Excellent interview.  Points out the issue well.  the followup is not that good in showing why this is a problem.

However Edwards comes across with clear statements about what is wrong in DC right now.  

Of course Hillary will defend the status quo, and so will her supporters here on the blogs.

We need to reclaim the government for the people.

Edwards is a phoney and loser. He needs to cut back on his expensive haircuts, refrain from living in a palace which consumes extraordinary energy, cut his ties to hedge funds, stop accepting corrupt in-kind donations from his ambulance chasing trial lawyer buddy buddy.

My guess is Clinton will treat an Edwards attack much like a Mike Gravel attack.  Really there only about 9.9% that seperate Edwards and Gravel ... that ain't much.

I hope the debate questions will help bring out the truth about Hillary. I hope she will state clearly why she supported the Lieberman bill to give President Bush more authority to take action against Iran. I hope someone will press her to explain the growing number of fundraising irregularities.

Edwards will speak out, and hopefully Hillary will not dodge the questions as she usually does.

It bothers me very much that so many stories about Hillary's ties to big corporations, and to fundraising irregularities, are not reaching the mainstream press.

This morning the Charlotte Observer online ran the link to the damaging story about the Stan Lee fundraiser. I was pleased to see that the Observer is starting to let their readers see the facts and make up their own minds.

http://www.charlotte.com/news/ap_news/st ory/339938.html

I also hope the debate helps more people hear all of John Edward's great ideas! He has so many plans to help real working people, and many of them don't even know it! I hope this debate has a lot of viewers!

I hope Edwards realizes he has to walk a fine line here in terms of keeping supporters like myself.

I support Edwards and I believe he does a good thing when he identifies the problems with our system.  But he has to be careful when he makes it about Hillary personally.  Over 80% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Hillary - myself among them - and you can't win the nomination if you alienate all the Hillary supporters, even if you consolidate every anti-Hillary vote.

I'm just not receptive to the argument that Hillary Clinton is a corporate stooge.  She takes lots of money from corporate lobbyists, but what's her record?  When big business wanted to pass the Bankruptcy Bill, she was against it.  When big business wanted to pass CAFTA, she was against it.  I haven't loved every vote she's cast, particularly on foreign policy, but you simply can't cast her as a shill for K Street.

What the Republicans did in terms of selling off the government to the highest bidder was absolutely shameful.  Since taking power in 2006, the Democrats have actually done quite a bit to restore the balance in the opposite direction, but there's still plenty of work to be done.  Democrats are far from perfect, but this party is still the solution and not the problem in my book.

When Edwards talks about the issues, he makes a connection with voters and he's very persuasive.  The net impact is to move the entire primary in a progressive direction and that's good for all of us.  I sure hope he'll get back to that without making the mistake of over-personalizing the attacks, because it truly can be a turnoff for people like me.

I agree Steve, and his poll numbers in Iowa are trending down.  He either isn't connecting the dots, or he needs to focus more on his excellent proposals, and differentiate them with Hillary's, and Obama's.  I don't think the lobbyist meme is sticking, and, or he isn't fully explaining how she is compromised.  I want money out of politics and I do think it's influences votes and policy, but the correlation is hard to prove.  Also, I think she's a terrible triangulator, but as you said, her votes (although I'm convinced it's because she's a senator from a blue state) don't back up his assertion.  

"I remember in 2000 the Democratic Party Candidate was attacked by a third party Candidate.  This third Party Candidate said the Democratic Party candidate was too in debted to Corporate Interests, that the Democratic Party Candidate had accepted to much Corporate and Lobbyist money.  There was some discussion at the time about how to deal with this attack, and I believed then as I believe now that the answer is very simple.  Look at Al Gore's Record.  Anyone who looked at Al Gore's record would come to the conclusion that he would never do anything but fight for the betterment of every American.

I Don't believe there's a person in this room who doesn't wish the 2000 election had worked out differently than it did."

[applause]

"Now.  Has the situation in Washington DC gotten out of control over the last 8 years?  You bet it sure has.  I will put an end to no-bid Contracts and back-room deals.  I commit to a Government of Accountability and a Government of Transparency.  I must confess I won't wage a war on Corporations, in my view being a friend to business isn't a bad thing.  But I will put any and all transactions on a Website and a Politicians Record will always speak for itself."

LOL  nevermind....now I see your heading! lol  

Yeah I wish she would say that too!

the Democratic Party Candidate was attacked by a third party Candidate

IF she says this, she loses the nomination and the general election. In fact, its precisely why as a lifelong Democrat, Im not sure I can give time or money to Clinton if she is the nominee.

Hilary Clinton does not own the Democratic party; it belongs to us, the voters. Those of us who would prefer the party put forth a more progressive platform on issues like trade, foreign policy, the environment and the economy than she is running on, and who think our country, our party and our democracy would be well served to put an end to the form of legalized bribery that we see in corporate lobbyist big-money financing of our elections -- those of who think that, we're not a "third party," thank you.

Its our party too. And if enough of us agree in January, it'll be our candidate and our platform, too.

Its infuriating beyond words to have you suggest that those of us supporting a different candidate from your Establishment, DC-insider favorite are the equivalent of a Nader, third-party bid.

Hillary has certainly answered all of the important questions that I have had in terms of policies, and I especially respect the very realistic way in which she presents them. There is no obscurity in her proposals at all.  And zero exaggeration.

I have been following Hillary Clinton's career for many years. She is a fine human being with a tremendous heart.  And she is very very powerful and I have yet to see her exploit her power.  She is also humble. I would be extremely proud to have her as our President.  

Everyone will try to beat her up tonight.  They have no choice -- she is leading now in every state poll and nationally, by huge and growing margins.  She is the favorite of the Democratic Party (a majority of).  Edwards and Obama get one chance tonight (maybe two) to attack Hillary and try to outshine her.  How will they frame their attacks?  Will they be calm cool collected and unflappable?  

Obama and Edwards have been planning their lines of attack against Hillary for weeks. For this debate coming up.

My question:  How well do they really know her?  So far, they're not batting a very good average.

She'll kick ass tonight.

"P.S. Edwards is not an outsider. He could not win a 2nd term in NC & decided to play the outsider.

Let's face it. John Edwards could QUIT the race tomorrow & challenge Dole for her seat & he would lose by a big margin. lets get that straight!"

I suppose after repeating a lie so many times you'll actually begin to believe it.

Some of you don't "get it" when it comes to Hillary, because you have accepted inaccurate, twisted, stretched and oft-repeated mantras about Hillary. Now that "your" candidates are going after her, the hatred increases.  This is what happens.  The candidate works his followers like a fine instrument.  But Edwards and Obama are preaching to the choir.  

Hillary's support is wide, deep and loyal, and it is growing steadily.

More and more people ARE taking the time to find out about her.  I see it among my Democratic and Repubican friends and acquaintances.  Hillary's run for President has freed her completely.  She is no longer just Bill's wife.  She is no longer any of the caricatures some of you so quickly bought into about her.  

Even if Hillary doesn't win the Presidency, she has done something that was considered impossible - she has shown who she really is to the world.

I don't in a million dreams think John Edwards or Barack Obama could bring her vision and years-wisened political acumen to the office of President.  In my view, and in the view of almost everyone I know, Hillary should and will be our next President.  That's how much we believe in her.

I am a former Deaniac. It took me 2.5 years to heal after Bush robbed Gore of his victory.

I am a Progressive.

Don't base your conclusions on false information.

From Fox News exit polls (and they were not likely to favor Edwards)

In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards (search). If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr (search), it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.

Where is your data from?

If Edwards had been the top of the ticket he would have won the presidency for Democrats.

Edwards won his senate seat from an incumbent Republican in a red state.  That is quite the achievement.  

Edwards has been laying the groundwork for the early states.  I hope Clinton believes the polls.  
Edwards will win Iowa and now with FoE Action and SEIU helping he will win NH too.