I’m not a fan of Senator Clinton. I am less of a fan of Obama, whose Adlai Stevensonesque Hamlet act is very old, and whose homophobic dog whistle overtures to socially conservative black Democrats in South Carolina are despicable.
What John Edwards is saying is factually accurate. Clinton is refusing to commit to removing troops from a combat role in Iraq, and while not personally corrupt herself*, she has surrounded herself with people who make money lobbying for big money interests, Mark Penn only being the most egregious case, and she has defended this system of pay to play in the debates.
It is a legitimate course for Edwards to take. For what it’s worth, FDR was very much the slick prepackaged politician in 1932, so Hillary may be better than I expect if she gets the nomination, and wins the general, which is the likely result for any Democrat who wins the nomination this time around.
*She is arguably the second most investigated individual of the past 30 years. The best that Richard Mellon Scaife could come up with Whitewater, a land deal in which she lost money.