At some point, they're going to have to start taking on Hillary, because right now it doesn't matter which one is offering more change if neither one is able to beat her in the primary.

HIllary has "change" in her campaign banners.  Of course it doesn't make it true.

I guess when Hillary uses change she really means "gender change" but still will try to co-opt the message as she has on Iraq from Obama.

It's hard to ignore that Edwards has never taken PAC or lobbyist money..  both Hillary does and Obama has.

it's also hard to ignore that Axelrod - who's Obama's main guy, was an ex-Edwards guy in 2003

did Edwards went after Obama exactly? Indulge me.

seemed clearly aimed at Clinton, as well as the comment about triangulating.

I agree, though, that the comment about negotiating is an oblique swipe at Obama.

This to me is one of the most important differences between Edwards and Obama. When Obama supporters and leaners ask me why I am for Edwards, one of the things I say is that I have more confidence in Edwards as a tough advocate for the policies he wants to implement.

I think Obama is a progressive at heart, but his post-partisan rhetoric about how we need to work together makes me worry that he would move too far toward the Republican/big corporation position before negotiations with Congress even begin.

I think it was aimed more at Hillary than Obama. I don't see Edwards attacking Obama on the change issue. I just didn't see it last night.  

How exactly are Edwards or Obama planning on changing washington?

"The people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they're going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

Just a tremendous moment. I wanted MUCH more. It did not help that Obama was given nearly five more minutes to articulate his positions than Edwards. In fact Obama had significantly more time than any other candidate. I thought the equality of time between the candidates was skewed badly. At least Gravel pointed this out.

I actually predicted a few days ago that Edwards would need to do this to gain any momentum. Besides, Obama deserves it for stepping on John's poverty tour.

It makes sense.  When there is a clear frontrunner, there is always a turf war going on between the #2 and #3 for positioning.

I think Todd is right that the race is on to become the alternative to Hillary and if Edwards wins Iowa I think New Hampshire will probably go along.  I think Edwards is well positioned and the talk (such as in the Repug Manchester Union-Leader last Sunday) of it already becoming a Clinton-Obama race is way premature.

Edwards talks change and does the best job he can given the McMansion on steroids and the haircut.  He is a very credible candidate and in another time & space I'd support him.  Obama, however, embodies change and he talks just as well as the best trial lawyer south of the Mason-Dixon line.  I think Obama has an authenticity edge and an edge on connecting with voters.  It's more than just race or Obama's unusual background.  Obama is seen as a different type of politician.  Edwards is seen as a very good politician but not one of a new generation of leadership.

Edwards doesn't have the clout, money or gravitas to take on and beat the corporate powers that be.  They are too big and too powerful and too entrenched. They will tear him apart haircut by haircut, hedgefund by hedgefund.

This sounds like a last ditch effort to get some traction.  I personally support the premise but don't think politically he has a chance in hell of becoming the democratic nominee by promising to deny the corporations a seat at the table.  They will obliterate him with their 527s and swiftboat ads.

But does it have anything to do with reality or his past record?

This smacks of a desperate effort to save a campaign heading for the ditch.

I know that Mydd isn't supposed to be balanced (even on matters that are internal to the Democratic party) but it would be nice if you at least pretend to take the pro-Obama viewpoint seriously every once in a while. By all means, keep posting anti-Obama stuff but it would be nice with a little more evenhandedness to go with it.

I agree that John Edwards really broke through last night and had his best debating performance. His best remarks were the ones that were quoted:

"The people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they're going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

But, if we are really talking about change candidates, I can't help but feel that Dennis Kucinich has the type of consistent, unwavering, unintimidated, sense of purpose, principle, and track record of challanging big power without apology or timidity. He is the one offering:

• A non-profit, portable, guaranteed health care system for everyone (regardless of your job situation).
• A "green" public works initiative that will create jobs and put in place solar, wind, and other renewable technology systems around the Country.
• A new organizing principle formed around becoming a Nation that promotes peace, diplomacy, trade (fair trade), and not clandestine and open military acts of war.  The psychology of our Country would be healed under Kucinich, because not only would the foreign policies be different, but all the false arguments and false choices would go away too.
• Cuts in the bloated $800 billion per year National Defense budget.
• The end of NAFTA, CAFTA, The WTO, The North American Union and these destructive trade deals.

Finally, he is the only guy talking about the need to Impeach Dick Cheney and who put himself out on the line and introduced H.R. 333 when he had no backers (he has 14 co-sponsers now and the majority of the Country behind the effort).

So, if we really want to change the Country, Kucinich is the guy here who never blinks, never backtracks, never retreats from high principle, and never follows-the-crowd in order to determine what the just and fair and moral thing is to do.

Kucinich is the one candidate who has nothing to apologize for.

Howard Dean took on Washington, Bush, Republicans, and the war.  He rolled up his sleeves and showed some anger.  People ate it up and he moved up from nowhere.

Attacking other Democrats isn't going to move you up the charts.   Primary voters are going to be turned off by that.

Hillary is the only Democrats out there right now taking on Bush, Republicans, and the war (yeah yeah I know .. she vote for it).  No surprise she is on top.

It looks like Edwards is partly getting the picture.  He his talk of beating the insurance and oil companies and not compromising with them is great stuff.

I liked the Edwards shot at Obama and Hillary when he talked dissed compromise and triangulation.  I thought it was clever.

Obama is all wet if he thinks talking about change (heck every candidate running for President throws that word around) and bi-partisanship will carry the day.  

To review, if you want to win take on Bush, Republicans and the war.

Edwards is the change candidate? He's one of the people who got us into this mess. Now he wants me to believe that he has the smarts to get us out?

I wasn't born yesterday. Edwards is part of the problem. Out with the old. In with the new.

Polling I have seen shows that Hillary is in the lead or at worst tied with Obama, among people who list "change" as their top criteria for candidate selection.

I think some may be thinking too deep about this change thing.  I think many Democratic primary voters simply consider changing from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat in the White a real and meaningful change.

I am not sure how effective Edwards will be in convincing them that that isn't the case.  That Obama or Hillary don't represent change.  He can try, but I think it will be fruitless.

if you want to be the change candidate, you should be an outsider.  

NOT a senator.  and i think former-senator sounds even worse.

just be John Edwards.

from the Edwards perspective, its not about Obama, it never really has been in relation to the argument he is making about change. As the diarist rightly points out, this isn't a new message.

maybe its just that some are starting to notice the message more. It came out strongly last night and that's certainly a good thing.

To some above calling this a "last ditch attempt", you really haven't been paying much attention have you?

I agree. Obama offers vague rhetoric of change and his membership in two demographic groups (a Kenyan Kansan,as some supporters call him).  But when you look at his policies, he is just slightly left of center, very clsoe to Senator Clinton.

John Edwards offers specific polices that involve real change.  He will be the most progressive president since FDR.  

Edwards is going after both Obama and Clinton.

In this impressive moment last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0BztvhV pU

He criticized both triangulation (Hillary) and compromise (Obama) for their failure to move the country forward and provide real change.  He is saying he is the one candidate who can provide the real change.

Obama is running for something bigger?  What might that be?  Please, Obama supporters, explain to me what that something bigger is.  Don't use abstracts like "hope" "a better way" "less cynical" "a new kind of politics" "turning the page" "time for a change".  Explain precisely what Obama is running for.  Because once he is in the Oval Office, otherwise known as the "hot seat", his words of hope and idealism won't mean a damned thing.  

Who is this guy Obama?  He's weak at debates.  He doesn't pay attention to the questions he is asked, at least not that all-important question last night about visiting dictators.  He basically copied John Edwards healthcare plan just to get something on the table because he was getting pressure over not having a plan.  He denounces lobbyists but has a strong K Street network.  He gave a speech a few years back about the pitfalls of attacking Iraq but has voted to support that war ever since.  

So, what's Obama gonna do if he makes it to the Presidency.  What will he do, that you KNOW OF, that will be any different or better than what Hillary or Edwards will do.

Please be concise.  

I think Edwards is just mad because Obama stoled the spotlight away from him.Because if Edwards was so much about change and was so popular,how was Obama able to come on to the scene and instanly pass up Edwards.That's what his supports should be asking themselves

Very interesting datum in the report by AP today that a focus group of NH Dem primary voters who watched the debate scored Edwards the most "genuine" of the candidates.

Thats the Achilles heel of the Edwards candidacy and its why his opponents push so hard for stories about his personal consumption or wealth that seem to undermine his message. The risk for those opponents is that they have hit too hard, too early with the obsession about the three Hs, and if this story is in any way representative of whats happening, then Edwards indeed might be turning the page.

That will make it tough for Team Hillary, because they cannot hope to confront him on message and win.