An excellent diary...with excellent research.  

As a matter of fact I do remember.  This still doesn't negate the fact that taking money from people whose job is to "sell" you a corporation's stance on an issue and saying it doesn't taint you is hogwash.

Lori,

That Time article reads just like a New York Times article on Edwards.  Clearly, the idea is to simultaneously report on, and mock, Edwards. The New York Times specializes in hit pieces on Edwards...and now Time is doing it.  

The Time piece is just filled with curious word choices, cynicism, and, as is par for the course now in American journalism, little or no discussion of substance.  Instead, it is almost all "horse race" stuff.  

You can see the obvious bias of the writer here when you consider the strange way the article ends.  It suggests that Edwards has yet to "cast his spell" over the country.  Now, think about the strangeness of that word choice for a minute.  

Hillary is presently ahead in the national polls.  Has she "cast a spell" on the country?  Has Obama also cast a spell too? Only the harshest critics of Clinton or Obama would dare to use such belittling words against them.  Yet, here such words are used in a supposedly objective article on Edwards?  Were you fooled into believing that the author is writing objectively about Edwards?  I hope not.

Look, when it comes to lobbyists in Washington, only a jaded journalist from Time would have the audacity to imply that the overbearing power of lobbyists in Washington is just fine for American democracy.  Seventy percent of the voters in America disagree.  The problem is real.  The problem is huge.  The author of this piece would serve his readership better if he were to discuss how we might diminish their power.  That is what his readers want.  IMHO, a good place to start would be to demand that our leaders in Washington stop taking Washington lobbyist money.  Ya think? No, let's mock that first step! Let's mock that idea!

There are two separate issues here with respect to what Edwards is proposing.  First, Edwards wants the Democratic party to be the first major party that stops taking money from Washington lobbyists.  That is what 75% of the American people want.  That is the progressive position.  That is the principled position.  

And, yes, it will diminish, but not fully eliminate, the power of lobbyists in Washington.  A good first step?  Out of the question!  (FWIW, doing this is also winning politics for 2008, and would just devastate a Fred Thompson candidacy.)  Bill Bradley, I guess, agrees when he says it is important to break "the money connection" with lobbyists.

The second issue (which is different from the first) is that a President Edwards, as President himself, does not want to compromise or negotiate with Washington lobbyists when it comes to doing the right thing for the American public.  OMG!  

Most particularly, Edwards knows that a President must stand up, and stand up strong, against the drug and insurance lobbies in order to get universal health care passed in 2009.  If you start off by telling the American people that you will compromise with these people on universal health care, you just aren't going to get it done.

Further, everyone in America learned (via the Abramoff scandal) that the Bush White House was overrun with Washington lobbyists.  Washington lobbyists had their tentacles into every room of the White House.  Edwards wants to minimize their infiltration into the Executive as much as possible.  Perish the thought!

Not surprisingly, the author of the piece wants to mock the second idea.  Obviously, a President can do his/her best to fight the power of lobbyists in the Executive, but what about the legislative branch, Congress?  The author apparently poses three points to Edwards (It is not clear from the article whether we are actually getting the writer's questions verbatim (or paraphrased) since they are not in quotes.)

1. Lobbyists will still influence bills in Congress.
   
2. Thus, the second point is mostly a message to voters
   
3. Rather than a plan for governance.

The author then tells us that Edwards says "that's right."  But is Edwards saying "that's right" to the first point?  The second point?  The third point?  Or, all three points?  We do not know, but we do know what the author wants us to believe.

Look, if you are cynical or sure that the status quo will never change, I guess the whole idea is to defeat any and all efforts to do ANYTHING about the scandalous influence of Washington lobbyists over our democracy.  This Time article will serve the cynics and the defeatists quite well.

Maybe you don't give a shit, but it's clear from the most recent Gallup poll that a majority of people want lobbyists out.

So if Clinton were not ahead in national polls and not raising tons of money from people like Wayne Hsu, would you still be supporting her? You've still never given us one policy reason to support her.