It's much harder for me to identify substantive differences in the platforms put forward by Obama and Edwards than it is between either of them and Clinton.
Is it the person or the policies that matter more in the preference for Obama over Edwards? Obama seems like a classier version of Edwards, with a life narrative and an agenda that resonates quite a bit more with people's aspirations for the country, especially on the racial front. What they'd do differently once in office is tougher to determine.
My take: Edwards presents an attitude toward big corporations that is compared to that of Teddy Roosevelt and he is accordingly expected by many progressives to be one who will enforce anti-trust laws unlike anyone since Teddy. Also, Edwards is thought to be more likely to give the go ahead on prosecutions against currently incumbent officials for whom compelling evidence shows cause for jurisprudence in regard to crimes committed over the past several years. Obama is more conciliatory in his rhetoric, and, for those who would prefer to see justice done in response to any serious crimes uncovered as part of current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department, Obama is not seen as assurance this justice will be done; he is seen as one who will ignore whatever crimes might be uncovered in order to adhere to his ideal of unification for a now-divided citizenry.
In regard to his upcoming treatment by the GOP, it's most noteworthy not that Obama appears conciliatory, something that endangered Republicans might appreciate, but that Obama has a notably consistent liberal voting record -- something which the GOP will almost certainly rally against in the coming months. At the same time, if the country is undergoing a resurgence of popular support for liberal politics, which appears to be the case, then efforts by the GOP to use *liberal* as a defamatory label to undermine opponents in the Democratic coalition will actually serve to promote those opponents, no matter who they are.
Regarding Edwards, he's been slammed pretty severely in some influential circles for his work as a trial lawyer and for his financial success -- as if it's OK for Republicans to be wealthy but not for Democrats -- but in my estimation it's apparent this negativity has not influenced voters in widespread way. Instead, what might be hurting Edwards now is his consistent stance against "corporate greed" because much of the media is actually a part of that heterogeneous corporate entity -- and it's one that Edwards implies he will attack as President. Also, Edwards has refused all campaign contributions from corporations and lobbyists, which eliminates a principle source of campaign funding needed to get his campaign message publicized. Therefore, on two fronts his actions bring substantial constraints to his ability to get his message out to voters: One, his campaign has less money to pay for publicity, and two, the media is incited to avoid giving him any free publicity. Whatever the case, like him or not. Edwards place 2nd in the Iowa primary, but still gets way less news coverage compared to Clinton. Notably, Clinton is a corporate darling, as evidenced by the huge donations her campaign receives from corporate lobbyists. It may be that Edwards has made enemies of big media players, as well a some big corporations, while at once failing to appeal to enough voters by other avenues of communication. As a result, what many people hear about Edwards may be mostly what his enemies want people to hear.
As far as Clinton goes, she is widely viewed by liberals as a Republican in Democratic clothing -- I know this probably sounds crazy to right wingers who hate Hillary, but what I'm saying is true: Most real liberals dislike or outright despise Hillary Clinton's political record for being too conservative and for her support of the Bush administration as evidenced by her voting record in the Senate on the Iraq war and other divisive matters. What Hillary going for her self is same as it ever was: She has the advantages of nepotism. But I think she's maxed out her exploitation of her famous last name, and expect her now to react under pressure much like the Bushies do. We can expect her to play the 9-11 card now that she is losing, for her to come out with hyper negative attacks on Obama, the guy who is her main opposition. I don't think this tactic will work, for two reasons: One, too many voters are hip to the 9-11 fear tactic, and acting like a fear-mongering neocon is going to make her look just like, yes, another fear-mongering neoconservative, and such exposure will likely cost her even more votes than than it costs the real neocons today. Secondly, personal attacks have proven ineffective against Obama because he's too fast on his fee, as they say, for that kind of shit to hit the mark. Obama demonstrates a charismatic ability to mentally process an incoming slur fast enough to spontaneously return an effective and positive retort, like when Hillary, during a national debate, condescendingly boasted of her many many years and years of experience. Obama promptly responded with a tone of appreciation for Hillary's awesome background as he stridently assured her that he'd certainly remember to keep her in mind when selecting his advisers. That was the end of that line of abuse from Hillary, then caught looking stupid while Obama continued speaking with his charismatic charm.
Anyway, beyond the petty politics engaged by candidates today during their quest for the nomination, there will be the serious politics of the actual presidency. It his here that *leftists* like me (who might comprise a majority of the non-Republican voters today) see only one significantly redeeming outcome to a Clinton presidency: We believe Clinton will make centrist appointment(s) to the Supreme Court, while we expect any of the Republican candidates, if elected, will appoint radical judges to ultimately form a court that will ensure the long-term continuance of an unaccountable unitary executive, of continued erosion of civil liberties, and reversal of previous court decisions that we view as crucial to our liberty. My point is, we are united, most of us who now lend allegiance to the Democratic *coalition*, by the issue of upcoming Supreme Court appointments more than anything else. As such, we will vote for Hillary even though many of us see her as a person who will change nothing because her record is largely one of support for the status quo. We want change in a liberal direction, but we view no change as better than continued change in the neoconservative direction now promoted by all the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul).
All that said, my opinion on Hillary's chances is the same now as it was a year ago. She will not get the nomination. Period. Simply put, she is too conservative to get the votes at a time when the political pendulum is swinging back to the left, and a lot of people just don't like her anyway.
And Edwards, like him or not, is simply not really connecting with enough voters. When it comes down to it, I've yet to hear Edwards speak in a way that resonates with me. Ever. If I parse the intellectual points he makes, then I sometimes find reason to support him. For example, I advocate his apparent inclination to pull a Teddy Roosevelt trust-busting assault on corporate oligarchies, but the arguments he presents are couched in speeches that fall well short of the emotional appeal that is politically requisite. It takes commitment to make the moves that Edwards makes, and his commitment is commendable, and I think his direction is clearly established by his record, but that doesn't move voters, much less persuade the many voters who already think him a scoundrel, however mistakenly.
Obama, by contrast, has avoided making committing, demonstrative moves during this campaign, but he is still more successful in his appeal to voters. Rather than attempt to persuade voters by making forceful, intellectual moves on his ascent, he appeals to voters' feelings -- and it is here where Obama has a strength that is too often lacking in liberal politicians of recent years. In recent months Obama has been noted for counting as absent for key votes before the Senate (the better to avoid those committing moves while everybody is watching), but he is delivering where it actually counts most in the race for the presidency now -- by winning over the huge number of newly undecided voters by sharing his appealing visions of a better America. And for those of us who demand more than rhetorical appeal, Obama has a Senate voting record that strongly suggests Obama would be the most liberal president we've had since the time of Kennedy or earlier.
How progressive Obama would turn out to be might depend greatly on the influence of The People while he is in office. Sometimes a president does great things without having any plans for doing those things prior to being elected. Teddy Roosevelt, for example, almost certainly had no plans to break up monopolistic corporations prior to taking office -- the historical trust-buster made such progress in response to the will of the people.
And it was good, as will most likely be what's next.
