Senator Clinton's ego is showing here. Lest she forget that perhaps the comment was directed towards more than one person in the Senate. Certainly, the keynote was given in her backyard, but there are other 2008 hopefuls yet unannounced who are sort of sitting on the fence about funding the McCain Doctrine.

Wolfson's comment may become a boomerang if she decides to run.

The congressional democrats that are supposedly fighting Bush's Iraq policy are definately not fighting hard enough. John Edwards is justified. I have been opposed to the war from the outset. People must remember that Sen. Clinton still supports the war. She is not so vociferous in her opposition that her aides should start attacking Edwards.

I am a former Marine and the mother of 2 children serving. My son is a Marine and returned from Iraq last summer. I am not anti-war, just anti-illegal war as this war is. Since Sen. Clinton has seen fit to begin her campaign now, maybe she can give us some kind of clue what she will propose. Bush should not be allowed to continue with this escalation and impeachment should definately be on the table.

Let us hope that Edwards will respond to Clinton's attack on him by name. It is one thing to respond to issues, and quite another to respond to a personal attack.

Howver, I do not find the content of the Clinton remark that damaging. It is more about standing your ground, and giving a preview of coming attractions.

Welcome to the big leagues, John. Your reputation and that of your family and associates will be dragged through the gutter before this is over, and you'll have to do the same to your opponents to have any chance. No one in American who wins an election deserves to, because the virtues that would make someone an admirable leader are the same as those that would prevent him/her from doing what is necessary to get elected. No biggie - what good are principles anyway, if they stand in the way of ambition?

Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain and simple.

Stop for a minute, and consider what he's actually done, and not his talk.

While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disastrous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.

Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.

Edwards voted for normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can't.

Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who can’t afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.

But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.

Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable - while doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians leave their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians - could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?

One simple question - 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, do you think he would he advocate that you get a big promotion?

Or do you think he would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?

This seems pretty tacky on Clinton's part. FIrst of all, Edwards didn't attack her or anyone else directly, so she is now the first in the race to attack a fellow Democratic candidate. Not only that, but instead of attacking him herself, she hid behind her flunky. That's just crass. Finally, as far as I know, she hasn't even officially declared yet. So is this her official announcement? What a way to begin a campaign for president!

It is a shame Hillary has to have a male underling do her fighting for her! All that Edwards did was to clearly state his position on Iraq, which is something neither she nor Obama have yet done anywhere nearly as well as he has! Where is the attack that Hillary's supporter is claiming. To say it is an "attack" is, I think, a great exaggeration. If it could be called a political attack, it is a well-deserved one anyway, granted Hillary's (and Obama's) fence-sitting on the crucial question of whether to deny Bush the funding to carry on the war that after all, everyone is saying is insane.

Clearly, the one who is attacking is Hillary's own staff, and they are attacking Edwards because they are politically savvy enough to recognize that he is the real stumbling block to her ascent to the White House, and not Obama. If the Democrats want to see another Presidential defeat, they will nominate Hillary--there are just too many people in middle America who will not vote for her for a variety of reasons, not least of all is that they do not want to have Bill in the White House again with the sexual addiction that we are by no means sure he has overcome!

Ah yes, the ever-courageous "anon" strikes again, spewing falsehoods about Senator Edwards.

Someone tell me, and then tell Clinton's staff, how calling for Congress to oppose the escalation is an "attack" on Congress?

Sounds to me like Mrs. Clinton hears footsteps, and they aren't necessarily behind her.

'Ah yes, the ever-courageous "anon" strikes again, spewing falsehoods about Senator Edwards.

Well, enlighten us John, tell us what part was false?

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf