I'm pretty much where you are on the Obama or Edwards choice, the difference is that I don't read very far into the Obama vs. Edwards discussions (mostly at dKos) because the level of vitriol in the 'discussions' quickly becomes unbearable.  

As an Obama partisan, but someone who would also be profoundly delighted with Edwards as a candidate. (We've contributed to both campaigns), I want to add a few quotes from an op-ed in this morning's NYTIMES about OBama's health plan.

"... the similarity of the emerging proposals is exactly what's interesting. I don't think you can call it a consensus, but there is nonetheless a road forward being paved and a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are on it -- not just presidential candidates, but governors from California to Pennsylvania, unions and businesses like Safeway, ATT and Pepsi.

...

It is a coherent approach. And it seems to be our one politically viable approach, too. No question, proponents have crucial differences -- like what the individual versus employer payments should be. And attacks are certain to label this as tax-and-spend liberalism and government-controlled health care. But these are not what will sabotage success.

Instead, the crucial matter is our reaction as a country when the attacks come. If we as consumers, health professionals and business leaders sit on our hands, unwilling to compromise and defend change, we will be doomed to our sliding global competitiveness and self-defeating system. Avoiding this will take extraordinary political leadership. So we should not even consider a candidate without a plan capable of producing agreement.

The ultimate measure of leadership, however, is not the plan. It is the capacity to take that plan and persuade people to find common ground in it. The politician who can is the one we want.

The lure of Senator Obama is that he might have the background, education, intelligence, and experience to lead us into post-partisan solutions  to our most important issues.

Another very thoughtful post, Chris.

I'm leaning Obama over Edwards, but both would be outstanding nominees.  The Obama vs. Edwards discussions are childish and do not contain much intelligent debate.  Intelligent discussions on where the candidates stand on the issues would be welcome.  However, it seems like many posters treat their candidate like their favorite sports team.

Good, interesting post, Chris!

I am a Christian, and my faith is based on the Christian call to social activism (epitomized wll by the Sermon on the Mount, and the book of Luke).

I totally "get" Obama, and how thoroughly infused his politics are by his social activism faith, and vice versa. The two go hand-in-hand.

Great to know that Democrats who are not necessarily religious are "getting" Obama's thinking, and are not friggtened away by someone who is openly religious.

I have a similar political background, coming from the social justice arena to electoral politics, and I think the best way to explain the choice is this: Obama is a mature progressive and Edwards is a childish one. Obama exercises progressive instincts while recognizing the limitations of the debate. He traces your evolution, but takes it a few more steps (he is after all, a little bit older). From campus liberal to community organizer, to constitutional lawyer to state senator to senator - he has had to recognize a greater and greater number of people who don't agree with him on his basic principles. He is so successful because he can get people who wouldn't agree with those principles stated baldly to come on board for progressive legislation because he works so hard to find common ground.

John Edwards is sort of the opposite of this - he has not spent a lifetime cultivating progressive values. He has tried to truck them in for the campaign, and it has worked to a suprising degree, but his instincts are not terribly mature. His populism is as designed to appeal to political expediency as his centrism was. Edwards has the zeal of the newly converted, but it really seems childish, leaving him chasing every new shiny object around the room and screaming how much he wants it. Obama works for it, Edwards demands it.

I lean the other way (towards Obama) but your points are well taken.  Part of the problem, of course, is that the distinctions are shades of grey, so that fairly minor differences (health care, foreign policy, etc) become huge deals.  Obama tends to buck BOTH conservative and liberal orthodoxy (or at least question the premise...it's the con law prof thing), which causes some disonance for folks who believe in the liberal orthodoxy.

But the larger point is falling in love with your candidate.  Once you have, everything they do is wonderous...and the other candidates are unprincipled charlatans.  It's a natural part of the primary election cycle...and unavoidable.  Rationality?  C'mon.  Politics is all about how you "feel"...emotional connections.  It would be nice if we all made perfectly rational choices, but we don't.

As someone who feels he "gets" Obama, I would like to know what you mean by "Yet, often times, Obama seems to buy into that mentality." (the contorted insider view of politics).  

I highly recommend reading Obama's 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, for a very deep look at Obama's family, childhood, and his work as a community organizer in Chicago, including the moment when he found his faith. Obama the politician aside, it's also one of the best autobiographies I have ever read, up there with U.S. Grant's memoirs.

In my opinion, every person who wants to "get" Barack Obama--or who think they "get" him--owes it to him or herself to read Dreams from My Father.

I think you are onto something here.  I lean Obama, but Edwards is my second choice.  The reasoning is tied into your post hear somehow.  It might be the feeling I have sometimes about Edwards just talking a good line when he has not always been a progressive, while Obama has (mostly), but does not always talk it up.

Actions speak louder that words to me, and while Obama has to show his actions by his votes 'currently,' Edwards is free to just talk.

As I said, I like both these guys, but maybe I feel that Obama walks the talk more than Edwards has, enough to tip may lean towards Obama.

I think Democrats have always failed to grasp a key distinction when running for office:  on the campaign trail, policies don't really matter.  It's the core of the person, their personality that really comes through, and that's what people vote for.  Whatever policy discussion we have until November of 08 need to be taken with a grain of salt.

So when I see Obama's policies, and they seem more middle of the road than I would like, I realize a lot of that is posturing.  But for me, it's necessary posturing since he can't afford to come up with the more radical proposals we see coming from Edwards.  Part of that is the stigma of being the "angry, black candidate", which won't get him far.  Another part is successful electioneering.

I am stunned by just how vehement and certain so many commenters appears to be of their choices.

I would much rather be us, excited over our choices, then the other side who can't decide who to settle on.

While I like Obama, I admire Edwards for his focus on poverty, an important but often overlooked aspect of American politics.  Last year, Edwards embarked on a Stop! Poverty campus tour, informing college students about the ease with which we can lessen poverty.  According to the Borgen Project, it costs only $19 billion to end world hunger, yet we have spent over $320 billion on the Iraq war.  The Millenium Development Goals are entirely feasible, and I hope that America begins to see poverty as an important campaign issue.

Al Gore's book signing sold out in 45 minutes here in sunny Seattle. We meet to celebrate sweet reason with Algore, and listen to the guy who is having too much joy in his life to run a campaign for president. it's more fun for him to save the planet and democracy in the USofA.

Oh for sweet reason here and on Daily Kos. I return each day but am soon run off by the neener-neerner.

Let's learn more about our two favorite candidates: [BTW, isn't it possible that they will run together?]

Suggested reading: I liked Four Trials, by Edwards. What else?

Thanks dear friends. See you at Yearly Kos.

It is clear that you don't get Obama from your posts.  I get him.  He's gonna get my vote.

Great post, Chris, and thank you for your continued thoughtfulness on this divide that we have seen play out on the blogs between Obama and Edwards. It's very interesting, and I have had to come to terms with it over the last several months among my own friend and ally circles.

The bottom line for me is that I want to win. I honestly feel that if we don't win this election, humanity is in serious trouble. And what I know about our electorate is that they do not vote for policy platforms. They vote for people they connect with; people they like. It's not the way it should be. But it's the way it is. Obama is a dream come true for me because I believe he can win, and I believe the progressive movement -- and I mean the broad progressive coalition (people of color and progressive whites) -- can actually use him as a vehicle for long-term and sustained progressive change. It's the first time I have seen so many Black people and white people equally excited about the same candidate. Bobby Kennedy in 1968 was probably the last time. That is an enormous opportunity, and there is no way I can pass it up. It doesn't mean I don't like Edwards. I just don't see the same kind of profound opportunity with him.

I found Shrum's account of Edwards' decision on the war also fascinating -- the loser Democratic consultant class is a reality I think we all get at this point, but that doesn't make it any less tragic to read about it. It actually made me feel more sorry for Edwards than angry at him, and makes me appreciate his apology even more. So thanks for sharing!

Here's an opportunity to get a closer view:

June 4, at 7 p.m. EDT, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama will discuss faith and poverty live on CNN.

"Faith Guiding Our Votes: A Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty, hosted by Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
"After the forum concludes, we hope you and everyone at your watch party will visit us online at

http://www.sojo.net/

and join in pledging to cast your ballot in 2008 based on the candidates' commitment to overcoming poverty. "

Wow - this is the single best thread I have ever read discussing Obama v Edwards. And one of the best threads, period, I have read during my short time reading blogs.

It also gives support to my naive belief that most Obama supports also like Edwards - and vice versa.

One question to the group (and painfully off-topic, sorry Chris!):

Do you think a Obama/Edwards ticket is a real possibility? (or Edwards/Obama?) If so, do you think it is wise, strategically?

I think that Obama presents himself as more moderate/conservative than he actually is because, as a Black man, he has to bend over backwards to reassure main stream (i.e., White) America, that he can be trusted with the reigns of power.  That he's not going to get all "radical" and "extreme" and other adjectives used to describe those who give a damn about 'the people'.  They need to feel 'safe' with him and that is a lot harder, the bar a lot higher, with a Black candidate seeking White votes than for a White candidate seeking White votes.  Edwards can afford to position himself further to the left because, as a White man, he will be given a degree of benefit of doubt that a Black candidate will not and too an extent, a woman will not.  He will receive a degree of trust from the main stream that Blacks and women in general do not get.  

I don't believe that Edwards has suddenly become the great liberal, any more than I believe Obama has become a 'moderate'.  I think that even in a Democratic primary, Obama has to portray himself somewhat more conservatively than a White candidate would need to, in order to reassure even the Democratic base, that he is a 'safe enough' Negro. (Especially trying to make history as the first anything.)

I think they are each doing what they think they need to do to become the nominee and ultimately the President. It's not hard to figure out, IMO. It's a simple matter of Black and White.

I belong to the Lean Edwards, Second Choice Obama, Heartsick for Gore, Still Love Dean Party.

Thanks everybody here for bringing down the heat and cranking up the reason.

I lean Edwards because he pickets with union members and helps with union organizing which was my job at one time, after I got fired, then was blackballed for union activity on and off the job - by a non-profit poverty agency!! Argh. I know what fight for survival for self and brothers and sisters is, what fight against establishment is, what losing tastes like on the tongue.

I'll betcha anything that both Obama and Edwards are authentic, not scripted, but sometimes cautious, sometimes cunning, and I am as certain as can be that both are good men.  

Very interesting, fair and generous. And I like the comments as well.

Personally I have to admit that I like Edwards a lot, and would not hesitate to support him if he is the one closest to beat Hillary early next year. Edwards supporters, however, can be quite annoying... especially when they insist on making shit up about Obama
;)

We should concentrate on taking on the Republicans instead of fellow Democrats.

What the hell is up with Gore lately?

I was pretty sure he wasn't getting back in. But now I'm not so sure..

Really interesting and thoughtful post.  I am going the opposite direction and leaning Obama (I still haven't made a final choice) because I look more at record and results than rhetoric.  While Obama may not be as bold in his statements and policies in this particular campaign as Edwards, Obama time and again votes the right way on important issues and that is important to me.  Edwards record in the Senate, on the other hand, just doesn't match up with his 2008 rhetoric and that bothers me.

My first Presidential primary vote was in 1984 for Gary Hart and I am pleased to say I cannot remember the last time the Dems had this strong a field.  For the first time I can remember (even 1992), I feel that Dems really have wind in their sails and could rack up an impressive and possibly historic victory in 2008.  It is really exciting.

to get to the present, let's not ignore the geography and the requirement that one from Congress must give consideration to his/her constituency.

One should also look to educational background to discern the evolution of each man.

Sounds like UCC church I go to in Levittown - without the profanity in the sermons.

I suspect, or at least hope, that Obama genuinely believes in and wants to pursue progressive goals, but that, being still relatively new to the high-stakes and high-powered world of national politics, and especially at the presidential campaign level, he hasn't quite found his voice or path.

He's doubtlessly getting all sorts of advice from all sorts of people, and there's just been too much of it for him to have been able to assimilite and sort through it yet, with the result that he sometimes underwhelms, and sometimes disappoints.

I kind of liken it to a rookie pitcher who just got called up to the big leagues after a stellar rise through the minors, and is having a so-so first half of the season as he adjusts to the pressures, challenges and complexities of big league ball.

I suspect that by winter he'll get his act together and we'll know if he's the real deal or more flash than substance. And it's important that he keeps getting asked tough questions that seek out substantive answers instead of squishy centrist boiletplate that occasionall veers left, and occasionally right.

We need substance, depth, breadth, specifics, foresight. This election has got to be about more than just ABB (Anybody But Bush) or ABAR (Anybody But A Republican).

The US has at least this much in common with Iran:  it is impossible for an atheist to become President of either nation.  I say that's not a good thing.  But it is a fact.  So, I bow to the reality that I must pretend to give a damn about this or that candidate's "faith".

Okay, help a poor atheist pretend.  Should I feel reassured by a candidate who sincerely believes in a personal god?  What would Jesus do about immigration, health insurance, the national debt, or the intra-Muslim civil war in Iraq?  And should I take Huckabee's, Romney's, or Obama's word for it?

Here's my secret hope:  Obama no more believes in Christ than he believes in Santa Claus.  When he hears a voice from above, he assumes it's coming from a hidden loudspeaker, not from heaven.  When he analyzes a question down to the irreducible "values" which must be balanced against each other, he looks up poll results, not scriptures.  In short, my hope is that Obama is not a true believer, but a hypocrite.  You can reason with hypocrites.

-- TP

I see Obama as an opportunist.  When I hear the media Democrat haters like Chris Matthews extol his virtues in that phoney breathless way they have when they are lying through their teeth, it makes me all the more sure that they are using Obama to try to destroy Hillary.

Tonight Matthews was speaking to a reporter saying "Obama might not be able to do this alone but if Gore decides to run and Obama goes for VP we can stop Hillary". If the right wing media is fawning over Obama its because they know he would be easily defeated in the General Election.