Cross-posted from The Left Anchor

We have previously profiled Sen. Joe Biden (Sec. of State) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (Sec. of Defense) individually.  We're changing the format of the series, however, so consider this a reboot.  Each profile will offer a short primer on the responsibilities of the office and how the current appointee has approached those responsibilities.  We will then offer brief profiles of the top two or three contenders for the post.  We'll be posting new profiles every Tuesday and Thursday for the rest of the summer, so mark your calenders and tell your friends.  We intend to create the most detailed look at the cabinet positions and their potential candidates available in one location.

Overview:  The Secretary of Labor is considered one of the top cabinet positions.  It was formerly known as the Secretary of Labor and Commerce, but the two divisions were separated in 1913 under President William Howard Taft.  Here is a succinct description of the office:

Today's LA Times broke the news about what may be a camapign finance scandal involving the Clinton campaign:

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

LA Times

"The bottom line is we need a nominee who can do two things," Bonior writes, "campaign in all 50 states and challenge our broken system in Washington. With every day the growing question has to be can Hillary Clinton do either?"

MSNBC.COM: First Read

More after the fold.

Last week, DailyKos had a diary that intentionally attempted to impugn John Edwards character.

Unfortunately, the diarist used the perception of change in John Edwards to make a conclusion that I view as grossly incorrect.  The theory was prefaced as such:

He says he regrets the war vote, yet there is solid evidence of his cheerleading leading into the war.

It is not contradictory, let alone dishonest, to have supported a vote in the past and to regret that vote.  In this case, it is called progression.  The conclusion of the diarist is if John Edwards is different, he must be a panderer, an opportunist, and a fraud.

That is obviously incorrect as people change on a daily basis and it isn't for some sinister purpose.  Also, the obvious contrast with Bush's absolute stubbornness is actually quite complimentary to John Edwards.

The progressive policies and plans that John Edwards is putting forth, speak for themselves.  This has lead to the acceptance by many that John Edwards is the most likely to succeed in implementing progressive ideas.  Therefore, the question that is being asked is not so much how he is different, but why is John Edwards different?

Welcome to the Saturday night Edwards Evening News Roundup.  Tonight, our major focus is on the education plan that John Edwards released yesterday.  I think it's a great plan that will put our public education system back on track after years of neglect.  I'll highlight some of that plan tonight.

Beneath the fold, we'll delve into the following stories:

• Teach Your Children Well: The Edwards Education Plan


• Campaign Manager David Bonior on Hardball


• Breaking News: Bush May Have Misused the DOJ AGAIN


• Celebrating OneWebDay with the Edwards Campaign

Yesterday on CNN Edwards's campaign manager, David Bonior, went after two especially weak spots in Hillary's Clinton record. During a preview of tonight's debate that featured spokespeople for the top three campaigns, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, speaking for Clinton, claimed that she had "delivered" on health care. Bonior was having none of it.

With all due respect ...They had a very important choice to make back in '93: whether to do the North American Free Trade agreement or health care. They implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement that put literally millions of workers out of work in this country and destroyed, basically, our good trading relationships we had around the world. And then in the interim, they lost any capital they had to get health care passed. ... The fact of the matter is it's been an absolute disaster on health care.

It's an interesting point, that Clinton spent political capital on NAFTA that could have and should have been used on health care. Bonior is well qualified to make such a statement: he led the battle in Congress against NAFTA. In any case, the failure of Hillary's health care reform effort is well known. Less well known is her dismal record on trade. Only recently has she begun to distance herself from her husband's orthodoxy on so-called free trade. In 1998 (the same year that Edwards ran for the Senate in opposition to NAFTA), she spoke at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and praised corporations for mounting:

a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta...It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.

As an Edwards supporter, I'm thrilled to see the Edwards campaign condemn Clinton, and as someone tired of the politeness of the campaign thusfar, I'm glad to see good tough fair criticism.

But Obama spokesperson Rep. Arthur Davis found this discussion distasteful.

Democrats will not win the election in 2008 if we are frozen in an argument about who did what in 1993, who did what between 1993 and 2001. That's a stale argument for a lot of people

Sandra Svoboda wrote a very interesting article in today's Detroit MetroTimes about DaveBonior, his relationship with John Edwards, and the roll unions may play in the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries: http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/stor y.asp?id=10103

Here are some excerpts, summaries and my commentary: