LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL
http://www.lvrj.com/news/11424696.html

Damore thought Clinton made a good recovery from the
previous performance. He said the night's big loser was
Edwards.

"The candidate who needed to break through was Edwards,
and he didn't seem to get much going tonight," he said.
"This is just my view, but Edwards still comes across like a
used-car salesman. Maybe it's the trial lawyer in him coming
through."

SFGate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/16/MNSTTDACP.DTL

Edwards also looked to be straddling when asked if, absent
comprehensive immigration reform, he would back such
licenses. Though in the previous debate he had raised his hand
to say he supported them, this time his answer appeared
different: "No - but I don't accept the proposition that we won't have comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "And anyone who is on a path to citizenship ... should be able to have a driver's license."

TIME
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1684766_1684765_1684761,00.html
The Democratic Candidates
Jae C. Hong / AP
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards
John Edwards
Grade: C+ [Hillary got a B PLUS- the best of the night]

Still high from his victory in the last debate, Edwards tried to
pick up where he left off but soon realized his aggressive
stance was ineffective against Clinton's pushback. Appeared to
lose his mojo and disappeared for long stretches, coming off
more as petulant and irrelevant than strong and tough. Lost
65% of the gains he made in the previous debate. (Again, the
back of the envelope.)

—By Mark Halperin

From NBC's Chuck Todd
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/469442.aspx

As for Edwards, he just wasn't at his best tonight. His attempts
at hitting Clinton early on fell flat. That little "planted question" line was out of place. What's interesting is that Edwards seemed to get it and went back to his comfort zone and ended the debate a lot stronger than he started. Of course, first impressions are everything and Edwards didn't make a strong first impression at this debate.

Washington Post
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/democratic_deba
te_winners_and_2.html

LOSERS
John Edwards: For those pushing the idea that Clinton's
decision to directly respond to Edwards was a sign that the
race is now officially a three-way contest, we say hogwash.

Clinton effectively shot Edwards down in their first exchange
and when Edwards tried to again go at Clinton later in the
debate he was all but booed down by the audience. Make no
mistake: Edwards is an able debater who clearly knows what
he believes and says it. But, for most of last night's debate it
felt as though he were extraneous to the proceedings and
when he did get his speaking time he seemed slightly too
keyed up for the audience.

Yepsen's analysis: That's why the lady is a champ
Desmoines Register
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2
0071115/NEWS/71115045/-1/caucus

John Edwards should have stayed home. Clinton took the wind
out of his sails early in the evening by implying he was
"throwing mud." He never seemed to bounce back from that
slap, and he also got hooted when he talked about her as a
corporate Democrat.

Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the
differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk
now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the
Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste
disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist
rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the
credibility of his message.