with one each, obama and clinton have both demonstrated that it's going to be a protracted contest, with time to search out weaknesses. this is bad news for obama, whose record is small, and undistinguished. clinton has nothing new to offer, is not a good speaker, but can reasonably claim to represent a return to the clinton era, which in retrospect was the golden age of the american empire. or so democrats feel. she has connections and experience, and many voters will feel they know what they are going to get if she wins.
obama might still win, simply by being a new face and claiming a new style of politics. a lot of voters are tired of the old style. he is a good speaker, with a bit of mlk sound and phraseology, and would win easily if he thinks of something substantive to say. so far, he hasn't. it's very hard to say "i am going to do things differently", when you're on record as being part of the system. still, he's fresh air, compared to hillary.
edwards is the real agent of change, within the limits of the system. that is probably why he gets so little exposure and discussion. i can see him hanging around long enough to be a king/queen maker, and inserting himself into the vp's spot if he wants it. he might prefer to be secretary of commerce.
whatever the outcome, the american empire will roll on toward world domination and self-destruction. the real agents of change were kucinich and gravel. that's why they were completely ignored. not many people want real change, even if they see that present comfort will lead to distant disaster.