You think it bothers Hillary that Edwards was on Bill's Impeachment defense team in the Senate?

[Emit]

He deposed a few witnesses, including Lewinsky, and gave the closing speech. Might have saved Bill from being impeached in the Senate, no?

Sen. John Edwards began his career in the Senate with a bang. Thirty days after being sworn in, the Clinton impeachment trial was in session, and Edwards--a dashing North Carolina trial lawyer--was one of three senators presiding over the depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal. Party leaders asked Edwards to give the closing speech in Clinton's defense. "I watched you suffer," he told his fellow senators as they deliberated the president's fate. ". . . I now have a boundless faith in you." As political theater, it seldom gets a whole lot better than that.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040216/16edwards.htm

The two-day question-and-answer session became an opportunity for senators to throw softballs to their respective sides. Republican senators turned their questions into Trent Lott, who sent them on to a team of three Republican senators who weeded out the unhelpful questions, and put them in an order suiting the manager's goals. A list of 179 additional proposed questions were left in a binder for any senator willing to "ask" them. Democrats also orchestrated their question-asking, deciding on a strategy of leading with a series of prepared questions, then improvising to best suit the flow of the arguments. Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the questions, first one from the Republicans, then one from the Democrats. One of the few questions to produce any real surprise came from Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. The two Democratic senators noted in their question, that "both sides have spoken in absolutes" while "it strikes many of us as a closer call." In view of this, Edwards and Kohl asked, "Even if the President engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that, as a matter of law, he must be convicted and removed from office--yes or no?" Manager Lindsay Graham dismayed many of his Republican colleagues when he answered, "Absolutely." Graham admitted the Constitution gave no definitive answer and said, "If I was sitting where you are, I would probably get down on my knees before I made that decision."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html

[saracat]

1. It was very well known at the time that John was asked to be part of that team because of his

reputation as being one of the finest trial lawyers in the nation.And yes, I think Edwards definetely helped save Bill and I don't think Hillary gives a whit of thought or consideration to that.the Clinton's aren't big on gratitude if it gets in the way of ambition. But this is poltics ,after all.

[Bicoastal]

2. Well, Gosh...

...of course she isn't bothered. Nor is Edwards bothered by the support he got from the Clintons as Kerry's 2004 running mate.

Clinton and Edwards aren't at WAR with each other. Politics is politics, and I think the Edwardses and the Clintons are probably fairly friendly outside of the Election setting.

Politics is politics, but no one's really crossed the line yet...

[Emit]

4. Silly me.

I thought she was human.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Not only did Edwards help save Bill Clinton from Removal by the Senate, but....

Edwards became privvy to information that never became public, and Edwards has kept that information confidential as attorneys are required to do under the rules governing attorney/client privilege.

Even so, Edwards knows a lot about Bill Clinton, and in 2004 Bill Clinton gave political advice to Edwards.

That must bother Hillary to this day...

[karynnj]

5. JRE did not save Bill Clinton from being removed

Look at the vote - it was pretty much party line and likely would have been the same had they just voted. It was in large part political - there was no public demand for removal so why would any Democrat vote for it. This does not say that Edwards is not a very good lawyer - but this was not a typical courtroom.

I have heard people say that his speech convinced others - in fact he was the 36th Senator to speak and all those who spoke had long, detailed, often eloquent or elegant speeches - that they did not write between Edwards speech and theirs. I looked also for Senators referenced by others - and saw no one reference Edwards. Leahy, Moynihan and Levin were often mentioned.

But, many Senators are themselves lawyers, with backgrounds that include being DAs or prosecutors.