No more 3 person debates

This election is unique in American history for many reasons:

*The first woman to have a serious chance to win the Presidency
*Likewise for the first African American
*The record-breaking fundraising by two candidates
*The lack of serious issue differences being debated between the candidates
*The presence of a Former President as a spouse and chief surrogate
*The obvious bias of MSM in favor of one candidate
and...
*The refusal of John Edwards to have any shame or embarrassment

Here are the facts:
In 2004 Senator Edwards declined to seek re-election in his home state of North Carolina in large measure because he either would have lost, or would have had to resort to his old moderate self to win. Either way, there's no way he could have won re-election as THIS John Edwards.

Since then, he's been RUNNING for President.

Coming into the election he had two chances to win the nomination:

He could become an early frontrunner as the Party's connection to the 2004 ticket or he needed to win in both states where he had years of familiarity: Iowa and South Carolina.

He utterly failed in all areas. In fact in his two states he wasn't in contention to win either of them. Barely finishing second in Iowa based on the 2nd choice votes of lesser candidates, he was the voters' third first choice.

At that point, most media thought he would have the dignity to leave the race but allowed him credibility for some reason (?) (pro Obama)

Last night, even after given an undeserved opportunity to play "the grown-up", yes the same person who claimed he would take members' of Congress's HealthCare away (demagogue), and the same one who was an attack dog against Hillary for months, John Edwards came in third place in his home state.

In Iowa he could CLAIM 2nd place and momemtum. Though not plausibly. However last night on MSNBC he actually said, "we came back from 35 - 40 points behind". Failing to realize he lost by 35 - 40 points. Now maybe he's saying he was that far behind 2nd place, but if so, SO WHAT?
Some may claim Edwards has a chance to win delegates based on the current polls in various states. But no one can draw even a plausible crooked path to the nomination so it would all be for naught.

Going forward, since the Senator seems to have no shame or be embarrassed by his failure , (Where others have gone back to their jobs, he doesn't have one)

Hillary Clinton should refuse to debate with a person the voters have rejected as a possible nominee. The media should stop including him because there isn't a plausible scenario where he can win.

The result would be either a meaningless 90 minute commercial for Obama and Edwards, or Edwards would take votes from Obama. I don't think Hillary would lose votes to Edwards because his only chance is a "sympathy" vote like what happened in South Carolina. If she's not on the stage, it can't happen. To include him on the stage as if he's 1 of 3 equals is misleading and wrong. Edwards is now in Kucinich territory. Good for us, his district forced him out.

EVEN DENNIS KUCINICH HAS A JOB!

The reason we don't let people who can't win in the debates is that they don't have anything to lose so they are capable of anything. Also what they say is at best meaningless and wastes time until one of the Principals can speak.

Senator Edwards has shown he's not responsible by making that Healthcare threat he knows could never be enforced. Also, his erractic temperament swings from double teaming with Obama against Hillary, to "the grown up", to an Obama attack dog (not seen too much lately).

Start the movement now to demand 1 on 1 debates between candidates the voters have chosen:

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama.

Encourage Hillary Clinton to stand up for we the voters and to refuse any more debates that include John Edwards.