Edwards veers into Huey Long style populism. I'm surprised that anyone buys it.

Oh no, I don't like where this is going. Both Obama and Edwards are my favourites!

i like Edwards, but he is living in La La land if he thinks he's just going to waltz in an shut down an billion dollar a year industry like the insurance an health industry. Contrary to what George Bush believes, the president is not King, and he has to play nice with others to get any laws passed.

So now Obama has joined the Republicans in saying that Universal Healthcare is anti-choice, and we're supposed to believe he's a progressive voice for change?

Perry - I'm with you that they're both the best candidates the dems have to offer and I'd hate seeing them go at each other. But unlike some others in the field, I trust both Obama and Edwards to keep the debate on issues.

Obama is a person of real substance...substance abuse, that is.

Edwards is absolutely right. The reason we don't have universal health care is because the drug and insurance companies have blocked it. They don't want to part with their control and profits. Obama is either naive or already in the pockets of special interests.

Edwards will supplement coverage of health care cost for those who can't afford it, but we need to mandate universal health care so that all those who can afford it pay their fair share, or else there is no way to keep the costs down. Everyone needs health insurance. None of us are getting out of life alive. Obama's plan just leaves us to pay for those who opt out, once they get sick and show up in the emergency rooms, nor does it encourage preventitive care which will also keep health care costs down for all.

John Edwards simply does not have the gravitas, the mastery of the issues, the presence to be president. He streses his background too much, when it is quite different where he is right now as a millionaire. He could not carry North Carolina as Kerry's runningmate in 2004.

He is likable--but not ultimately electable.

Anyone else feel like this is exaggerated a bit?

The way I read all this, Obama agrees with Edwards' stance, and says that he has a better record. That's hardly even a 'passing' shot at Edwards.

As a side note, I'd really like to see these two on a ticket together. Right now they're splitting the not-Hillary vote. If they were a team, I'm sure they'd be cleaning up in the polls.

Sounds to me like Obama is getting a litte worried. If I was running against Edwards I'd be worried too. He is the best natural campaigner in this race.

pmorlan, I can't believe Democrats still want to play "shove it down your throat" politics. After 8 years of being subjected to Bush, would you like to enact revenge on our Republican friends with a liberal Bush of your own (e.g., Hillary or Edwards).

The truth is you may be right. Maybe Obama is a dreamer. Maybe the nation is so irreparably divided now that it is better to cut deeper rather than use a band-aid.

I just hope you're not right. And I am going to express my hope by voting for Obama and Biden. Like Obama, I believe some free-market, republican values are worthy and some populist Democratic values are worthy. The key is a leader that can discern between the two. Obama/Biden 2008.

John Edwards is likable and all but he is dead wrong on some issues, healthcare being one of them. And I happen to agree with Obama, I think compromise and intelligence are better than some fake tough guy routine any day of the week.

I like how Obama can cross the aisle and use the best ideas from both parties. Compromise is what politics is all about people, if you aren't willing to compromise then we all suffer. need proof? just look at the last 7 years of failed partisanship politics.

Christopher Stewart - I think you misunderstand what Edwards is saying when he talks about fighting them. Edwards is talking about the special interests not the politicians. He's made clear that he would work with all of the poltiicians on both sides of the aisle. The people he would not negotiate with are the corporate interests that have accumulated so much power that they basically run the government. We all know they do. Obama thinks he can negotiate with them and get them to give up their power voluntarily (won't happen) and Edwards says you have to fight them to take away their power (tough fight).

You should check out Paul Krugmans column in todays NYT and check out any video you can find from this weekends talk shows (ABC's This Week, CBS face the nation & CNN) where Edwards clearly distinguished between politicians and lobbyists. Edwards isn't interested in fighting politicians. A lot of politicians on both sides of the aisles would like to see the influence of lobbyists end in this country just like Edwards but they are afraid to challenge them for fear of losing their money for their election campaigns. If they had a president with the American people behind him they would feel more comfortable in challenging them too. All we need is a leader who will fight for it.

That's all well and good, but Edwards cannot run a campaign on federal funds in a general election against Mitt "Great Hair" Romney's half a billion dollar campaign. Frankly, Johnny Reid Edwards is too left for the independents and will get crushed handedly.

Secondly, just how will you enforce these mandates? Has anyone studied the constitutionality of them? Trust me, GOP lawyers will find out and I look forward to seeing a great idea like healthcare get bogged down in court only to have Chief Justice Roberts & Co. strike them down as unconstitutional, leaving us practically at square one again.

And as much as I admire Paul Krugman, his argument that we need mandates (which, by the way, will NEVER get passed) in order to avoid cheats is questionable. Sure, we might end up paying for people in ER's but we do that now anyway, and will continue to do so should President Edwards get his way. It's a straw man argument.

Obama is a common sense pragmatist, not a 1930's style populist. I love Johnny, but at the end of the day, we have to get real and stop with these antiquated philosophies. They just don't work in the real world of give-and-take politics, and Obama knows that better than Edwards.

Discussing differences in policy is legitimate debate, not "taking a shot" or "needling" as you spin it. Edwards calls himself a fighter, yet you spin it as if Obama is doing more than defending his plan. Edwards criticized Obama first on his willingness to give insurance/drug companies 1 seat at the table in developing a new health care plan in the Des Moines debate. However, Obama defending his plan, made it clear that insurance/drug companies would no longer have all the seats at the table. Obama has the credentials to instill confidence that he is the most intelligent and gifted candidate, and has been highly successful in bringing opposing sides together to reach agreement. Obama practices government based on principle and possibility, not fear. Obama will get the job done!

Edwards is the most electable democratic candidate, as shown in the CNN poll released Dec. 11th. He handily beat all 4 top republican candidates, performing better than Obama or Clinton, who in that poll actually loses to McCain. So those of you who say he is "too left" for America or can't beat Romney's money, why not wake up and see what's really going on.

The Republicans will destroy Edwards on his voting record when he was in the Senate. He has too many votes he has apologized for including the war and NAFTA. Back then he spoke out against hedge fund companies, then went to work for one as a consultant. Edwards' special interest is money, money, money, and he insults the intelligence of the American people thinking we dont remember how he voted or what he did in the past.

To pmorlan and the other Edwards supporters that will read this, I love you guys. Seriously, I can respect all of your opinions as quite reasonable. This is so much better than debates with Clinton supporters which often end with SOMEONE TYPE-SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS!!!

Let's all continue to analyze these issues to make the best decision on Jan 3.

Oh, please continue to lambaste ABC for this awful and inflamatory exxageration of an article.

Dear Edwards supporters,

Politicians and corporations come hand-in-hand. We can't dismiss the corporate machine without taking away the 2/3 of the congress that has already been bought. How can we not include corporate interests in the discussion, practically?

But alas, if the corporate interests are indeed evil (and can't be negotiated with), where does this leave us? GIVE UP HOPE folks, vote for Hillary and Romney...

Psyche!! We have to try. Honestly, I can support Edwards, Barack, or Biden, but I connect the most with Barack. I think the best hope is to negotiate, but I can appreciate other strategies.

I'm sorry, but voting for hilary is a waste of a vote. She will be handily defeated nationally... there are so many anti-hilaries out there who will just vote republican to get rid of her, I know because I am one of them. Obama or Edwards is a better choice, though i'm leaning for Edwards because of his past prosecuting and winning against drug companies for their injustices. Plus he has lived through so many ups and downs, with his wife having cancer and losing his 16 year old son... and yet he still doesn't give up... That's what america needs, a person of whose background can make you proud... he reminds me of RFK... You know the guy who would have been the best president in american history...john edwards idol actually...

People talk about John Edwards not being able to carry North Carolina for Kerry in 2004...I'm surprised that Kerry was able to carry Massachusetts or California in 2004 he was so incompetent--even John Edwards couldn't help him. Had John Edwards been at the top of the ticket in 2004--as the Presidential candidate--the only one that really carries weight as far as winning the election goes--George Bush wouldn't be President today.

Here is another thought on the difference between Edwards & Obama on the issue of how to deal with insurance & drug companies. This is how I see it and this is why I support Edwards.

I think Senator Obama has already lost round 1 in the fight by already signaling to the insurance & drug companies that he is willing to compromise before the talks even start. Whatever changes he might obtain will only be incremental changes that he will have to fight tooth and nail to get.

I think Edwards has already won round 1 by putting the insurance & drug companies on notice that he is no easy mark and will only negotiate from a position of strength. They either get with the program or they can settle for scraps. The longer they hold out the less leverage they will have. Edwards will also have to fight tooth and nail but he won't have to settle for what the insurance & drug companies will give to him they will have to settle for what he and the American people will give to them.

If you were trying to reform the system which position wouldl you want to have?

Hey Chris Stewart back at you!

I agree that as Democrats we win when we thoughtfully discuss our reasons for supporting a particular candidate. I've never been interested in screaming at other candidate's supporters. It's not a very effective way to communicate and quite frankly it is just plain rude.

Thanks again for your comments.

Obama has not indicated any intention of compromising with the insurance & drug companies! He said he'd give them a seat at the table instead of all the seats as is the status quo. Edwards calls himself a fighter, but when he was in the Senate HE WENT ALONG - with NAFTA, the Patriot Act and authorization for the Iraq war. He is only a trial lawyer with the ability to evoke emotion with rhetoric.

Katy, with all due respect, by telling them they would have a seat at the table and that he would negotiate with them about his healthcare plan it clearly signals to them he is willing to compromise and allow them to help write the legislation. In my opinion we need to stop having insurance & drug companies writing the legislation for healthcare.

This blurb is from the NW Herald in Chicago:

"In some instances, Obama didn’t just listen to lobbyists. He worked with them to draft legislation, hammering out the specifics in long negotiations with lobbyists from both sides."

By the way Edwards was not in the Senate when they passed NAFTA but he was against it at the time. He was in a situation very simliar to Obama who was against the war but was not in the Senate when the Iraq war resolution was passed.

Edwards IS a fighter as his record shows. He helped write and pass the Patients Bill of Rights which the Insurance Companies were very much against. And his track record as a trial lawyer fighting for the little guys is one of the best in the country. He knows from experience how the insurance companies work and that's why he knows we have to fight them.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion about Obama, I just disagree. No hard feelings.

The bottom line here is that Edwards' mandate is a serious threat to survival for me and mine. We can't afford anything for insurance premiums, but it's clear from past experience that we would not qualify for free coverage. Moreover, we do not use allopathic medicine - we are alternative medicine people. In other countries, such as England, such health care is covered - and they get better health results for far less cost. ($2,000 per capita for everyone vs. around $7,000 with many uninsured). Why is it that those who talk about a woman's right to "choose" an abortion to "do what she wants with her own body" don't recognize our right to choose our health care of that body?

I'm still vacillating between Edwards and Obama - mostly towards the latter because of this issue. My problem is that I appreciate Edwards' stand agains the nuclear energy boondoggle - and he is the most electable.