As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..." This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson." But my commentary is apportioned out in a way consonant with my interests. So Obama comes in for a lot of flack on this page because his greatest failures come in my area of focus: Health care policy. But I find his foreign policy tremendously attractive, and given the president's enhanced autonomy on foreign affairs, I'm not convinced that that shouldn't be determinative. Edwards, by contrast, comes in for a lot more praise, as his attention to economic justice is thrilling, and his impact on the race has been overwhelmingly positive for progressivism. But I have deep doubts about his ability to manage the executive branch and effectively shepherd his agenda. Clinton's health care plan has been surprisingly good, and her argument positing superior executive branch experience, and thus a higher likelihood of effectiveness, is convincing. But her foreign policy advisers don't inspire confidence, and the continuing relevance of anti-liberals like Mark Penn within her organization concerns me. Additionally, I'm less certain of some criticisms than I used to be. I originally took Penn's deep involvement as a strong signal of Clinton's policy preferences. But I'm not sure this is correct. Certainly, it's not been in evidence in her statements or the releases from her policy shop. I've long worried that Obama would be unwilling to set aside visions of his higher self and get into the mud, but his opportunism on the health care fight has proven that wrong, even if not in the way I'd like. And while Edwards' populism looked for a long time to be more attitudinal than strategic, I've been convinced that he does have a theory of change centered around social mobilization and popular pressure. 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 remember, in fact, that Kerry's victory in 2004 elicited a somber post from Markos calling this the last gasp of the establishment, and swearing that his support would be grudging and cautious. For Democrats, I don't think that coalescing around 2008's nominee should be anywhere near as painful. Unless, of course, it's Bill Richardson.
