Please, could you clarify the distinction between lobbyists and 'various people connected to powerful industries'?

I just made my first campaign contribution...to Edwards. He's sort of been my choice all along, but have waffled a bit between Edwards and Kucinich.

Will Edwards mention drug smuggling allegations as well? Of course not.
What then if they are not just allegations but known facts?

reviews of Dark Alliances

What's with the claim he raised 30M without getting money from special interest groups? Very hard to believe... There is a site that tracks contributions and where they come from. I rememeber that there was not much difference between the candidates... Does anyone have more recent data?

Politics and Washington have been corrupt for a very long time. I can't think of any president who was ever able to change that.
FDR was elected to four terms as President. This was unprecedented. The majority of people loved him. I think that this is because he did a lot for the little guy. There may have been a lot of dishonesty and dirty dealing, but FDR was in the little guy’s corner. He funneled a lot of money to the average Joe. That’s the best that any president can do. His Social Security program stands to this day. Edwards will get a lot of college kids and extreme liberal support. He won't get mainstream support. He doesn't have vision or ideas. He just rails against the corruptness of the system. I surprise myself in saying this, but Hillary might well do some good for the little guy. Not on an FDR level but perhaps FDRlite. However, I agree with President Ford. America is not ready for a lady president. She may get the nomination, but she will lose the election.

Isn't this the subject of the discussion about public financing of elections?

And keeps talking. He may not win support, but he's saying what needs to be said.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin

If he keeps this up he just might win. Because of these statements I just sent in $50.00 which is a lot at my income level. If he keeps putting out statements like this I'll put in a lot more.

Obama is a spoiler and Clinton is bush lite.

I'm sad to see so many women supporting Hillary just because she's a woman. I keep hearing women speakers talk about how the world would be so much better off if women ran it. How about if people ran it? If women ran it it would wind up just as corrupt..just because you can make babies doesn't mean you can raise them worth a sh.

A failed Vice Presidential Candidate who holds no political office whatsoever, and whose entire political career is a Senate seat he quit to run a race he lost, winning the office of President.

The Presidential candidates usually have a reelection under their belt, have been a Vice President before or associated with the White House, and executive power, or have been a Governor for multiple terms or who were the primary Presidential candidate in a race (a Kerry or a Gore). I believe Obama would make an amazing President, but he needs one more term as a Senator, or be the Vice President for a period of time.

Who knows, he may win Iowa and change the whole deck of cards, but Edwards . . . he's in single digits, is out of money, and has limited funds to run a general campaign.

I think he's done as a contender, all that's left is to poke him with a fork and take him off the grill. But it is absolutely true that what he is saying is important, and needs to be said. Staying in the race to Iowa makes perfect sense, and staying through South Carolina - though he is doing amazingly poorly there. But his message of enfranchisement, his ability to influence policy, that is his role from here on out.

when he mouthed the neocon line about Iran, "everything is on the table." Including using nuclear weapons against a country that offers zero threat to America.

I was plenty pissed, and perfectly willing to ignore his campaign thereafter. However, that was before Hillary Clinton revealed herself to be Hillary-Joe, while Barack Obama morphed magically into Barack O'Lieberman. Both leading Dem candidates have sold out to the DLC/Likud/AIPAC cabal with transnational conglomerates.

After catching a whiff of the ugly company kept by Hillary and Barack, I'm willing to let Edwards un-kill his deal, but he's got to keep blowing that "corruption" horn right up to election day.

As Ian said, we can't realistically expect a presidential candidate to know all the answers, but it's nice to hear at least one of them being real about the problems. Some of the problems, anyway.

"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

Instead of the closed 2-party system we now have? Yes, a third party is possible, but it's a wink-wink-nudge-nudge affair--a "token party" to prove that we're not really a closed system, like, say, Iran.

That every candidate - Edwards included - the current administration, europe (including France) and congress being on the same page on this issue, may indicate that the Iran issue is pretty serious. One thing I will say, they are not playing 'politics' with that issue. The PROBLEM is that Bush, jr. spent the farm on a wasted endeavor on a power that was not a threat for reasons I yet await a compelling answer.

Edwards Shifts Focus to Integrity

Wednesday October 31, 2007 1:01 AM

By NEDRA PICKLER

Associated Press Writer

EXETER, N.H. (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is trying to turn the Democratic presidential race into a referendum on honesty and integrity, areas where polling has shown that voters are divided about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The argument marks a shift in a race where Edwards and Clinton's other Democratic opponents have criticized her stance on policy but usually have avoided taking on her character directly. In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Edwards said Clinton is part of a corrupt Washington system.

``Good people are caught up in this system, and I've given some examples of the places that I think she's caught up in it,'' Edwards said. ``And I also, secondly, think that she continues to defend it. And I don't think you can bring up the change this country needs if you defend a corrupt system that doesn't work.

``The closer we get to the election and the more people move past celebrity and to the issues such as honesty, integrity and who can actually bring about change, I think they are going to pay very close attention to those questions,'' Edwards said while riding in a minivan between campaign stops.

Responding to Edwards' criticism - and anticipating a similarly tough tone from Barack Obama and other rivals at Tuesday's televised debate in Philadelphia - the Clinton campaign e-mailed a memo to reporters from senior strategist Mark Penn.

``Senator Edwards, who rose to prominence in 2004 by eschewing attacks on other Democrats, formally announced last night that he is going to attack Senator Clinton's character,'' Penn wrote. ``Considering that both Senators Obama and Edwards made their names by pledging to be positive, the last thing one would have expected was for either of them to go out and announce with pride that they were now going to go negative on a fellow Democrat.''

Edwards is a former trial lawyer with a penchant for making effective closing arguments that are strong on emotion. His shift against Clinton comes as she is leading in every national and state poll.

Clinton leads even though a study out Monday found that she got some of the most negative media coverage of the White House field. And she's in front even though Edwards has been ramping up his criticism of her since the summer, particularly on her ties to lobbyists.

She also has been subject to frequent character attacks from Republican presidential candidates. Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter said that is a safer move since it has the intended effect of firing up the GOP electorate against a well-known Democrat.

``Character issues are the most powerful attack lines in a general election, but they are risky in a primary, especially when questioning the honesty of someone like Hillary Clinton who remains among the most popular in the party,'' Cutter said. ``It can backfire. At the same time, the Clinton campaign would be wrong to ignore it.''

A poll conducted earlier this month for CNN found clear majorities of voters see Clinton as a strong and decisive leader; as likable; as able to work well with both parties; and as caring about their needs. But on questions of character, voters were split roughly in half when asked whether she is honest and trustworthy; whether she shares their values; and whether she is a person they admire.

Edwards suggested Clinton is mostly running for president out of personal ambition.

``She said it, didn't she?'' Edwards said. ``Wasn't her phrase early on in her campaign, 'I'm in it to win?'''

He acknowledged that personal ambition played a role in his 2004 presidential campaign, but he said it is less so in this bid.

``Being honest, you can never say personal ambition doesn't play a role,'' Edwards said. ``But I do think that I'm driven by something different. I'm driven by making this country work for the kind of people I grew up with.''

more

From his days as a trial lawyer, Edwards fought corporate America and drew blood for his clients. He knows what he is up against.
And like you say, he has nowhere to go to but to tell the truth.
Hillary knows if she doesn't suck up to the corporate bosses some, she won't have a chance. I sometimes hope that she is the crazy, vengeful, bitch the wingnuts think she is and decides to clean house for every slight made to her and Big Dog since 1992 and that she is just making nice to get in the door.
But I am afraid she is just has battered wife syndrome and will spend all her time triangulating to be accepted in the corporate boys club.
America is still too racist to elect Obama despite all the buzz.
Enough heads will explode if Hillary even gets it.
Last stage empire. It may not make much difference.