She really had a fundraiser based on homeland security? The more I read it, the more I find that so hard to believe. Good to know that security policy can be bought…

It sounds like John Edwards is desperate to stay in the news. So what if Hillary has a fundraiser with well-heeled supporters. Big deal! It's done by every candidate on either side of the aisle. Nothing sinister here. If Edwards had the ability he would be doing it himself. But instead he is seeing his numbers drop as he starts to fade out into obscurity. So long Edwards. It was good while it lasted!

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

So what a minute, Edwards is criticizing Clinton for having a pricey fund raiser, and uses that criticism as a means of advertising for his own pricey fund raiser? I'm hoping I misread this article somewhere, but unfortunately I doubt it.

It's a slow day in the Edwards camp and Trippi is trying to make headlines for his boss by once again bashing the frontrunner. Boring….

Can a Presidential Candidate win by simply playing defense? Any time one Hillary or Obama take a position, John (or Elizabeth) comes out criticizing, and then attempts to gain attention.

Perhaps John should stick to foreclosing on homes owned by Katrina Victims - THAT is something the other candidates don't do.

So what a minute, Edwards is criticizing Clinton for having a pricey fund raiser, and uses that criticism as a means of advertising for his own pricey fund raiser?

Edwards doesn't take a dime of lobbyist money. Never has and never will. So instead of selling his campaign to the highest bidder, he sent out an e-mail asking supporters like myself to chip in what they can. I proudly sent the man five bucks, knowing that when Edwards wins the nomination, he'll listen to regular citizens like myself instead of being bought and paid for by rich corporate lobbyists.

I think Edward has a point to differentiate himself with Hillary and Obama. It sounds so rosy on the campaign trail. But, the whole system of winning elections is based on campaign contributions. Bush won big in 2000 and 2004 due to the millions of campaign contributions most of which came from big corporations. And these donors have definitely some interest in the legislations. Realistically, if there is anything need to be done to have clean and fair elections, it has to be done with the clean slate during congress's regular business and between 2008 and 2010. Its not the time to change the rules. And, it has to be implemented for both the parties. It appears that John Edwards is desperate to do something to bring him back in the race.

John Edwards will just lose more points for attacking a fellow democrat. Very, very poor behavior. I won't forget it.

I hate to say it, being a R, but Edwards is 100% right. How can the average citizen be heard when corporations and lobbyists are able to contribute? Of course politicians are going to pander to those companies because that is where the majority of their money is going to come from. I praise John Edwards for taking this stand!!!! The system is broke, it needs to be fixed, and this is one of the steps needed. That and term limits for Congress. Then Congressmen will take the few years that they have to get things done and do them, instead of just being concerned with how they are going to be re elected.

You guys aren't too bright.

Government contractors and lobbyists are writing checks to Hillary to gain access to congressional committee members to influence legislation.

you guys aren't too bright or CNN didn't write the article well. This was advertised as a chance to meet Committee chairs in breakout sessions.

John Edward and Obama are more critical to Hillary than Republicans, i wonder why? Just for winning election or Hillary is too bad or they are helping republican s to take over White House again.
I have high regards for Hillary for running positive campaign. I can't wait to vote for Hillary! Go Hillary

Wait Wait Wait, when Clinton and Obama fight over foreign policy, which is heavily driven by the main stream media, people deem it as politics as usual and actually is a good sign, yet when Edwards exposes Hilarys fundraiser it is in ilnature? Oh and his fundraising scheme is genious…he is attempting to make money through ordinary people, not lobbyists who pour money into the clinton campaign.

John Edwards is right-on. He is only leading candidate who has never taken money from Washington lobbyists and, according to Steve Kirsch, a friend of Al Gore's, Edwards has the reputation in Democratic circles of being "the most honest politician they've ever known." Edwards came out with truly universal health care and tax reform long before Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but it was barely covered in the media–he is the true leader in the Democratic Party and is the only one with the courage to speak out against the corporate influence in both parties.

Joe Trippi is the best! I wasn't sure at first if he could do all the great stuff he did to get Howard Dean elected for John Edwards, but now you can see the Trippi magic working it's wonders for my guy.

Fundraisers are EVIL! Now Hillary is a poster child for raising money, which has no place in politics, especially if you can't raise enough!
I say listen to Trippi, keep the lobyists in the LOBBY! Don't let them have seats, no matter what they pay or they will SIT AND TALK, and that is wrong and violates free speech, without which we wouldn't have such great candidates.
We should leave the fundraising to the republicans because they have to have something to do before they attack the democrats and you know that they will need money for that, so let them! We don't need to be poster children, we can be better them them by collecting Change.
So, send all of your change to John Edwards and we can put our own children on posters and then maybe we will find them and the republicans will be stuck in the lobby, with so many chairs that no one will want to sit and talk, even if the is coffee and cake.

When will people wake up and realize Edwards is right.Maybe you'll wake up when you learn that as long as lobbyist are spending the big bucks you better bet they want something in return for their money. So in return the candidate will listen to them and do what they want and what is in their best interest NOT YOURS. Let me put it this way. When lobbist support a candidate they get something in return because the candidate OWES THEM . You support a candidate and the candidate OWES YOU something in return. GET IT? As for those who say that's just the way it is well it's time for change and the time is now. Don't sit back and see if it ever changes vote for the one who will make the change. Edwards08

Edwards is right to differentiate himself from Clinton, even if it comes off as attacking. Hillary is far too deep into the pockets of big business. She is not a fiscally conservative Democrat, she is a socially moderate Republican. Bill was great, she is not.

In my opinion it was unfair for MSNBC to have ever started the 'first tier,' 'second tier' thing, especially considering that they seem to be basing that essentially on money raised. John Edwards has, as pointed out by other posters here, never taken lobby or PAC money. It's nice that Barack Obama isn't while running for president, but what about before? And Hillary? I'm glad she believes that lobbyists are people too, but I want her working for us, not them.

So John Edwards got delegated to the second tier and now the rest of the media has got caught up in that, reinforcing the idea by repeating it endlessly, and failing to cover what John does do and say because he's not 'top tier.'

It's ridiculous, considering how many things he's led on. He had the first health care plan out there, he has the best environmental plan. He was the first one to suggest that maybe taking lobby/PAC money wasn't such a hot idea. Just recently the House moved to expand mortage protection. John Edwards was speaking out about subprime lending rates, predatory lenders and the need for mortgage protection a month ago. Has anyone commented on that?

Instead, there's the drivel about his haircut and his house, which essentially reduces good journalists to gossip column reporters.

Why shouldn't John use criticism of Hillary to raise funds? Take into consideration that the money he raises is more indicative of the grassroots level of support for his candidacy than the thousands Hillary might raise from the folks who own the current administration.

And Phil Singer should be careful about believing his own publicity. John Edwards campaign is alive well, including here in Nevada where its demise has been greatly exaggerated. Granted, John Edwards may not have Obama's flash, but then I'm not interested in having a rock star for president.

Wake UP, America…This is yet another example of him taking a stand to show that he's the candidate for CHANGE! Not Hillary, good grief, not Hillary. How can she possibly be for change. I don't have time to wait for her to get herself together. And Obama? Thanks but no thanks.

There is only one choice - and an excellent choice it is! Vote for John Edwards…He's a man FOR THE PEOPLE.

Edwards is crying baby, he couldn't appeal by himself, so always use Hillary's name for his campaign. There's no any point for his leadership, he will not be long because he couldn't stand up with his own power. I feel sorry for him.

I think it is great that John Edwards is speaking out against Hillary Clinton's hypocrasy and manipulation. It amazes me that the American public does not see that she has a public face and a behind the scenes face and the two are very different. By way of full disclosure, I am a true blue Obama supporter, but I am glad that John Edwards is standing up to the Hillary machine and showing the public her true colors. If we want honesty in government, we need an honest president.

I guess labor unions are not special interests (what…they are??) say it isn't so….I was hoping this phoney would of gone away….but…there are those who believe his rhetoric…(and Hillarys apparently) - we need a hard look at our school system to see where they failed us…(what…run by a national teachers union) say it isn't so….we need a moderate - not the left winger union pandering Democrats…or the Right wing religious right pandering Republicans - there is one moderate….Rudy…socially liberal - fiscally conservative - and…its about time unions are abolished…there was a time and a place….60 years ago….no longer….in a global economy….they are killing us