I don't totally understand Brian's point here. Comparing the approaches of Obama and Edwards, he writes, "whereas Edwards has been very clear about how he'd try to make the changes he wants, Obama has not exactly laid out a clear vision of how one transforms our country's politics. It'd be one thing if he gave any indication of understanding what steps to take to do that. But "wouldn't it be nice" isn't quite enough when the task at hand is so large."
But what is the Edwards vision of "how he'd try to make the changes he wants?" As I understand it, he'd try to make those changes by...trying to make those changes. Indeed, it's Obama, with his focus on consensus and civic engagement, who seems to be articulating a vision of how you make changes, albeit one I don't actually agree with. Edwards' rhetoric has been designed to clarify his confidence that large changes are in the offing, and assure audiences that he won't shy away from making them. I find that comforting. But it's not an explicit vision of how change comes to the nation, save by John Edwards sending his legislation to Congress, and possibly giving speeches in support of it.
Indeed, the most compelling explanation of how to create change came from Hillary Clinton in the last debate, who said, "What's important, and what I learned in the previous effort, is you've got to have the political will, a broad coalition of business and labor and doctors and hospitals standing firm when the inevitable attacks come from the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who don't want to change the system because they're making so much money from it." That's actually a vision of how to achieve health reform. The problem with Hillary is, in fact, the opposite of that with Edwards, which is that I believe she's got a coherent vision of how to use the office of the executive, but I'm deeply unconvinced she's willing to deploy that savvy in service of serious change.
