I'll start it off with a yes.

Hell yes!

Does anyone here seriously think, say, that Clinton will appoint an Alito to the Supreme Court?

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, for a change.

Not good.  Edwards is my pick but if he doesn't relent on this topic then I hate to say it but I can't support him anymore.

Yes, but she sure isn't my first (or second, or third) choice

does it really matter whether he and his family will support Hillary or not?

This is just comical...

Edwards better clear this up fast. I like him a lot, but there's no excuse for being wishy-washy on whether to support your party's nominee for President.

I'll vote against the Repub.

john edwards is not just an awful candidate, he epitomizes what is wrong with American (and Dem) politics.

-a phony: his positions shift with the political winds
-a poseur: this 2 Americas stuff while he lives in Hearst Castle
-a lightweight: no real governing experience, he survives by floating in the political currents and latching on to whatever red meat serves his purposes..
-easy meat for the GOP: just like Cheney waxed him in the 2004 debate, his flip flops, obvious posing, and lack of substance will lead to him getting ripped apart in a GE.

fortunately, his core of support is diminishing as people become familiar with him -- his hardcore are the types who voted Nader and brought us George W.. To most it's obvious that this year's angry populist was the centrist last time around, that the guy who rages against lobbyists is a creation of trial lawyers who doesn't have a principled bone in his body.

clinton, obama, dodd, biden, richardson....all solid candidates, and there are others. if edwards won't support the Dem candidate in the GE, he should just join the Greens now.

Grammar Nazi here:   (and the answer is yes, I'd support Hillary, but since I already am that's kind of empty).

Hard to tell what was intended from the last paragraph but "reticence" is related to "silence," not "reluctance."    Someone who is reluctant may be reticent but then again they may not.   Any sense of "reluctance" should be associated with "to speak," not more generally.

He isn't going to win over many mainstream primary voters by failing to say he would fail to back the Democratic nominee, whether it be Clinton or whomever.

What a disgrace.  Every Democrat should say "Yes." None of the top-tier Democrats are THAT different on substance.

Okay. That's all I have to say to this is "okay." This is like the "would you accept being the Vice presidential nominee" question that candidates are asked. In order to reach your question, he would have to assume he has lost. So if you can't see why a candidate may not want to create doubts about his chance, well- okay.

I grow more and more disgusted with John Edwards every day.  

Todd, so you have never heard these sorts of questions before, and you see it as a fumble to say I wont talk about this until after I've actually lost rather than assuming that I have?

Edwards will clear this up in the debate.  This guarantees he will be asked the question and given airtime to answer.  At this point, any suspect move Edwards (or Trippi) makes is all about airtime and trying to address the imbalance between his ad budget and Barack and Clinton's.  This isn't a serious issue.

This is serious. It hurts him. Equivocating, leaving any doubt, really makes the election about him and not about the party or the country. It plays into the meme that he's a narcissist. So either he's politically inept or so self absorbed he can't understand the mistake. I have been an Edwards supporter but he's lost me. And I'm not the only one. He can't afford that at this stage.

Not to speak for Sen. Edwards, who is great at speaking for himself and will in his own time, but to speak for myself and others with whom I have spoken here in Iowa, I will not vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee.  That does NOT mean I will vote for the Republican nominee.  In fact it says nothing of what I will do with my vote.  Only what I will not do.

Iowa Democrat (not an Iowa Lemming)

How about I hold my vote till I get clarification from Edwards about his support for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.

I have every intention of voting for the nominee even if it is Edwards ( as much as I can't stand his politics ) but i'll just wait for some clarification from him because I don't want to jump the gun.

I'll vote for anyone who wins except if we nominate Gravel or Kucinich . The new Edwards is already pushing my ideological limits , I don't think I can stretch it as far as Kucinich or Gravel ( the man isn't even a democrat,sounds like a left leaning libertarian to me)

Thankfully we are not about to nominate either lol

As an Edwards supporter, I have to agree that I'm disappointed in his answer.  He could have answered like Obama and said "Yes, I will.  Why wouldn't I vote for myself".  It deflects the attention away from the other candidates back to him in a humorous manner.

On the other hand, I have first hand knowledge of why someone might not support Clinton in the GE, my wife.  I will preface this comment by saying that my wife is not involved in politics to the extent that I am, but she is a very informed voter.  She has on numerous occasions said to her family and friends that if Clinton is the nominee she will not vote for her.  I have tried to convince her to reconsider, but she refuses.  She said she is sick of voting for someone just because they are the lesser of two evils.  She feels she needs to vote her conscious/convictions.

I bring this up because it's possible that Edwards has gotten to the point that my wife has, that their convictions will not be compromised by voting for someone they don't believe in.

Do I think that's wrong?  Politically, probably yes, but try telling your spouse that.

Who cares at this point?  The first vote hasn't even been cast and already people have to know if Edwards will pledge to support Hillary.

Aren't there better ways to spend valuable time before the Iowa caucus?  Sheesh.

Edwards gets nothing for being willing NOW to support Hillary the nominee other than people saying that he lacks the will to deliver the fatal blow to her.  He can ALWAYS say he will support her later.  Besides, how is he to know she won't select Lieberman as her running mate or some hideous crap like that.

The correct response to "will you support Hillary, etc." is: "If Hillary says TODAY she will support me if I win, she makes a mistake.  If she made that mistake, I won't echo that mistake because that would show a losing mentality on her part or any candidate's part, for her to concede to me so early.  Among the most important trait in a candidate is the will to win.  You don't prepare for victory by preparing for defeat.  I certainly intend to prevail, to finish making the case to the tough but truly fair crowd of American Democratic voter.  AFTER I win, I would be extremely grateful for her support despite our substantial policy differences."

That's how a smart, black-belt candidate not advised by f***ing recividist losers like Bob Shrum would do it.

Good, post, Crablaw.  If she were to appoint Lieberman as her running mate, Dems would go apeshit at the convention and take the nomination from her.  And, if some reason (GF) that did not happen, I will tell you right now, I would support NADER or anyone else who might challenge her.  

Look.

I voted No.

I don't believe the line one bit that the democrats aren't THAT different on substance. And if Clinton wins the nomination, I will openly admit that YES, her policies and the vision she has for the country so offend me that I cannot support her.  

She's establishment to the core, beholden to lobbyists and proud of it, and the a return to the Clinton years of the 90s isn't the improvement the nation needs. I don't believe she will bring in change. Everything I've seen from her says exactly that.

Now I can be a democrat and not support clinton. I can support other people in my party running fro congress or Senate, but there is NOTHING that says that as a registered democrat I have to support Clinton.

How is your opinion, thee who blindly say I'll support any democrat and are stuck in 2004 land when we would accept ANYTHING BUT BUSH, any more pure than mine?

At least I'm ideologically consistent.

She is toxic to down-ballot Democrats throughout the South and particularly here in Texas, where we are crawling out from under a generation of red-ass Republican rule.

She sets Texas Democrats back another generation, and we just can't take that.

I don't know who I will vote for if she is the nominee but it certainly won't be the Republican (that should go w/o saying but since the accusations are flying ...)

I like Edwards, or at least I did, but he's bugging me a lot lately.  I worried that his decision to accept public funding meant that he was more concerned with himself winning the primaries than a democrat winning the White House.  And now this.

If he wins the nomination, I'll support him 100%, but I'm hoping more and more that he doesn't.

oh, that would have gone over well.  give me a break.  this isn't a fricking softball game.  Even if your candidate loses in the primary, you still have a duty to work for the party in the general election.  ESPECIALLY if you represent a block of voters who supported you.  sitting in the corner and crying about it doesn't do anyone any good....except the republicans.

It's a stupid question. If someone was hectoring John Kerry at this time in '03 if was planning to support Howard Dean, what do you think he was going to say? "Yes I plan to support the presumptive frontrunner".

Do you really think Edwards is going to support some third-party candidate if he dosen't get the nomination? Or is it more like he didn't want to create a soundbite about how supportive of Clinton he is before the first primary vote even happens?  

Why don't you find out if Clinton plans to support Obama or Edwards if they get nominated-see what she says.

With your updatae you go from the silly to the plain well sillier

""I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee."

Your argumetn seems to be that because he is saying he wants to be the nominee, how dare he? How dare he want to be the nominee? Gosh- whatever, this was funny.

I'm darn tired of the old anti-Nader shouts when someone points out how the Democrats don't provide a reason to support most of them.  Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Hillary, Kerry, et al. have aided and abetted in the crimes of Bush, Cheney et al.  I, for one, cannot support them in this.  I'd feet a lot better about Edwards if he stated the simple truth that Hillary places herself about the common good.  In the face of massive crimes committed by Bush et al., the Democrats have done nothing.  Vote for Hillary?  In the face of her equivocating and worse.  No way, my Democratic friends.

He said..."I fully expect to ".....

What the f is with that?  why couldnt he say "I will?"

Explain the qualifier.  its lame and insulting tto all Dems.

We as a huge natiowide Party made up of millions of voters select our nominee and we have the right to Demand that anyone who runs for office in our system -  supports our Party's choice!

anyone who vowed to support Hillary wouldn't have my support.  she clearly is part of the problem.  not sufficient that she's not bush not cheney.  she still voted for the wars and she still speaks the old tired pro-business pro-corporate capitalistic war mongering nonsense.  we've got to do better.  support her? not if you want my support.