The story points to a transcript of Edwards's speech in Israel but largely ignores the rhetoric or logic in the speech. The interview leaves lots of room for prevarication in spite of a strong set of statements in the earlier speech. The tone for US consumption is very much at odds with the tone for Israeli consumption and this interviewer failed to explore those differences. He does, however, elicit much useful additional information, so it is not a bad interview if, shall we say, supportive.

Pushes Edwards to answer some tough questions, giving the reader a good sense of his stance on Iran and Israel. As an aside (though quite relevant), that both interviewer and interviewee had been to the same Sbarro in Israel elucidates American policy in the Israel Palestine issue- That is, the American political class has deep personal connections to Israel.

Excellent, candid interview with John Edwards. He fields tough questions with great expertise.

This is good journalism because it accurately depicts the foreign policy perpective of one of our presidential candidates on a key issue. There has been misinterpretation elsewhere of a remark that Edwards made at the Herzliya Conference, and he is setting the record straight. I think his approach is well-reasoned. Is he correct? I don't think I know enough about the Middle East to evaluate that fully. The interview is accurately reporting his perspective, though, which seems to be an intelligent one.

Klein does a great job getting Edwards to explain how he can be pro-Israel AND against attacking Iran (as things stand), which is an important distinction rarely drawn by the American press. I was also interested to learn that Hillary Clinton was booed by AIPAC for suggesting that the US should talk to Iran. One weakness in the interview was two references by Klein to something called Herzliya. I'm not uninformed, but I don't know what that is, and it was left unexplained.