Reply #25: I'm aware

[ihavenobias]

That ALL of the top tier candidates have taken *some* amount of special interest money, I'm not naive. Unfortunately it's a requirement in our corrupted, lobbyist driven system, which is EXACTLY why voting for someone like Edwards (who wants publicly funded elections and says so openly) is critical to ensure a higher quality of democracy in the future...arguably this issue, along with paper ballots and media consolidation, trumps ANY other possible issue you could think of as far as long term importance to America, and again, Hillary has nothing to offer in that regard.

If she cared she would bring it up in her campaign, but she doesn't want to scare her corporate donors.

The difference (and it's a huge one) is *how much* money (Hillary has taken FAR more special interest money), and *where the money is coming from*.

Hillary has taken boatloads of cash from the defense and health care industries and, surprise, she's the most hawkish dem with the weakest health care plan. Another great example is the link provided below.

But Edwards? Look at his proposals and stances, they are incredibly populist, pro poor and middle class...apparently *his* money hasn't corrupted him so far, at least not as clearly as it has Hillary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html