WEST CALDWELL, N.J., 2:15 a.m. – Pundits after tonight’s debate concluded, not without good reason, that John Edwards had chosen Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Tom Schaller put it bluntly in his “R.I.P.” post: “The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.”

But just minutes ago, in an e-mail flash sent to supporters and received by the News, Edwards seems to have turned against Obama, too. He begins:

“I’m the underdog in this race, running against two $100 million candidates. They’re working feverishly around the clock to try and stop us from getting out our message of change in New Hampshire.”

And here’s his post-spin spin:

“In tonight’s debate, there were two ‘change candidates’ on the stage. But we have very different approaches. I don’t believe you can sit around a table with the drug companies, the insurance companies or the oil corporations, negotiate with them – and then hope they’ll just voluntarily give their power away. You can’t nice them to death – it doesn’t work.”

So much for Edwards as VP, take two. For our young readers, meanwhile, a question: What is this so-called “change” really all about? Who, if any of the candidates, has it right?

– The Yale Daily News