I don't dispute that sometimes 1115.org comes off as sounding hysterical in response to the idea of Senator Obama being the Democratic presidential nominee. But no one else has been doing any examination of what an Obama candidacy would mean for Democratic politics, and, indeed, the nation in general. And they're right, he is getting to be Kerry-esque.

Most others just seem to take it as fait accompli that he'll be the Democratic nominee. That, or that there's no one better. Democrats are painting themselves into the same corner they did in 2004 with John Kerry--assuming the senator's the best man for the job, for some reason, despite a good deal of what he says and does--or assuming that there's no one better. Well there is. His name is John Edwards. He's a man whose campaign isn't based on 'hope' like the Obama campaign and has actual, substantive policy initiatives already prepared.

Don't buy my assessment? Compare the health-care issue pages from Senator Obama's website and Senator Edwards'.

Some things to consider about the two of them: Obama's is longer. It's also a laundry list of things he did before. Most of them, it looks like, are bills he introduced, not bills he got passed (where's the consensus building now?). Now take a look at Edwards'. It's shorter but more substantive on what he would actually do to fix the problems Americans face. Oh, and there's a link there to a comprehensive, 8 page pdf expanding on each of those points and explaining why it matters and how to get it done.

How is this even a contest? 

Senator Obama has said that the American people shouldn't want someone with a plan as President, because plans fail, but instead should want someone with the skills to build consensus. Two thing about that stick with me: 1) wasn't that the bill of goods we were sold with George "a uniter, not a divider" W. Bush? And 2) it's a false choice. We can pick someone who has both substantive policy ideas and the ability to get compromises implemented, we don't need to pick a candidate who has explicitly said that he won't envision a policy plan at this point.

Senator Obama talks about hope, but that's rhetoric of failure, I mean, lets look at it: he doesn't trust himself to come up with the best--or even an almost-best--possible solution. He doesn't trust that even if he had that solution, he could get others to buy it. Doesn't that sound like giving up before you've even started?

I'd like a leader that will lead. I'd like a leader with a strong will, strong coalition building skills and a strong mind, full of ideas and plans. And anybody who tells you that any one of those things isn't important is either a liar or a chump.

Remember: donations help.