views, to be sure. But we have to keep in mind that what politicians say has little to no connection with what they believe or will do. Particularly in an election, all we see is a product of marketing. Edwards' handlers, a white man from the South, may believe tacking to the economic left in the primary makes him more likely to win the nomination. Obama's handlers may believe that vocalizing more progressive views makes him less likely to secure the nomination as a black man. This would be analogous to how Clinton's handler's may believe she must market herself as "tough"--particularly with respect to foreign policy--to overcome gender biases.
Is it farfetched to think that maybe--maybe--an Obama presidency *might* be more progressive than an Edwards presidency, free from (at least much of) the constraints of marketing? I don't really know (and if anybody does, I'd appreciate a response). But Edwards strikes me as not the most authentic and sincere person. He seems to crave the presidency for its own sake more than anybody else. I do think Clinton, even if nominated and elected, would remain the most conservative.