As a strong Hillary supporter, I think that you are all wet on #3.  Hillary has made it absolutely clear that she opposes Bush, from day one.  The only time that she tried to cozy up to Bush was in the fight to get $20 billion for NY reconstruction (and as a NYer, I am very thankful for that).  She has tried to work with GOP senators, but never at the expense of her own clear identity as a Democrat.  Rather, she has attempted to find common sense solutions that even the most rabid of rightwingers would be hardpressed to deny.

Hillary is proud to be a Democrat.  She is proud of the record the last Democratic administration.  In fact, if Al Gore had been as willing as Hillary to publicly state his pride in the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, he would have prevailed (I know he got more votes and had Florida stolen) in 2000.  During the Lazio-Clinton campaign, you could not get a razor between Hillary and the Democratic record of success.

Hillary is not a great public speaker.  She does tend to speak in lists.  But, she has the GREATEST SURROGATE SPEAKER IN HISTORY waiting in the wings.  I have no doubt about the ability of a Clinton general campaign to connect to heart and soul of the electorate.

In my view, Chris' analysis is spot on. It seems that Obama's support remains high in the blogospere due to his character even though he doesn't meet all the criteria, and Hillary will never be well-liked by us, as she's a triangulating centrist. Edwards is liked precisely because he meets the above criteria. To me, that seems to  suggest that Edwards is the best candidate.

Uh, Chris...weren't you the one posting a few days ago about how few female netroots candidates there are?  

Why the use of non-inclusive language, especially in the year we have the first really serious female candidate?

Chris, I disagree with your assessment of Edwards, even though I think he'd make the best POTUS of the big 3 (assuming we're working with a trifecta in 08).

I'd say that on point 2, Edwards falters. His rhetoric doesn't come off as conversational. This may have to do with the fact that he has actual liberal policy positions, and that we're not used to a candidate who talks about them in a positive way. Still, he seems somewhat detached, as if he hasn't really interacted with 'normal' people.

For example -- his response to the Katie Couric interview should have had at least SOME anger. She was clearly out of line, especially considering her personal history (working during her husbands cancer). I don't think that 'real people' would react in such a detached manner.

The only candidate in the big 3 who comes off as remotely normal is Obama. I think that this will ultimately win him the nomination, which will be an incredibly positive change, though he'll be less progressive than Edwards.

The present-day Edwards doesn't triangulate, which I respect. IMO, Obama triangulates way too much. This could wind up killing his chances in the primary if that impression hardens. Obama could use his exceptional oratory skills to justify/humanize progressive policies, but he takes a 'post-ideological' 'biographical' 'non-confrontational' tone that is safe and self-serving.

Also, with regards to Hill-dog, I think you've got the judgment about #4 all wrong. She may fight back against Republicans in her own self-serving way, but she's completely caved to the corporate media. Ideologically, she stands for nothing. She's the status-quo candidate, and I think that has to do with the fact that she's terrified of what opposing big business could do to her presidency (see: Hillary Care). It also has to do with the fact that all of her friends and associates are rich, influential insiders who benefit from the current political order.

Basically, she CAN'T oppose the corporate media, because she's in too deep. Do you ever see Clinton calling free trade a myth? Does she ever challenge the 'free market'? No. She's against any and all structural reforms. I'm terrified that she'll be elected and go back to that shitty focus-group symbolic v-chip governance of the 90's.

So no to Clinton on #4, because she's a part of the corporate media -- she won't challenge it or 'fight back' in any kind of meaningful way.

PS. I'll give you $50 if you call Hillary Hill-dog from now until the end of the primary...

As an Obama supporter, I can see why you might take flak for not being harder on Edwards, as that's the norm around these parts. But I don't agree that you should. He's a great candidate...I think the problems he has go beyond the list, and that's too bad.

As far as Obama, I don't really have a problem with someone running for the White House claiming that the current state of affairs is not good enough, Democrats included.

Despite the higher approvals that Congress is getting these days, and that Democratic ideas are more popular than Republican, the majority of Americans seem to believe that politics is really broken in this country, and they'd be right. Running against the establishment isn't such a bad thing. I'm sure people here will have a million different ways to interpret Obama's stance, but to me, however you want to paint it, that's not a bad thing. Our side can and should be better than they have been.

And I'd disagree thoroughly that Obama has any trouble with #3. He could spend time at his rallies railing against Bush and the Republicans, and maybe that's what some people want. But isn't that part of the problem with politics? That we are so quick to tear down and vilify those who see the world differently? Obama's way seems like a new, better way to me.

First off, I usually wouldn't say something like this but that list, no matter who you support in 08', is right on.  All candidates backed by the progressive movement should pass all of these tests.  We are at a point in time where doing what is morally right is also politically advantageous (at least concerning the vast majority of issues.

With that said, there can be no doubt that Edwards (from late 2005 on) has passes all of these tests.  As far as the originial post on the bar fight primary is concerned, as recently as last year he included a rant against the banktruptcy bill in the most of his speeches (he doesn't write his speeches before hand he just writes down a few subjects he wants to cover).  This is one issue where I think even the non-Edwards supporters should give him credit.

His campaign would not refer to him repeatedly as a "progresive champion" if they we're not saying to us "he's with you".  Listen to him at the MoveOn town hall.  

Who do you think he was talking to when he told Democrats that thisis not about making Lieberman happy?

Who do you think he was talking to when he hit Obama for his "chicken" remark?

What about when he was first to say no to both FOX debates?  Or when he was first to call for both Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz to go?
He was the first to back Webb's Iran legislation.  He was the first to respond to DFA's call for a clear plan to end the war.  What about when he was the only Democrat to mention Molly Ivins at the DNC meeting.  Why do you think he has made "reclaim the Democratic Party" his rallying cry?  Why has he so often mentioned "backbone"?  If you watch the video he sent out for the national house party day there are two presidents he mentions.  FDR and JFK.  No Carter, no Clinton.  Why do you think that is?

There is a difference between pandering to and showing solidarity with.  His campaign has gone to great lengths to show solidarity with us.  He is a candidate of substance and he is conviction driven. He is just the kind of candidate we have been waiting for.  Frankly, I don't see why the progressive movement isn't MORE behind him.

As far as the elites are concerned, they HATE him, just like they hate us.  He has no support on K Street and he is the ONLY Democrat who isn't trying to change that.  Clinton is loved by K-Street.  Edwards is hated by Wallstreet.  You can imagine why.  Obama is literally Wallstreet's favorite.  This has been reported numerous times recently.  He has honored his "no lobbyists money" pledge in letter only but not in spirit.  One lobbyist even said that he was directed to have his wife give the money, which the Obama campaign allows so they have a way to get the money.  Obama's camp said that the whole pledge was a "symbolib gesture".  Sometimes, symbolic gestures are important, but when you say "no lobbyist money" we expect just that.  Obama is a psuedo reformer, at best.  

We want a candidate who doesn't bow to the elites, right.  Edwards is the only major candidate who spent NO money on polling.  None.  Compare that to Obama's $100,000 plus and Clinton's %277,000 that she owes to Mark Penn, the guy who got kicked off the Gore campaign for rigging his polls to fit his centrist views.

What about the campaign staff?  We already know that Clinton's staff (except for her blogger outreach) is loaded with people who hate the progressive movement and have since the 90's when they were mad that we actually wanted Bill Clinton to be the president that he campaigned on being.

Obama's staff is chock full of ex Daschle and ex Gephardt staff.  This is probably the reason why he has been so unimpressive.  He had all of the hype in the world and now it has all fallen flat.  They said that they wanted him to "tone down the rhetoric" (because he was being called on being too fluffy) and run a "personality driven" campaign that would be a "practically ideology free campaign".  Go to The Hotline and read it for yourself.  

And then there is Edwards.  His campaign is run by David Bonoir, one of the greatest economic populists of our time.  He believes in the campaign so much that he isn't even taking a salary.  Name one other time that you have you  of that happening, especially on such a major campaign.

Clinton hates us, Obama is willing to Sistah Souljah us and will do it again (of course he wouldn't be surprised by what is on progressive blogs, they aren't conservative blogs, they aren't mushy centrist blogs, they are progressive blogs). Edwards goes out of his way to show us that he is with us.  None of us should have a problem with people here responding to that.  We could always chase Obama and hope that he throws us a bone when he's not busy slamming the party in his book so he can look like Mr. Political Koom ba ya, but what would that accomplish?

The candidate who best represents our values is also the most electable, and he is proud to be a Democrat and proud to stand by the progressive movement when we need him the most.  Is this really a difficult choice?  I don't think so.    

Well at least you used the accurate pronoun for a netroots supported candidate.  He should...  He should...

As A. Adams once said, "dear don't forget the ladies"

I agree with Chris about the differences between Obama's and Edwards' rhetoric.  Obama does talk about the politics of unity, about a new kind of politics.  He is a radically different candidate that Paul Hackett was, and I think that he clearly doesn't always buy into the favored style of some in the netroots, the backs-to-the-wall, bar-fight style of politics.  Edwards is a lot closer to this ideal.   But I'm not sure that rhetorical differences implies substantive differences in policy approaches.  For example, it isn't clear to me that Edwards would necessarily propose more progressive policy as President than Obama would, despite the more "netroots-friendly" style of his rhetoric.

As someone who wavers between supporting Obama and Edwards (but who hasn't contributed to either yet), I feel torn about how much importance to give this issue.  I think that the particular style outlined in Chris' post is really about figuring out who we can trust.  Obama is clearly a brilliant orator, and if I really trusted him to be true to his progressive roots, I think he has the potential to really radically shift the political center in this country leftwards, moreso even than Edwards could.  It is just that Edward's style makes it easier to trust him, at least for me.

I don't think Obama talks like a regular person.  He talks like my Constitutional Law professor... wonder why ;-)

I think even the consideration of using a litmus test is mildly reprehensible.  There are so many non-tangible aspects to the method people approach the complex world of politics, that to try to wrap it up in a little package is somewhat naive.  

For me, none of these topics speak to my concerns.  I'm much more focused on narrative - what will the candidate we nominate say about the progressive cause and where it's going?  There's no way that something like that can be calculated by a list full of yes or no questions.

See, I don't think Obama does anything to deny that he is progressive, or a Democrat.  And he certainly hasn't been trying to paint himself as a Republican or Bushie.

Whereas your DLC style triangulation says that in order to win, and in order to be a unifying figure, you must co-opt Republican issues by taking a right-wing position, I get a different vibe from the brand of "politics of unity and purpose" Obama is sporting.

As so many people on this site are fond to point out: universal health care, reforming Medicare Part D, transparency in government funding, the Iraq War, minimum wage and a whole host of other issues are ones where the majority is on the Progressive side.  The center is left of where Washington thinks it is.

And what I get from Obama is that he is not attempting to triangulate towards the Republican position, but instead trying to capture that progressive center of America.  And while he speaks to that center, he still has the most progressive voting record over the course of the last legislative session of the whole field.  The biggest landslides in recent history were acheived by Ronald Reagan, who pulled the center of American politics to the right with him, and that's how a politics of unity and purpose can push the crowd.

Similarly, I don't see Obama trying to shed "progressive" or "Democrat".  I do see him trying to shed the current left/right spectrum in peoples minds.  And if he does so, that will be good.  Because he's still a progressive, and still a Democrat.

Think of it like taking out the wall to move the Overton Window.

as far as this litmus test is concerned?

at least in the update it's admitted that a litmus test in which hillary fails is biassed against women.

that it is, indeed, a problem.

Actually I just think it means that most female Dems don't have the trouble kicking GOP ass that the men do. They're not the wimps!

The whole bar fight concept is pretty gendered.  Personally I always disliked the politics to fighting anologies.

I wrote that test and apart from being bitter that it isn't called the James Powell Litmus Test (kidding, really), I feel sometimes it was and is misunderstood.

I wrote it out of frustration.  It was a response to the corporate press/media's behavior, adopted even by "some Democrats" we know, which was to label any candidate supported by the left blogosphere or citizen activists as "far left."  Along with this was a tendency to magnify policy differences that were real, but not a barrier to broad support for Democratic candidates who were willing to stand up for the Democratic base and their interests rather than criticizing them or hiding from them.

It's true, as at least one person wrote, that there is no policy on this list.  There's a simple reason for that.  Until we get rid of Bush/Cheney and until we start to re-democratize the corporate press/media structure and until we can the dismantle the right-wing propaganda machine, our policy must be doing those things.  None of the policies we want to adopt and none of the policy areas that we deem important are going to get any attention until we make those changes.

This is the only time in my life that I said something that other people thought was interesting or important enough to quote and talk about.  It is very flattering.

A litmus test to be a DEM?  Am I missing something?  A DEM is a DEM.  Whether you're a conservative, moderate or liberal DEM.  What difference does it make?

I'm glad you qualify that this was off the cuff, because it's not much else.  I'd like you to flesh out where you can say Hillary isn't proud to be a Democrat or distances herself from the party or its leaders.  That's just so stupid to say.  Yes she may not have voted the way you wanted, we know IRAQ, but that she isn't a proud Democrat, give me a break.  You guys say Hillary is not Democratic enough, but then start panting at the thought of any of the Republicans, yes the hated Republicans, turning Blue.  It's okay if that Repub is anti-choice or more conservative, as long as they come over to our side.  You may want to stick to well thought out analysis instead of off the cuff.