Reply #74: So, by your "conclusions"...

[zulchzulu]

I assume your support for Edwards will cease if he gets any support from those evil Wall Street bastards. As you might not suspect, Wall Street does have lawyers and law firms. This from OpenSecrets:

"Edwards has taken in nearly $4.4 million from lawyers and their firms since January (2007), or $1 out of every $3 he has raised."

If you want to play the Purity Test with Wall Street, have you asked the Edwards campaign to return the $193,250 the FEC reported he took from Wall Street interests?

And since Edwards calculated he couldn't get re-elected to his one-term Senate seat, his membership with the DLC did allow him some support for his failed presidential bid in 2004.

Furthermore, your apparent disdain for people who became lawyers and could craft what you suspect are insidious calculations confoundedly doesn't apply to your preferred candidate, a former trial lawyer.

A lawyerly apology from someone who knew from the catbird seat in the Senate Intelligence Committee that Bush's intelligence data was bogus didn't stop this lawyer from teaming up with Joe Lieberman with the Iraq War Resolution. Now this lawyer can only catcall from the sidelines and make it appear that his tarnished protestations are relevant...

Wow.

Three strikes. You're out. Trying to triangulate an Obama vs. Clinton "argument" to make Mr. Edwards seem cool doesn't jive, brother.