It's a shame you can so easily be cowed that you felt the need to post this. THis is why I say you and other A listers are not establishment. Not because I want you to like my candidate, Edwards, but because if you provided your critique of Edwards as you have just done, I don't think an independent minded writer should need to explain what you just wrote. Believe what you want to believe so long as you back it up. Anyone who cant't handle it because of whatever zealotry they are bringing to the mix can go to hell - that should be your motto. And to be clear, every supporter who is a zealot claims whenever they hear criticism it's because the person hates their candidate. You answered what was not needed to be answered.

If I can't better explain my thinking to my readers, so they have a better idea of the biases and thughts animating my writing, then I've created the wrong persona for myself.

Some people read a million blogs. And some people read just mine. And for those tilting towards the latter group, an occasional step back from my obsessions to offer a more global comment is useful.

I'm among those with a link along those lines, and I've edited my post to make it more clear that you're a critic of him on mandates, not generally. My apologies.

But Ezra- to be quite frank- this is the same argument that several of them made about Krugman on healthcare. Who doesnt know that Krugman has been on these issues before Obama was even a thought on the national stage? It's just supporter hubris to see life through the lense of their candidate.

and her argument positing superior executive branch experience, and thus a higher likelihood of effectiveness, is convincing

Someone will have to explain to me how being married to the president qualifies as executive branch experience. I don't buy it at all, and futhermore, I don't respect people's belief that it does. It's nonsense.

Clinton's "elect me cause my hubby was president" shtick is as lame and silly as Bush's "elect me cause my father was president".

I wonder about the influence of Obama's advisors on him. He's a lawyer who doesn't seem to have much of a working theory of his own on economics. So maybe those advisors are guiding his statements. And those advisors he's picked don't seem that progressive.

Someone will have to explain to me how being married to the president qualifies as executive branch experience.

blah2: You could just as easily turn that around and ask why should the president's closest and most important adviser be disqualified merely because she happens to be married to the president she's advising. Granted, being an unofficial adviser to the president is not the same as running a cabinet department, so there's an argument to be made against HRC for lack of executive experience (that's also the case with Edwards and Obama). But she very definitely possesses executive branch experience.

Closest and most trusted adviser to the president? This position was Hillary's to Bill?

I know that it's in poor taste to bring up Bill's famous roving eye, but honestly, can you really make a case about the Clintons having a close relationship based on trust? Seriously?

"Someone will have to explain to me how being married to the president qualifies as executive branch experience. "

It doesn't. In fact, to do so for us few students of politics that are out there is to rely on arguments for aristocracy. But, you are in the heat of a primary- so the stupid arguments will get made and forgotten when it suits the supporter.

What's your problem with Bill Richardson?

Obama is being Obama. He is saying in the current environment, this is what we can achieve. Is what Obama is offering 99.9% better than what we have today? Yes. Here is the question that we as progressives must ask ourselves, and for the sake of my argument, I am saying Edwards is non-viable: In relationship to what they're offering and their styles for negotiation, can Hillary or Obama get more done? I would say Obama for the sheer fact of his approach vs. Hillary's but also because of the GOP approach to Hillary, and the likely down ticket issues that have been beared out in polls with Hillary at the top. So what I am saying is that Hillary wins a narrow victory in November, but also either keeps democratic seats where they are or possibly loses or gains a few seats either way. Hillary cannot, because of her approach and her past, create broad consensus with whatever she'll have when she starts to govern. With Obama, even if he has the same narrow majority, will create consensus and get his plan done. But also, with him at the top of the ticket, we have the possibility of getting a super-majority with upwards of 250+ house democrats and 56+ senators. Basically, we have with Obama the chance to get almost every progressive ideal we have ever wanted purely based on numbers. When you look at his personal style of bringing foes into the conversation, we could still get almost everything we want. It is a no brainer to me.

For those who say he can't fight, look at what he has done with Hillary and Edwards. What attack has stuck?

And look at his forays during his stump speech into needling Mitt or Rudy. He doesn't come across like an attacker. He does it in a humorous way, but he cuts his opponents legs out from under him. He said in one interview he looks forward to debating Mitt because, and with a wry smile on his face, he said "Mitt has taken a lot of different positions on the various issues". Obama, and this may be a negative, knows he is smarter than his opponents, and this sometimes comes across as condescending.

Ezra Klein, no fan of Richardson...

"Moreover, I think the differences between the candidates are probably smaller than the primary process makes them seem, and that the larger story -- which has, to be sure, a lot to do with the pressure Edwards has exerted -- is the overwhelming progressiveness of the field, and the degree to which all of the major candidates have aligned themselves with liberalism in a way unthinkable even four years ago. I'd hate to see folks get so wrapped up in advocating for one or another candidate that they lose sight of that larger, more hopeful, truth"

I'd hate to see folks get so wrapped up in advocating for the progressivism of the field that they forget that that progressivism will likely not be present in a non-Edwards administration.

-----

Every single one of the forces that have pulled Clinton and Obama to the left over the past 6 months will permanently disappear in March 2008.

If they're not willing to resist the lure of triangulation and stand with the left, they won't.

Don't let the desire of the white paper shops to avoid letting Edwards get too far to the left of them obscure the fundamental architecture of this field and this race.

We're going to be at the mercy of the nomination winner for a long time, if they don't screw up this fall.

Understanding their political instincts is not a matter of splitting hairs. It's a matter of determining which future we pursue.

"Understanding their political instincts is not a matter of splitting hairs. It's a matter of determining which future we pursue."

One of the reason 2008's primary seems like gore v bush to me is the oft stated idea that there is no difference substantively among the top 3 candidates. to anyone who is a student of history- just recent history at the very least- this is ironic to say the least to once more hear this argument in our life time. bush that ran in 2000 was scary but not dangerous, and now we have dangerous bush. now if we all had a time machine dont we wish we could go back to tell those voters- uhm- no there is a difference between bush and gore.well, we don't haave one of those. but we can learn from the mistakes we have made- one would hope. but apparently not.

The Obama cult can't handle any criticism of their messiah. So they attack real progressive heros like Klein and Krugman for telling the truth about him.

The one point I disagree with Klein on is that the differences between the candidates is small. I disagree. If the nominee isn't Edwards, I'm not voting in the general election. Obama and Clinton would both be Bush lite. We need real change.

"One of the reason 2008's primary seems like gore v bush to me is the oft stated idea that there is no difference substantively among the top 3 candidates."

That seems like a good analogy, akaison.

Few analyses of the '08 nomination race seem as wrong to me as the "we've got three great candidates, and it doesn't matter who we pick."

The '08 general election race, and if we're lucky, the next administration will be profoundly different under each of those nominees.

"If the nominee isn't Edwards, I'm not voting in the general election. Obama and Clinton would both be Bush lite. We need real change."

I don't agree with their leadership style but they aren't Bush lite. My concern is how their leadership would enable GOP efforts to thrawt Democratic efforts by producing a predictable set of behaviors that the GOP is adapt at manipulating. Ie, the present congress uses many of the strategies outlined by clinton and obama. if we want to see our future we need look no further than our failures in congress now.

Progressives need to wake up and realize you won't get anything you want if you continue to use Krugman's tactics of confrontation.

The argument isn't about what to do, it is about how to do it. Progressives are angry. They want to fight. They want to take what they want and feel they deserve.

You get more accomplished, get more of what you want, and face less opposition when you include the opposition. Congress operates much like business. If someone is perceived to be a threat, you do everything you can to undermine them. If someone is perceived to be an ally, you will do everything you can to make sure they succeed.

Krugman isn't a hero. His tactics set the movement back. Self-respecting independents and republicans will never align with Krugman. It is natural that him and Obama are at odds.

The question is, who furthers the progressive agenda? Obama does it in a very dangerous way for republicans, because he gets them to agree to things they are diametrically opposed to.

Thanks for your 'concern', Brian.

Your concern that progressives are harming the progressive cause by actually standing for their principles is duly noted.

If only we cared for nothing but personality, we could jettison that pesky ideology and stand with your triangulating dreams.

What's your problem with Bill Richardson?

Follow the link, homey!

It's funny how the left is always to blame for the failures produced by triangulating to the right. Never it seems is either the right or the trangulation at fault. That's the problem in a nutshell. WHo is at fault for the failures of the rise of Bush for example- the left?

"What's your problem with Bill Richardson?"

He run a surplus and did cut taxes. No liberal likes theses things...

"WHo is at fault for the failures of the rise of Bush for example- the left?"

Considering that Gore managed to lose West Virginia, need I answer?

Yeah, actually you do. See, Gore ran along the wing of the party that is now claiming in the form of Obama and Clinton that it has the answers. He only changed AFTER he wasn't run for office into the Gore people love to hate or love now. Remember- he was running as a Clinton moderate with the DLC seal of approval. He refused to differentiate himself from Bush who ran as the moderate compassionate Conservative to Gore's I am a moderate. I am begining to think the real problem is a lack of memory on the part of Americans in general, and convenient amnesia amongst the triangulators in general. I mean it's all good- but dont' expect all of us to play along. You aren't on Inside Politics, NPR or Tim Russert's show. I remember that election. So, I know you are blowing smoke up my ass hoping I don't know you are blowing smoke.

Ezra,

It's "flak" you dole out, not "flack." A flack is something akin to a hack, and I'm sure you want nothing to do with that--ack!

Have a good vacation.

"Here is the question that we as progressives must ask ourselves, and for the sake of my argument, I am saying Edwards is non-viable"

That is priceless.

An economic Tory passing himself off as a progressive combined with an Obama supporter wishing Edwards was non-viable.

"Someone will have to explain to me how being married to the president qualifies as executive branch experience."

I think that Ezra Klein explained it pretty clearly.

Lest anybody interpret this as a post in support of Clinton, I should say that I'm leaning towards Edwards at this point. I think that Clinton would probably make fewer mistakes than Edwards in her first year of office because she understands the executive branch better than he does, but that doesn't matter very much because both individuals are smart enough to be able to recover from mistakes. Since both individuals have the ability to handle the office of president, the question is which of them offers the most compelling vision of America's future.

Clinton is clearly bush-lite. She is an ideological clone of Lieberman, and nobody would say he isn't Bush-lite. I'm not willing to say that about Obama.

I won't vote for Hillary. She is too evil for it to matter if she is the lesser of evils. What's more, another Clinton presidency will strangle the progressive movement in it's crib. Moreover, it will do so on purpose.

You better Hope for a low Republican turn out in 08, because after another year if Triangulating and a Clinton as a candidate, I seriously doubt Democratic turn-out will be that high.

"I don't agree with their leadership style but they aren't Bush lite."

Unless a candidate is willing to acknowledge that Iran had moderated its opposition to the U.S. considerably over the years and that Bush squandered the opportunity to deal with people like Mohammad Khatami when he had the chance, there is no reason to regard him or her as an improvement over Bush at all.

Clinton (and not only Clinton) was willing to put nuclear strikes on the table as a method of dealing with Ahmedinejad but has not expressed any desire to put the moderates back in power in Iran and work out a better deal with them.

I'm still waiting for one of the Democrats to better Ron Paul on this. It is the single most obvious way to attack both Bush and the Republican field on foreign policy. If none of the Democrats can actually see it, then they are all "Bush-lite".

Tomorrow,
John Edwards can go to hell. The moment he took matching funds he went from an almost certain nominee to out by Nevada. He was the anti-hillary. He would have won Iowa easily. Then he would have bounced in New Hampshire. But he took matching funds and screwed it all up. He is a millionaire, but he is using my tax dollars to run for president? That doesn't square in my book. Mitt Romney matches his campaign contribution. If this means so much to Edwards, so can he.

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for him if he can some how pull it off, but he went from a 50-50 shot at the presidency to a 1-100 shot with this boneheaded move.

Clinton will never concede. She is going to take this thing until March, April, or May. Edwards needs money to compete with her. He doesn't have it.

Also, progressives need to be smarter about how they stand up for their beliefs. Putting yourself behind the 8-ball by siding with Krugman and alienating those you need to convince is bad business.

As for my economic policy...I don't care about 2 americas. I don't care about the haves and the have nots. I want people to have the same opportunities to succeed, a safety in terms of retirement and if they hit rock bottom, but I am not for a redistribution of wealth. I am for stricter rules and monitoring to make sure employers aren't screwing employees, but I am wholly anti-union. I think that the government's role needs to be vastly expanded to reign back in employers, and I also think that employers should be required to train or add skills to each employee every year so employees can find work easier.

As for my economic policy...I don't care about 2 americas. I don't care about the haves and the have nots. I want people to have the same opportunities to succeed, a safety in terms of retirement and if they hit rock bottom, but I am not for a redistribution of wealth. I am for stricter rules and monitoring to make sure employers aren't screwing employees, but I am wholly anti-union. I think that the government's role needs to be vastly expanded to reign back in employers, and I also think that employers should be required to train or add skills to each employee every year so employees can find work easier.

Short form for this clown: I am an idiot.

Yeah, Brian pretty much showed in the other thread that he's out of his depths when it comes to substance and this is about how Brian feels. Sadly, his thought processes mirrors way too many.

You can call me anything you want citizen and akaison, but you haven't disagreed with any of my points, you have disagreed with my whole post. I am happy to back up each of my assertions. My economic outlook comes from my belief in competition. People who have higher skills, knowledge, and responsibility deserve much more money than others. This is why I went to college and then graduate school. Quote from caddyshack: "the world needs ditch diggers too". The question is do said ditch diggers have a safety net, affordable health care, retirement savings, and the opportunity to expand their skills.

akaison, prove me wrong and stop acting like a fox news pundit. Explain where my logic and thinking differs or how I am 'out of my depths'. You have yet to take issue with a specific point. If I am so out of my depths, then surely you could pick a few points to prove it.

Until then, get off your high horse. The nonsense that I have read from you in the short time I have been commenting pretty much shows that you're bitter that you don't have a viable candidate. Save your negativity for the republicans or argue with me point by point like the super-poster you seem to have claimed to be.

I might not agree with everythng Brian says, but he's not engaging in baseless ad hominem attacks. And to be honest, I'd rather disagree with someone who states his case rationally and reasonably than agree with someone who tries to Republican (yes, I just verbed a political party) those with whom he disagrees. When did Ezra's comments get so puerile?

Steven Blaidsell, sure he's not. That's why he's telling political candidates, and by extension their supporters, to go to hell.

If you're supporting him, admit it's because you WANT to support him. Quit the pathetic ' foo, these people are being so uncivil' game.

Brian, I'm sorry. Those of us who didn't spend all of 2007 in hack land were too busy laughing riotously at your assertion that John Edwards began the year as the 'almost certain nominee'. I mean, your scenario of a poor underdog Hillary having to battle her way just to be in this thing was just too laughable to deserve any real response.

How often do you think you can just outright lie here and still get taken seriously?

Brian, can you name one circumstance in the entire history of progressive reform where that reform was won by negotiating with business rather than fighting with business? I can't, all I can think of are fake environmental plans and 'voluntary' workplace safety agreements. That's the flaw of your argument, it ignores the entire experience of liberals world wide.

Big business didn't agree to safety precautions, they were vilified after the triangle shirt factory fire and had those regulations forced down their throat. Big business didn't agree to accept unions, indeed they hired private armies to murder union-supporters and their families. They only allowed unions when pro-labor presidents started threating to send US troops against those private armies.

Those are examples of our way working. What examples do you have to show that your way works?

Anonymous,
I don't think Hillary is the underdog at all. But everyone in the democratic party wants an alternative. That was edwards. He may very well win Iowa, but because he took matching funds he cannot capitalize on it or a nomination win. He tied a hand behind his back and won't be elected.

Just because 50% of americans thought she was inevitable doesn't mean she really is. Iowa was always going to determine it. Edwards got scared and took matching funds, thereby cutting his own throat.

Soullite, in the past liberals have had to fight. You are correct in that. But that was then. Now, everyone is open to what progressives have to say. Even independents and repubicans. There is no reason to be angry, no reason to shout. We don't have to. All we have to bring more people under the tent. The way to do that isn't by being fighters and screamers. It is by reaching out and showing those constituencies why the progressive way makes sense. We need someone to sell progressive values.

"I am for stricter rules and monitoring to make sure employers aren't screwing employees, but I am wholly anti-union."

Yep, who cares about freedom of association? I'm sure we can pass an amendment to the Constitution dropping freedom of assembly from the 1st Amendment. Let's let the local courts issue injunctions against unions again to help out their country-club associates. Let's bring back the Pinkerton's to break up those people who have the audacity to want to bargain on their own for better terms and conditions of employment. (And by the way, let's bring back the Five-Year Plans of the highly successful Soviet Union. More command-and-control, please.)

What a mind-boggling ridiculous comment!

Brian, do you have a reason to believe people are somehow magically nicer and more noble these days? Like I said, name one circumstance under which that has EVER been true.

One word more or less invalidates your entire argument: CIGNA.

I'm not entirely sure you understand how public funding works. You have spending caps on a state by state basis, not a national cap over-all. Outside of SC, IA, and NH; John Edwards hasn't nearly reaches those caps for any other state. Also, you can easily buy in adjoining markets and make your money pay of 2-3 times. If I buy in the NYC media maket (expensive, but JRE isn't going to win NY, so he doesn't need to worry about his spending there) he broadcasts throughout sections of NJ, MA, and CT as well. But the money spent only applies to his NY spending cap.

Add into that the absolutely toothless nature of these laws (you can literally break them with impunity) and the fact that these caps do not apply to allied organizations, and you have no real monetary impediment at all.

Matt Stoller demolishes this post here.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2924

This field could only be labeled "progressive", let alone "overwhelmingly" progressive, from the perspective of a right winger. The American left is in a state of crisis and will remain in that state irrespective of the winner of this election. It is utterly crucial for true progressives to recognize that the Democratic Party is solely a means to an end. It has never represented the genuine left and it never will.