I think this passage is much more significant than many people realized at first.

Edwards has split the Gordian knot on triangulation and DLC Democrats. He's made it clear that the way out of the wilderness for Democrats is as a class-conscious party much like the New Deal days of old. Imagine that! Getting the party back to the ideals that resulted in almost 50 years of uninterrupted Democratic rule.

Sounds good to me anyway.

I love this video.

Edwards zeroed in on why there has been no change or success for Democrats in Washington.  No one gives up their power willingly, not the Republicans, not the lobbyists, not the centrists, and not the DC elites.

For the people to have power again they need to have their voices heard. Edwards made a career of standing up to the powerful on behalf of those not being heard. We need him to take that power away. Triangulation and being nice doesn't do it.

Edwards has fought and won with the powerful.  You have to take the power away.

That is the best video clip ever!!!!!

Edwrads actually did well tonight. I'll give you that. And yes, I would rather he than Obama or Clinton. But, this whole thing about taking on the special interests? He's not doing that. If he was he would have introduced single-payer.

Edwards plan amounts to universal insurance, not care. The deductibles,co-pays and med costs will still prohibit care and drive Americans into bankruptcy.

This is rhetoric more than anything else in my opinion.

on the best and most important answer of the night. I stood and clapped when I heard him say this, not because he'd never said this, but because he'd never said it so clearly or strongly in a debate. And he'd not kidding around, of course. Thursday in Iowa, he's going to give a major address on the economy. Triangulators, moderates, and Rubinites beware. This from the WSJ (subs only).

In coming weeks, Mr. Edwards plans to shift his focus toward the middle class, and begin including policy statements on trade and taxation, globalization and corporate responsibility. Whether Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will follow is unclear. "John may try to push them a little farther to the left than they want to go," an Edwards aide said.

Especially when your own record and the political reality contradict your talk.

Everyone, including John Edwards, knows that compromise will be necessary. That does not mean selling out.

It's sad to see some Democrats fall for red meat stuff just like the Republican base. Stay critical.

So now the Politico is ok?

AMEN!!! He damn sure has been fighting them and beating them his whole life ... and they were always bigger and more powerful than he was ... always ...  even after he became successful. DAMN I am so glad he said that!!! w00T!!

While I would certainly rather see Edwards on the Democratic ticket instead of Hillary, I still can't help but question his sincerity...  

He certainly gave some distinctly separatist answers, but John Edwards' unctuous and "carefully" crafted responses are off-setting.  I'm a true believer in Barack Obama's honest and straightforward replies, as opposed to Edwards' grandiose rhetoric.  

True, an Edwards Administration would be a terrfic change of pace in this nation, however he lacks the moderation to lead change from both parties, as well as from without.  Edwards and Hillary both frighten too many moderates, whose vote we cannot afford to lose to a Thompson or a Giulianni, and the DNC knows this.  An Obama (or Gore) ticket is our best shot into the Oval Office in 2008.  

Who said anything about my opinions being facts?  Count them as nothing more than my own thoughts - I'll do the same for you.  

Regarding Edwards not being moderate enough: it's not that I think he's too progressive, especially for me...it's his ability to capture the votes of independents and moderates that I'm concerned about.  We progressives, sadly, aren't indemic of the entire country's demography.  I could be wrong.  I suppose we'll see what happens come January...

Hizzah for the marketplace of ideas!

I think Edwards was a clear winner last night. He did a better job answering the questions posed to him. He also left no doubt in anyone's mind that he would be the one who would fight for our principles. I thought he had several really good moments.

Edwards in 08- The only choice for Progressives!!

Middle is where he is going, the real middle, NOT the fascist defined middle which is the meme of the DINO's, Blue Dogs, and DLC sell outs.

In EVERY election, more people do NOT vote than vote for Tweedle-TheCorporateCriminal or Tweedle-TheIncompetent,

tens of millions vote for fascists and will nothing but screwed,

millions vote for who they hate the least the day they vote,

THE MIDDLE has been up for grabs since the 70's, at least.

Go John Go.

rmm.

Ok since my comments on how strange it was to see the Politico or its political writer cited as supporting Edwards have been laughed out of the park I will move on to the rest of the diary.

I don't agree with any of this diary. I mean I agree about what Simon said but the conclusions which are opinion I do no agree with.

Mainly I don't agree that he has shown any weakness in Hillary or Obama. Not sure what evidence backs up this conclusion.

There is too much of a focus on policies when it comes to discussing Edwards. Its an age old argument but I will repeat it: We don't believe anything Edwards says. The Onion's current cover story really drives it home with its page 1 headline "Edwards proposes to end all bad things by 2011" or some such. The guy has no credibility. I have talked to democrats and republicans and they all really dislike the guy. Short of a miracle he ought to drop out and let Obama take on Hillary. Other than that, he can stay in and attack Hillary thereby blowing himself up Gephardt style and helping out Obama. Those are the only alternatives left for Edwards.

Honestly, I am glad you believe he will fight for working america and against entrenched structures but I just don't see anything in his background to substantiate these conclusions. No one can disagree that fighting for working america is a good thing but where is your evidence? I just don't see evidenc of this in his tenure as senator or his work as an attorney. The whole bit about structures? That just sounds like marxist babble to me. The fact is that there are people with a lot of money and no candidate is going to confront them. Someone might chip away a bit at the entrenched interests but no candidate is going to really confront them. I can't recall anyone ever doing this in American history. I mean it may be possible to limit pharma or the oil industry and a few others (defense) but confront the entire power structure? Thats just not going to happen be it Edwards or anyone else.

All thats just campaign talk frankly. I think they call it red meat in some circles.

Lastly to use the word "triangulation" in the debate is really stupid. Most viewers have no idea what that means. That whole quote more than anything else was designed to appeal to his netroots supporters because most americans watching are not going to be impressed by it.

At least thats my opinion.

Am totally in Edwards corner on this statement and his entire approach to the campaign and the presidency.  Would urge all progressives to get on board the Edwards campaign, which is a combination of both the most progressive and most electable Democrat.

In any case Edwards, in the end, it must be admitted changed nothing.

The only thing people will remember about this debate is the broo ha ha between Clinton-Obama and Edwards is a bystander who today was consulted for his opinion (he seems to have sided with Hillary).