In Part 1 of this article , I argued that John Edwards is the most electable of the leading Democratic candidates and the one most likely to carry large Democratic Senate and House majorities on his coattails, thus having the best chance to enact major reform after the ‘08 elections. America needs big and sweeping changes–economic policies that will help the poor and middle classes obtain more economic security, access to better education, a more progressive tax structure, and universal health care; environmental policies that will lead towards energy independence and make America a leader in combating global warming; and a new foreign policy that will forsake unilateralism, renounce military preemption, get us out of Iraq, and take major strides to fight global poverty. Fundamental change demands a President who is willing to rally the American people against these rich and powerful corporate interests and use the bully pulpit to force Congress to vote in the general interest and not for the special interests who lobby them and contribute to their campaigns. Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have the chance to break through the mainstream media’s story of a two-way race between Clinton and Obama by catapulting Edwards to front runner status, shaking up the Democratic primary process, and ultimately helping to nominate the most electable and progressive major Democratic candidate and ushering in an era of progressive political change. This writer gives no evidence that to argue that among Edwards, Obama and Clinton, Edwards would be the best nominee and the best President has anything to do with race. Since then, his campaign has continued to disappoint me, particularly his repeated claims that the way to bring change is to sit down at the table with the insurance companies, drug companies, energy companies, and other corporate interest and negotiate with them. read more