This is such a freakish non-discussion that I am truly amazed.

You've got to be kidding me, right?

An "actionable theory of change." Wow, such a theoretical gilt on a simple duck's a** I may have never seen.

Is this some confusion over the "table" metaphor again?

Is this some sort of reading of Edwards' statements that there will never be any negotiations, much less meetings at that holy place, "the table"?

God. D***. This is *so* much simpler.

What all 3 are telegraphing is not whether or not there will at some points be meetings on some issues with various related governmental agencies and corporate and financial entities over policies.

They are telegraphing *how* they are going to approach those negotiations, and who comes in with the greatest position.

That's what this is about.

Even as an Edwards' supporter, I apparently have to remind people that he's not quite yet advocating revolutionary socialist participatory democracy.

What I have always heard him as saying -- and for some reason, I guess I didn't think that I needed a "theory" of actionable executive power -- is that whenever such pushes or confrontations or negotiations came, it would no longer be assured going in that the ultra-ultra wealthy and powerful would *go into the negotiations knowing they were going to get pretty much everything they wanted.*

On what theoretical understanding of actionable executive power did George W. Bush Jr. rely when he simply turned executive agencies away from regulation, investigation, and enforcement to the benefit of their corporate backers?

Conversely, what complex theory of actionable executive power would be required to NOT DO THAT? What new revelations produced by philosophical inquiry would be required to, you know, tell regulators & inspectors to DO THEIR JOBS?

So the theory of change is that I will do everything in the same way and hope it turns out better? As I think Edwards has been eloquent in arguing, the problem with the system is not the ill intentions of many of the participants, but the perversion of the current structure -- the fact that good intentions and strong convictions do not lead to those meetings exhibiting progressive outcomes. I'm under no illusions that Edwards won't take the calls from the NFIB. But what I want to know is how he's going to create the leverage to force Congress to go along with his priorities.

How? You investigage and prosecute the criminals - it's your justice department, your US Attorneys and your FBI. You bring suits against the thieving contractors. You encourage whistleblowers. You put the murderers of Blackwater in prison and dismantle the blackshirted private militia that the Repubs have been putting into place. You enforce congressional oversight by promptly enforcing congressional subpoenas. You investigate the crooked lobbyists who buy and sell the congressmen, and you investigate the crooked congressmen. (You don't think putting Stevens behind bars would change the dynamic?) You haul back in the big and little fish who think they've got away, and make them testify - from Harriett Miers to Dick Cheney - and if they won't testify without immunity you give immunity to their subordinates and prosecute them.

We don't need an agenda right now. We don't need a change in balance. As someone said yesterday, we need a truth commission. Before we can move forward we need to turn around. That means a public and drastic reversal of the drift toward fascism that we've experienced over the past seven years. None of the three major candidates are up to it, but of the three, only Edwards even seems to have a glimmer of what it might take.

Did you read the Krugman article you cited below?

It seems to me that this is mainly a stylistic thing. Obama's style is what the current Democratic leaders of Congress have been doing. That hasn't worked. Clinton's style is roughly what her husband did while President. That worked to a degree. Edwards wants us to think he would be a tougher Bill Clinton. It's not clear how realistic or credible that is.

Really bending over backwards to find a way to make Edwards the least attractive option, aren't you?

The President has such broad authority that the things he can do to makes these companies uncomfortable are infinite. I don't even get Ezra's point here. You know everything Bush has done to assist these companies? Well, they can almost all be reversed and used to hurt them. You know how Bush and Clinton and Reagan and Bush all looked the other way? Well, Edwards wont, and simply enforcing the law will do a lot ot put these people back in their place.

If Ezra isn't able to think of myriad ways that a President can use his power to force these companies to play along, he needs to become a bit more familiar with the powers of the executive branch.

The above post is mine. Seriously though, wtf is your point? I'm pretty sure we were all under the assumption that everyone here had a general familiarity with the kind of power a President wields. You don't need any exciting new 'theories of change' to figure out how you force companies to play along. You rely on the same old politics that have always worked. You tell these companies it's time to play along, or you hurt them so badly they won't dream of saying no next time. You point at the big bad corporations, and you tell the American people that everything is their fault. If someone in congress stands against you, you smear them as a corrupt tool.

none of this is rocket science. It just requires a President who has the will power to see it through. Edwards campaign is all about showing us he has that will power.

I think Ezra is talking about pardigm-shifting stuff, like universal healthcare the changes the dynamics of politics to the left. Meaning that even Repubs in a future paradigm would only talk about trimming a universal healthcare system around the edges--in the same way that Social Security was pardigm-shifting. Obviously he is aware that the President can enforce laws, but that is only a small thing compared to universal healthcare and it only lasts for 4 or 8 years.

The IRS, FBI...for starters.

"How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point?"

Simple. Voters.

Look at how Reagan transformed American politics in the 80's. What was the pressure point he was able to affect?

He was a vote-getter while advocating for something previously outside of the political mainstream.

That's how change is usually achieved in the American system.

Congress is highly responsive to a President who seemingly has the electorate behind him on an issue. See the Iraq war resolution vote for an example more recent than Reagan.

Convincingly win a Presidential election on a platform of shaving all the cats and dogs in the country, and Congress will suddenly begin to see the wisdom of shaving all the cats and dogs in the country.

Run on something and convincingly win, and you can move Washington.

That's the Edwards plan, and it's sound politics.

It's actually Rather simple Ezra. Google a certain Mr Nye Bevan MP. In his immortal words...

"I will make them have it, I will stuff their mouths with Gold!"

When he set up the NHS he used a mixture of bullying and compromise. The story of the negotiations relvolved around a series of virtual bribes and threats to destroy the British Medical Association (similar to the AMA her ein the USA) and buy them off. The owners of insurance companies and hospitals were compensated for their trouble and walked away shaken.

Furthermore one can look at Lloyd George's battles to institute National Insurance. Similar threats and bribes.

Kucinich's Single Payer is essentially an Eminent Domain purchase of Insurance assets, Edwards' plan is designed to reduce the value of those assets and drive them out of business with a golden parachute.

you can email me for more extensive details about the history of such negotiations. Bullying and bribery. That's the operational strategy. maybe have Kucinich's bill brouhgt out of moth balls as a threat to a more compromised deal.

"Convincingly win a Presidential election on a platform of shaving all the cats and dogs in the country, and Congress will suddenly begin to see the wisdom of shaving all the cats and dogs in the country."

And I'll note the reason that this isn't immediately apparent to Ezra:

Democrats have been playing defensive politics for the past 40 years (for some perfectly good reasons). The central idea for Democrats has been to hide from the electorate, not mobilize it.

Using voters as a pressure point has been the Republican playbook. We're used to parrying.

The real beauty of the Edwards campaign lies in its offering the Party a method to get back on offense.

"Edwards' plan is designed to reduce the value of those assets and drive them out of business with a golden parachute."

Bingo.

Well said, El Cid. Even in your charitable redescription of the Obama Way, you make it sound like he thinks charisma is a strategy. HOPE is not a strategy. It's all about not giving away the store to corporate power brokers. You're less likely to do this if you go into the bargaining process with a hard line that is FAR away from what those brokers are hoping to come away with. Republicans have understood this for years.

But I can't figure out what the Edwards plan is. How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point? The vulnerability?

Well, it remains to be seen exactly how things will transpire but I reckon there are two elements that speak to the superiority of the Edwards approach when it comes to effecting change:

a) Longer coattails. This has been written about extensively. Edwards will take more states against the Republican nominee than either Clinton or Obama, and this will give down ticket Democrats the greatest possible chance at gaining for their party larger congressional margins.

b) His fiery rhetoric probably is a big plus. I'm about as doctrinaire a free trader as you're likely to find in liberal circles, but even I think Edwards's views on trade may be useful if one's goal is to strengthen the safety net and modify the tax code. The last thing the plutocrats want is anybody messing with their ability freely engage in the no-holds-barred form of capitalism that has made them shockingly wealthy. A populist president who enters Washington possessed with both deeper congressional majorities and the imprimatur of the voters for his anti Wall Street pro worker views is probably in a far stronger position to exact meaningful concessions from the business community than either a connected DC insider or a national healer-in-chief. Edwards surely is correct about the need to take power. It won't freely be given.

I once thought you had a brain. Those days are over.

You and Atrios comments on Obama are as smart as a fifth grader. And that's where you belong.

Obama has created change. Of course I do things like look at his record. You copy and paste BS.

Obama will create change, I have seen it. You print a blog read by 100 people.

Wow. You are such an agent for change.

D, I don't think you saw the entirety of my point. I'm not just saying he can enforce laws. I'm saying Edwards can both use the bully pulpit and the levers of power to force those companies to go along with whatever plan we want. I'm really not entirely sure you understand just how bad the government could make life for the people running these companies, and how hard it can make it for these companies to do business.

"A populist president who enters Washington possessed with both deeper congressional majorities and the imprimatur of the voters..."

To piggyback on Jasper's comment and needlessly repeat my views, you really need to think about how the Republicans operated from '68 to '06, Ezra.

Riding into the capital with an army you've assembled in the provinces is an astonishingly good way to move opinion in the capital.

"How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point?"

"Simple. Voters."

Petey's half right, as usual. The primary answer is even more obvious, so obvious that it eludes a smarty pants like Ezra. It's exactly what Edwards is displaying with his fight-the-power message: politics. By the time an Edwards general election campaign is over, the greed and corrupting influence of oil companies, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, nuke power etc. would be so well understood by voters that the stage would be set for big change.

Here's how I see Edwards rhetoric being "actionable." Take health care, which will be one of the first undertakings of any Democratic president. Obviously, any health care proposal that's worth anything will be met with fierce opposition by insurance companies and drug companies. Hillary's approach will be politics as usual: pretend publicly that everyone is acting in good faith, cut deals, and hope our lobbyists outwork their lobbyists.

Edwards is sick of the game and sick of ignoring the elephants in the room in American politics. I see offering his health care proposal to Congress, then travelling the country and giving nationally televised addresses saying "this is what I'm for, and why. This is who is opposing it (drug companies, insurance companies), and why they're opposed to it. This is what they're doing to buy off your Congress. X, Y, and Z reasons that your Congressman gives for opposing my bill is pure spin. Tell him it's time to choose a side: the people he's elected to represent, or the companies that fund his campaigns."

Will it work? I have no idea, but I'd sure as hell like to see someone try. Accepting that there's only one way to do politics is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

From my place:

I've considered the same question before, and the first answer is that Ezra is essentially right: Edwards isn't going to transform the nation much more than anybody else. I'm just hoping for legislation addressing climate change and a good health care bill getting through the senate. The rest is too much to expect from any candidate, because Edwards is right -- the system sucks. And I also suspect that Edwards, like the rest of them, is wrong to think significant change can be achieved from within that system without a preexisting cultural transformation.

But to the extent that real change is possible, it's not clear to me that Edwards can tell us how he would do it. Let's think of the one time he has given us a specific plan for achieving change: his "make congresspeople hold their own health care hostage until they pass a universal health care plan" seemed at least vaguely feasible -- at least I thought so, and, if I recall, Klein was sympathetic to it -- but it earned him little real news coverage and plenty of acrimony. Garance Franke-Ruta insisted that "unconstitutional was unconstitutional" (before later admitting she didn't know if it was unconstitutional or not). Others said the same. And you can imagine the reactions of media elites had they bothered to take notice -- something between a collective eye-roll and a snort of disgust.

In short, Edwards has to run within the system to be president. Because he cares about poor people and he has made them his central issue, the media won't cover him, which is probably the only reason he hasn't taken a larger chunk out of Clinton's and Obama's support. If he actually had a plan that would answer Klein's question, if he genuinely knew how to make the system kneel before him, the last thing he could do is tell us how it was going to work. The system would finish the job it's started -- it would crush him the rest of the way, before he got the power to enact the super-secret plan. Now, the fact that this is a major concern may well suggest the system is beyond Edwards' power no matter what, but I think the point stands.

I say this as an Edwards supporter, but also as an Edwards skeptic. While I find his personal style repellent and never have managed to quite trust him, I think he should be rewarded for explicitly saying he wants to do awesome things. I'm not sure he can accomplish him, but I see still less reason to be optimistic about Obama or Clinton's "actionable" theories of change than Klein. Obama is simply wrong -- the system will not change fundamentally because he is a great guy. Given a solid majority and some smart political tactics (both of which I suspect he will have) I think he can pull some good stuff through anyway. I don't actually think he's nearly so high-minded as he makes himself out to be, but I'm making an effort to take candidates at their word this year. Clinton's plan, meanwhile, is completely ridiculous. While she might be able to eke out a few technocratic accomplishments by massaging the right rich white men, you don't get fundamental or even substantive changes by cuddling with union-busters like Mark Penn or Prettified-Bush-Doctrine peddlers like Anne-Marie Slaughter. Indeed, she seems to be well on her way to a term or two as Bush Lite. Edwards may not be able to transform our society from top to bottom, but I would say that theoretically fighting the system makes a lot more sense than begging it for treats or hoping it gives up in the face of one's overwhelming charisma.

"By the time an Edwards general election campaign is over, the greed and corrupting influence of oil companies, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, nuke power etc. would be so well understood by voters that the stage would be set for big change."

The mechanism is a bit more subtle than that.

What will matter in 2009 is that the Edwards platform of standing against corporate greed when it gets in the way of the public interest won the election and had coattails. Nothing impresses Washington like winning elections on a platform outside the current mainstream.

Those touting Edwards electability fail to recognize that at this point in an election cycle that the less attention a candidate gets the better they will poll with the opposition, but that once their negatives are scrutinized that they will drop in the polls. Once Edwards turns his attention to fighting conservatives rather then fellow democrats he will aleinate those Republicans and Independents who are considering voting for him. Once his record becomes an issue he will now have a major liability to worry about.

Ezra is absolutely right that Edwards has no plan to govern. He is not interested in actually accomplishing anything for anyone other than himself. He was too busy running for President to do a good job representing North Carolina in the Senate, and he has been too busy trying to figure out a way to get nominated to develop any real strategy for bringing about change once he was in office.

The analogy to FDR is quite flawed because FDR was only able to do what he did because of the Great Depression and World War II. These events were so extreme that they made things possible that before were impossible. We don't have that present in today's circumstances. We need a competent Democratic adminstration that has practical goals so that we can get people to trust in the idea that Government can be made to work for them. Only then will the progressive agenda stand a fighting chance. We need to walk before we can run. We should vote for the candidate is will be most competent and most capable of working within the system for as siginificant change as is possible at the current momemt. From there we can truly achieve the progressive agenda, but we can't skip over that vital first step.

"What will matter in 2009 is that the Edwards platform of standing against corporate greed when it gets in the way of the public interest won the election and had coattails. Nothing impresses Washington like winning elections on a platform outside the current mainstream."

Right, well we basically agree. I think, though, that long after Edwards has used up his mandate, he will still be able to be effective because he will have altered the fundamental assumptions at the heart of our politics, the way Reagan did. For Reagan it was taxes, government, and welfare queens = bad. For Edwards, it's corporate greed and lobbyists = bad. Everything good can flow from that. Of course, all of this will be cloaked in a "positive" message, like Reagan's, but good politics needs bad villians.

"Right, well we basically agree. I think, though, that long after Edwards has used up his mandate, he will still be able to be effective because he will have altered the fundamental assumptions at the heart of our politics, the way Reagan did. For Reagan it was taxes, government, and welfare queens = bad. For Edwards, it's corporate greed and lobbyists = bad. Everything good can flow from that. "

Sure. We definitely do agree.

My only differentiation with you is on the mechanism which this takes place, which is where Ezra is confused.

Run for President on a platform of establishing glass-domed cities on Mars, win convincingly with coattails, and for decades, Washington will be convinced that establishing glass-domed cities on Mars is What Wins Elections.

If you want to move the political mainstream, run on ideas outside the political mainstream and win big.

Dear Ezra:

Read "how to get to yes." It's one of those silly but good books they make you read if you ever take a course in negotiation strategies. if you want to understand how edwards point is "actionable" (no clue what you mean by the way by that) think of it as an agent who reps big artists once told me "if there is a penny left on the table- I am taking it for my client." Edwards understands something you do not- how to negotiate hardnose and business like. His advantage apparently is having worked in the private sector.

What evidence I've seen (see Tom Schaller, for example) suggests that almost all "independents" actually are either strongly conservative Republican voters or strongly liberal Democratic voters.

Whatever candidate you like, we need to get away from this apparent myth that there's this huge crowd of undecided independents just waiting for a uniter to come along and make them feel good.

Also, please, make the Democrats stop screwing the base, since, as the base, I'm really, really tired of being screwed. Really.

"Edwards understands something you do not- how to negotiate hardnose and business like."

I think it's really something more than this.

If Edwards suddenly became President tomorrow through some deus ex machina, while his negotiation ability would be helpful, it wouldn't solve the problem Ezra poses.

It's the fact that he's going to become President through the 2008 elections that makes his success possible, since he'll be in a significantly better negotiating position due to the politics that will ensue.

"It's the fact that he's going to become President through the 2008 elections that makes his success possible, since he'll be in a significantly better negotiating position due to the politics that will ensue."

Sure, but none of this happens without understanding how to negotiate to win first. What you said relies first on achieving what I said. Where the Democrats (including Obama and Clinton) go wrong is that crtical first step. They lost before they even started. Or, since, I love pop culture- this is about bringing John Wayne to progressivism. That's how you change politics. Adopting the myth that you are going to be tough deal with so half becomes a lot more than what you get under either Obama or Clinton, and over the long haul you create your own myth about what is the common understood narrative- but first you got to win by being smart about the set of assumptions in which you enter a fight with. To me this is basic cause and effect.

I think the disappointing thing about this article is that it is so bogged down in semantics.

Sure, Obama's theory of his ability to magically transmute the debate into consensus is *actionable* but is it anywhere near realistic and is it useful?

The neo-cons had a plan. Invading Iraq was the plan, but that didn't make it a useful response to 9/11.

Obama looks a lot like Tony Blair all over again. Fresh face, lots of hope, total belief in his personal ability to create transformational change.

I'm amazed at the lack of logic in this post. Lack of logic doesn't cover it since it's not merely lacking in logic, it's contrary to the logic of the post's premises themselves - illogical.

"an actionable theory of change"

Let's see. Obama's charisma is assumed to be "an actionable theory of change." Same for Hillary Clinton's working within the system - a system that has become so corrupt that the idea that the constitution is just a piece of paper seems to be the main theme of the current American power structure. But Edwards' fighting like hell for change is somehow empty.

We're going through the seemingly unendurable hell of a presidency with a president who fights like hell to make sure he and his billionaire buddies get everything they want. Nothing is sacred in that fight. Nothing. Not the constitution or laws or even picking people off the streets, locking them away and torturing them. Nothing.

But a president fighting like hell for the people rather than billionaires. Not something actionable?

Wouldn't it be nice if right now we had a president that went to Nevada and called a press conference and denounced Harry Reid's disgusting tactics in support of criminal behavior by some of the largest corporations in America?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that stacked the FCC forcing through a ruling that made it illegal to own too many publishing and media outlets, forcing the downsizing and decentralizing of control of the public dialog?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that invoked regulations over mega-businesses that were comparable to the regulations forced on unions?

Even in one of the few losses Bush experienced, the attempted destruction of Social Security (a cause Obama seems prepared to let his charisma rejoin), Bush fought like hell. If only Bill Clinton had fought that hard to establish a national medical plan in the nineties. He was elected on that basis. It was a major part of his platform. Yet his effort to bring it about was trivial. It wasn't a fight he was prepared to struggle through. NAFTA? Clinton was all for it. Media and telecom consolidation? Clinton was there. Support for the poor. Thumbs down from Bill. Obama doesn't like affirmative action, using rhetoric very similar to Republicans. Obama's "awesome God" doesn't seem to have much affection for gay rights. Maybe it's just that Obama sees both sides of the issue. Gay rights and damn gays. Equal time on that account. Which way do you think Obama's charisma will flip? Is there any reason that we should be guessing on that or any other issue Obama dances around.

I've forgotten the thousands of ways that Bush has used the bully pulpit of the presidency to damage America. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that did the same to save and nurture an America for all its people?

Obama and Clinton are the ones offering bullshit. Only Edwards is saying the truth, that America is so far gone that there won't be any real change without a real fight.

I think a more fair revision on Atrios (which, BTW, I thought was more dismissive of Obama than anyone else) is this:

Obama: I'll catch the flies with honey.

Edwards: I'll fight the flies by spraying vinegar at them.

Clinton: I know how these flies work and I can deal with them using honey, vinegar, and the occasional compromise.

who the hell wants to be around flies? more to the point- why are you creating the conditions to allow flies to stick around?

Flies can actually be attracted to vinegar. In nature it signifies rotting fruit.

"I think a more fair revision on Atrios (which, BTW, I thought was more dismissive of Obama than anyone else) is this:

Obama: I'll catch the flies with honey.

Edwards: I'll fight the flies by spraying vinegar at them.

Clinton: I know how these flies work and I can deal with them using honey, vinegar, and the occasional compromise."

Sorry no.

Obama offers nothing of the sort.

Edwards has studied his history in the era of FDR and Attlee and he knows when to demagogue and when to compromise and when to punch in the gut--when to make appeals and when to bully. He knows how this is done. Beating insurance industries is his professional life.

Clinton was the single most charismatic politician in our era. Look where that actuion got us. A doubling of the uninsured. Obama is a pale shadow of Clinton's charisma.

Actionable plan!

pffft.

The first part of an actionable plan is recognizing that there is an an oppoent to defeat. Then you start reducing the opponent by hook or crook.

"Edwards has studied his history in the era of FDR and Attlee and he knows when to demagogue and when to compromise and when to punch in the gut--when to make appeals and when to bully. He knows how this is done. Beating insurance industries is his professional life."

I don't know if he's studied his FDR and Atlee or not, but I do agree with you that his professional life of beating insurance companies has taught him the same lessons that FDR and Atlee understood.

Me and Petey, together again. Just like 2003-04.

Here's your answer, Ezra, and you hinted at it yourself:

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING.

And Edwards will do it.

The other two? Obama perhaps. Clinton most definitely not.

That's enough for me, right there. One of the three has repeatedly stated it will be a PRIORITY of his first term to pass public campaign financing for federal officeholders.

You do that, and the rest of the issues get decided on who has the best argument. Not who has spent the most money on a given politician.

EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD SUPPORT THIS. Only one of our major Presidential candidates consistently does. That's why he should be the nominee.

Hard questions. Simple answer: Edwards in 2008.

Obama's position is the system sucks and he will work within it like Hillary, but that he recognizes that constituencies that do not support him have valuable knowledge and political clout and should not be demonized, even when you are working against their interests. I do not think Edwards is on a Quixotic ego-trip. I think he is very sincere and really wants to help people. I would gladly vote for him in the general election, but I think Obama is the better candidate because of his inclusiveness, independent and sane foreign policy, personal background (How sentimental of me! Any narcissistic shut-in knows that it is easier for a politician to change the content of his or her character than position papers!).

Ezra,

Do you know anything at all about organizing? And I don't mean "organizing" a meeting, I mean running campaigns based on mobilizing an organized constituency. Like what unions do to win contracts and then move pubic policy proposals through legislatures?

If you knew anything about this and if you were actually paying attention to what Edwards has been doing for the past 3 years, you'd note that he's spent his time around organizations that can move a base in support of winning issues from corporations and elected officials. You'd know he knows what it takes and what the elements are in "fighting like hell to change the system".

This isn't rocket science and it is totally and completely actionable in a way that "the system melts" and "working the system" just aren't.

Why even ask this question, which is a comment on someone else's reduction of campaign messages!

WTF, dude, W.T.F.?

I think Ezra has gotten confused with this post.

What is really going on is that HRC says trust me, I can make change happen - without any idea what change she wants.

Obama says trust me, I can make change happen. I will get everybody into a room and change will happen and it will be soooo bipartisan.

Edwards says trust me, I can make change happen. I will fight and argue and take away the from the powerful what doesn't belong to them.

Which of those looks at all actionable?

Don N.

This is a very relevant discussion in my opinion, but I'm afraid Ezra's theories of change are all off the mark.

First, Obama. Its really annoying to read stupid shit like "Obama's plan is to get everyone in a room and let the force of his personality melt away all opposition." This reveals a complete ignorance of how decisions are made in government, what it takes to get the outcome that you want, and what Obama is actually proposing to do.

The most important factor in successful governing is having the personality and intelligence to find areas of consensus, build a coalition strong enough to force the recalcitrant parties to sign on, find creative solutions to difficult problems (because there is always more than one answer to a problem) and finally not piss people off in the process so that in the end your supporters are more jazzed up than your opponents. Oh and most importantly, frame your chosen solution in such a way that it makes it easy for people to support and difficult to oppose.

Each one of our candidates would have to do these things, its not like they'd each invent their own way of dealing with the governmental process. So the most relevant question is who shows the personality and intelligence in order to accomplish this?

For me, its Obama. Edwards is a great trial lawyer which is shown by the way he has crafted an argument that has gotten so many liberals all riled up for him. But actually governing takes a lot more finesse and savvy intelligence than that. I question whether Edwards has those qualities. But anyone who has read Obama's books must be persuaded that he has an active and agile mind, and one that has the fortitude to stand up to disasterous decisions like the Iraq War. That seems to me to be the most important factor in picking a president that will be able to affect the kind of change that we need and want.

What mostly annoys me about post like yours Nathan is that if you and the Democratic leadership were so damn smart as you think about "how to get things done" then why do you consistently fuck up? I am not, and I can only assume others here, aren't interested in your sage lectures. Get shit down, have a track record for actually, you know, winning against Mr. 24%, and then get back to me. Otherwise, your views of "how government works" are worth about as much as the stuff I flush down the toilet. I mean- seriously- on a day where FISA was barely stopped because of one obstinate Senator who understands how leadership (rather than your bs bout legislation works) it's just silly on its face to read your post.

"Does Edwards mean to use the bully pulpit to spark social organizing, as Reagan did with his tax cuts, creating enough voter pressure to scare Congress into constituent service before corporate fealty?"

I'd say that's definitely part of it. If you haven't paid attention to the structure of the campaign, which most reporters have ignored, Edwards has created a grassroots mechanism, One Corps, to communicate with supporters. the focus has been to involve the supporters in volunteer work in addition to campaign work. An organization like this has legs beyond the campaign.

Having an organization like this, that can petition and demonstrate, in tandem with the bully pulpit can do much to sway recalcitrant congresspersons.

When I read of the fortitude it took for Obama to give a speech, I wonder how far that will actually take him. When meeting D-Day veterans, does he remind them of his courage in reading a book about invasion? When faced with civil rights pioneers, does he spellbindingly recite the horrors he faced watching Eyes on the Prize?

Come on, folks. You have a fine candidate. Hagiography does him no favors. Claiming leadership from one speech on which nothing of significance was riding is just ludicrous.

Had Obama had an opponent who was NOT a certifiable nutcase, then maybe points could have been scored. But Obama could have given that speech naked, in French, holding a bowl of pachouli and a reefer, and he still would have beaten Alan Keyes.

How did Reagan pass massive tax cuts when the Dems controlled Congress, how did W. pass three tax cuts, start a silly war, and institute illegal spying and torture.
Congressmen are ruled by fear so you need to scare them to get things done. (25% are probably public servants or ideolugues not consumed by their next campaign or election but it should work on the other 75%)

How? By actually enforcing our laws, and strengthening protections and punishments for those who act against our Constitution and our health and safety. By restoring the DOJ and other agencies decimated by Bush. By beefing up our FDA and Consumer Products things. By pushing the DOJ and Congress to actively investigate and do their jobs. By actually punishing lawbreakers instead of encouraging them. By acting openly and transparently so that we see what he's doing. By enacting variations on the Family and Medical Leave Act and others that mandate Health coverage at affordable prices. By restoring a fairer tax code so there's enough revenue to help those in need and to fix our infrastructure. ...

Nathan, you leave us with the conclusion that people like you are one of two things.

The first is completely stupid. You claim to know the magic formula for getting what needs to be done, done. Yet the people you support have been in power within the party for 20 years and nothing has gotten done at all. So to believe this, you'd have to be a moron. As you are capable of operating the keyboard in front of you, this is clearly not the case and we move on to option 2.

You're a dishonest hack who doesn't believe anything you say. For ideological and class reasons, you pretend (possibly evne to yourself) that the people who believe as you do have this ruthless efficiency. However, as a practical matter, they clearly don't. You're able to do this because you're already seeing the things you want done, done.

You'd be surprised Soullite. I work in a local govt in deep Red America, and I am doing all I can in my profession to fight for progressive causes. But I can see what kind of arguments will appeal to the people around me, and I think that gives me some kind of insight.
So don't assume that I am some DNC supporter who thinks that the Democrats have been doing just fine for the last 20 years. I don't know where you got that idea, or the idea that the Dems have been doing the things that I laid out.

There is little intelligence, personality, strength of conviction or creativity in the Democratic leadership. They absolutely suck at framing a positive message around their chosen solution to a problem. They haven't been able to build a coalition even within their own party (the blue dogs)!

I think Edwards would be a good president. He is clearly my second choice. I just think Obama will be better suited to the moment we will find ourselves in after 2008, which will be a large Democratic majority in Congress. That is the time for a unifying consensus builder, not a partisan fighter. The time for partisan fighting has been the last 15 years, when we could really have used a John Edwards as the Senate Majority Leader to make the case to stand up to Bush to the country.

But the Republicans are going to be in the political wilderness after 2008, just like the Dems were between 2002 and 2006. And if Bush had not taken the Rovian track of polarization during those years, just think how much he could have accomplished for the conservative agenda(thankfully he screwed it up and totally discredited conservatism.) All I'm saying is we have a chance to get 60 to 70 percent of the country on our side. there is no need to alienate people for no reason, when practically Obama and Edwards are going to pursue the same policies. (oh wait except for mandates! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!)

This is how I see it and this is why I support Edwards.

I think Senator Obama has already lost round 1 in the fight by already signaling to the insurance & drug companies that he is willing to compromise before the talks even start. With this strategy Obama will fight tooth and nail just to get incremental change.

Edwards, on the other hand, has already won round 1 by putting the insurance & drug companies on notice that he is no easy mark and will only negotiate from a position of strength. They either get with the program or they can settle for scraps. The longer they hold out the less leverage they will have. Edwards will also have to fight tooth and nail but he won't have to settle for what the insurance & drug companies will give to him, they will have to settle for what he and the American people will give to them.

If you were trying to reform the system not just make changes around the edges which position would you rather be in - Edwards (position of strength) or Obama's (position of weakness)?

Edward's has a vision for what we can achieve, Obama & Clinton have only a process that they will use. Edwards has experience fighting against insurance & drug companies. He knows that they will throw everything at you including the kitchen sink to get their way. They don't DO negotiating unless they are forced into it. Edwards is just the man to do it.

When I posted my earlier comment I did so before reading the other comments. After reading them I noticed that a lot of people here seem to make this issue more complicated than it really is. I hope I don't offend any of you but I think I see why a lot you support Obama (law professor). Like Obama you guys seem to get distracted by all kinds of lofty cerebral discussion & theory about this issue when all it requires is using a little bit of common sense. You never give your opponent an opening they can drive a truck through unless you want to lose. It's really that simple and because of Edwards background as a trial attorney he knows it.

Nathan, if you're under the impression that Bush had a hard time getting his agenda implemented, I'd imagine you just bullshitted your way right out of this argument in most peoples eyes. thats not an argument that can be considered even remotely credible.

Of course ,that conservatives Dems think they did a good job blocking Bush's priorities would go a long way in explaining just how things got this bad.

Change cannot NOT happen.
No lack of an actionable theory of change can change that fact. You are, in essence, worried about the process. You should be worried about the vision.

Bush never had much of a vision, so you never got to see how a vision can mobilize people...except toward war, and other bullshit wastes of time, blood and dollars.

Obama is a good man. If you were to ask him though, he would say that he hopes Edward wins and chooses him as a vp. He sees that he needs more time. You can see the foot hovering over the brake pedal.