"To put the contrast another way, where Obama promised to radically change our politics, Edwards promised to radically change our policies."

Yup.

The next nine months are going to be an excellent test of whether or not a progressive movement has been created in America.

The next nine months are going to be an excellent test of whether or not a progressive movement has been created in America.

Phooey. It will be a test of many things, one of which is which kind of progressive message has most traction with progressives.

a floating meta-commentary asserting Obama's personal superiority

Huh? This seems a perverse reading of what he was saying.

I think you're right, Sanpete, that wasn't quite what i was trying to convey. Edited.

Look, it's cool that Barack can get 20,000 young people well disposed to liberalism (and curious about his media celebrity) to come out to his speeches. But that's the farthest thing in the world from generating a more engaged and progressive citizenry that will actually produce different policy results. Maybe Obama can raise the spirits of a lot of young liberals, but that's way down on the list of things we need to get done.

Now if Obama is saying that he'll turn disengaged middle-American swing voters into engaged policy wonks who will be able to comment on Ezra Klein health care posts, then he's promising something that would be genuinely useful. But I don't see how he can deliver on that.

I'll go look for the speech online and see if I can make sense of it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to settle for billions of dollars in lifesaving humanitarian aid and other Edwards proposals.

"a long scenario connecting energy conservation to a collapse of Middle Eastern dictatorships (without petrodollars, they'll need to invest in education and development)"

Maybe Pollyanna has a point, but then again maybe the societies would utterly collapse, or the dictatorships would tighten the screws even more, or all sorts of most unpleasant things would occur. The countries in the Middle East are fundamentally screwed up societies, and fundamental societal change generally takes decades or more.

Even if they do "invest in education" because their money has run dry, that investment will take a long time to pay off.

You were impressed with this drivel?

Look, it's cool that Barack can get 20,000 young people well disposed to liberalism (and curious about his media celebrity) to come out to his speeches. But that's the farthest thing in the world from generating a more engaged and progressive citizenry that will actually produce different policy results. Maybe Obama can raise the spirits of a lot of young liberals, but that's way down on the list of things we need to get done.

These are very useful skills in selling a progressive program, and in creating more progressives. They don't need to be wonks about it, but being engaged is important.

Sanpete, I don't see how increased enthusiasm from young idealistic liberals helps us accomplish our goals. Those people (of whom I suppose I'm one) are going to be with us no matter what. There's nothing particularly transformative about advances in that demographic.

Now if you have a plan to increase the progressivism of some swing constituency -- the white working class, or hispanics, or suburbanites -- then you can win more elections, get more support, and change the game.

I can see Obama selling the country on Obama. But I don't see him selling the country on progressivism. I don't think that's even part of his mission statement.

If you want to change America's politics, you have to stand for something outside of current mainstream politics.

Ostap is correct. Authoritarians don't usually respond to economic adversity by opening up their societies. Even if they should, doesn't mean they will.

It's weird seeing Ezra (and Matt Yglesias) so thrilled by Edwards' channeling of Thomas Friedman.

I don't think it's fair to cede the grassroots and local-civic stuff entirely to Obama. Obama, of course, is an experienced community organizer, but Edwards also has put alot into his inspiring OneCorps program, especially in regard to Katrina.

a comment I wrote on another site:

". . .My main criterion for a candidate at this point is 1) good values, policies, decision-making, etc. 2) a commitment to local, precinct-level organizing, not only to persuade people to vote in a certain way, but also for community service. . ."

What is interesting to me re: local organizing, is that the first national Democratic politician to talk about organizing was Dean in his DNC chair campaign, with his promotion of a "50-state strategy" and strong state and local parties.

Will either Edwards or Obama talk about & endorse Dean's local organizing efforts, or think about having their campaigns collaborate in some way with Dean's DNC people?

Also, Carol Shea-Porter ran an amazing grassroots campaign to win in 2006. Porter, I imagine, will be busy enough running for re-election in 2008, and has roots as a Clark supporter, but are the campaigns courting Porter and her hard-working volunteer base?

"Now if you have a plan to increase the progressivism of some swing constituency -- the white working class, or hispanics, or suburbanites -- then you can win more elections, get more support, and change the game"

That's exactly what obama is saying. For progressives to accomplish thier goals they need more than 49 dems i the senate (some of who aren't even progressive). They need more. Obama is trying to sell swing voters by being post-partisan and he's also trying to engage new voters who could drastically awing the election the progressive way.

Edwards is pushing progressive poplicies, but progressives have been doing this for a long time and have only gone backwards. Bill Clinton won in 92 but he was no true progressive.

The only way progressives can win is by changing politics, meaning adding swing voters and indys who hate partsianship and adding people who have never been involved in politics. That's howyou start a movement for change.

"Look, it's cool that Barack can get 20,000 young people well disposed to liberalism (and curious about his media celebrity) to come out to his speeches."

Why do you think Obama is just drawing young liberals? Nathan Newman has written precisely about Obama's potential to draw into the Democratic fold new groups based on movement building around issues like transit equity and work-family balance. Not what we blogosphere liberals are into (nuances of health care plans, how fiercely one state's one's opposition to the war in iraq, and innovative policy proposals in other areas), but the stuff that can touch people's day-to-day lives.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/14/obama_as_movement_builder

Is Edwards more of a movement builder? I like both of these guys, but I think with Obama we'll get the changed politics + good policies, while with Edwards its mostly the latter. Obama has already expressed his willingness to borrow the good ideas of his opponents...

Neil, Obama's appeal goes well into the swing voters, which he very much has his eye on. And having liberals more engaged does help win elections and other fights. These are both good things.

Spin away, Petey. You don't see anything progressive about Obama because you're determined to see things in whatever way helps Edwards. Obama's as progressive as Edwards, but in a different way. Obama has visions of fundamentally changing the process in a way that will make progressivism work in ways not possible now. Edwards has visions of every progressive goal ever conceived, pretty much. Each is dreamy in his own way, and I'm not sure either can deliver on the dreamier parts of their visions, based on their skimpy records on the national level. That ought to be more of an issue than who has promised how much.

Is Edwards more of a movement builder?

I think so, largely for regional reasons. As Paul Waldman goes into above, the South cares more about regional stuff than everyone else does, and being able to wrap up left-wing policies in a thick southern accent does a whole lot to expand your movement. It's especially important I don't think that Obama can offer anything comparably significant.

I wish I knew more about what policies Obama is willing to push. Given that the Senate calendar is stacked in our favor for the next presidential term (40 R's are up for election in the next 4 years but only 27 D's), a Democratic president may have an opportunity to push his policy agenda through a compliant Congress.

This isn't the time for post-partisanship. The issues mix gives us partisan advantage, we need the kinds of policies that come out of Democratic think tanks, and we're looking at four years of strong Democratic majorities in both houses. We've got what it takes to win the partisan game now -- let's not throw it away.

Edwards said better things, but Obama said things better? No, I can't agree with that. The clips that I saw on Hardball showed Obama to be rambling, unfocused, and diffuse. Edwards gave a far stronger presentation, IMO.

I wish I knew more about what policies Obama is willing to push.

I wish I knew that about all three major candidates, as well as how well they could push, naturally. None of the leading three set the world on fire as Senators.

There will still be Blue Dog Democrats and the need for cloture votes, so I don't think we'll be able to count on congressional compliance for anything controversial. There will be a partisan advantage, but there will be a need for more.

Drew, could it be that seeing only clips might be the problem?

"To put the contrast another way, where Obama promised to radically change our politics, Edwards promised to radically change our policies."

I though the karl rove style dirty tricks shop obama got running really proved obama is walking the talk. Oh wait... maybe not.

And it's too bad they didn't invite Hillary the speak I was really looking forward to klein's fair and balanced critique.

Drew,

If you watch the entire speeches like the writer had, you may have a different opinion.

I work in tv news and it's our job to take sound bites and paint pictures. And please believe personal agenda comes into play.

Also some people will never concede to somebody doing a good job regardless, just because they have already picked a side.

"To put the contrast another way, where Obama promised to radically change our politics, Edwards promised to radically change our policies."

I'll take changing policies any day, any year. Changing poltics is just well....trendy...faddish. it has no staying power.

You change policies and the politics will follow. Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich knew this so well, when they destroyed the 1993 Health care bill because they knew it would change politics, to benefit Democrats and the people Dems protect, as fully as the New Deal and Social Security cemented the D's political values for decades.

Obama is still just talk and no do. Edwards is the more transformnative candidate...Obama may be the pretty girl at the prom while Edwards is the student council president. If they are my 2 choices I have no difficult decisions

Changing poltics is just well....trendy...faddish. it has no staying power.

Glad to know that. Now we don't have to worry about all the stuff we've accused the Republicans of changing for the worse about the political process. Whew!

Obama is still just talk and no do. Edwards is the more transformnative candidate...

And the evidence is? What did Edwards actually do as Senator? No one has earned the bragging rights on being the doer. So far they're both talkers.

"What did Edwards actually do as Senator?" Are you kidding me? This is the guy who cosponsored the bill that helped us to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and brought peace and freedom to the entire middle east! That is why our troops are even now being greeted as liberators with flowers (when they return home in a box.) He helped make the war a bipartisan effort.

Think of the courage that it took to be for the war back when it was so unpopular! Hillary merely voted for it, Edwards enabled it.

"And it's too bad they didn't invite Hillary the speak I was really looking forward to klein's fair and balanced critique."

The word I have is that Hillary will speak tommorrow. She was scheduled for today but the schedule changed.

I've been going back and forth between Edwards and Obama for some months now. Obama attracts me because of the excitement he would bring to the campaign.

But bottom line, I don't really know what he'd DO if elected. He just hasn't told us. Edwards has. He's the only one with serious, substantive progressive proposals.

Hillary? How can she ask for progressive votes when her primary public relations aide is a union-buster? We've had enough Democrats like that in my lifetime to choke a horse.

So right now, I'm with Edwards. He's the only one I really trust on the issues.

This isn't the time for post-partisanship.....We've got what it takes to win the partisan game now -- let's not throw it away.

You change policies and the politics will follow. Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich knew this so well, when they destroyed the 1993 Health care bill because they knew it would change politics..

Yes yes yes. I like Obama. He's my Senator (BTW) and I would be perfectly happy if he were the nominee. But Edwards is the more seasoned and electable candidate. You change politics by *winning on a clear platform* and radically changing policies. Of COURSE politics will follow. Those of you Obama partisans who are blaming Edwards for the war or calling him 'Friedman' and other such nonesense, are - strangely enough - stuck in the politics of the past/present. 2008 is a chance for major progressive change which hasn't been available in more than a generation. For fuck's sake, choose wisely! If it's Obama, fine, but take care.

"But Edwards is the more seasoned and electable candidate."

Evidence, please?

I've seen this episode before...stop me if you know how it ends...Ezra and Neil push Edwards as the guy progressives should back (while they also either outright or subtly ding Obama), others disagree, and there's a huge fight in comments!