To read the blogs is to believe that Iowans are going to caucus next week, what with the everpresent FEAROFHILLARY and the ridiculous panicky posts calling for supporters of Obama and Edwards to unite in opposition to the great menace from New York. (Memo to those rendered hopeless by Hillary: stop fretting and put your money where hopes lives.) In fact, many, of not most, voters are just beginning to tune in to the race. Even in Iowa, where voters have seen a lot of the candidates, many are undecided and won't make up their minds until the hours leading up to caucus day.

On cue, John Edwards is crystalyzing his message and drawing contrasts with other candidates. Like any good message, his is coherent and simple: I'll fight corporate power to bring about big change. I did it as an attorney, I did it as a Senator, and I'll do it as president. This is powerful, if standard, stuff. But Edwards goes one giant step further to turn his message into something unqiue among recent top-tier campaigns: he wants to remove the dirty clutch of K-Street from his own party, taking on what he aptly calls the "corporate Democrats." Not only is he the fighting populist, he's now also the leading reform candidate.

On Labor Day weekend he delivered his thesis statement: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." This past weekend, accepting the endorsement of the Carpenters' Union, he got specific.

The worst loophole on Wall Street lets hedge fund managers escape paying income taxes on most of their compensation. I was the first presidential candidate to support a plan to close the loophole, but top Democrats - Democrats! - are now showing signs of backing down from asking them to pay their fair share as the hedge fund lobbyists put the pressure on.

I wonder (Schumer) who Edwards (Kerry) is talking (Dodd) about.

It's important to Edwards that voters grasp the differences between him and the other contenders. The mainstream media refuse to highlight differences unless first discussed by a candidate, so I've been frustrated by his reluctance to call out his opponents. His criticism of other candidates has too often been vague. He recently went so far as to deny that criticism Clinton was, in fact, criticism of Clinton. But now, as the real race begins, there's no such coyness. I'm pretty sure that Edwards is referring to Hillary Clinton when he says Hillary Clinton.

Look, Senator Clinton is right - you cannot pretend the system doesn't exist. But you also can't pretend that it works. And that's where she and I part company.

Because I believe if you defend the system that defeats change, you can't be a president that will bring change. When it comes to the Washington influence game, we need to end it, not defend it.

She says you bring change by working within the system established by the Constitution. I think the system has been corrupted by corporate powers never contemplated by the Constitution. This is not the government of, by and for the people that our founding fathers intended.

At first I was skeptical about his focus on lobbyists; even though he'd used the issue to expose Hillary at Yearly Kos, it seemed esoteric. Then I saw this Gallup Poll, which found that 72 percent of Americans believe Clinton should join Edwards and Obama in rejecting money from lobbyists, and that 80 percent believe pols in general should reject it.

The more I think about JRE's strategy, the more I like it. For one thing, it's an issue on which Clinton is uniquely vulnerable and Edwards is uniquely strong. Unlike Obama, who developed an election-time aversion to K-Street cash, Edwards has never taken a penny from federal lobbyists. For another thing, Edwards can use the the issue to criticize other candidates on any number of issues. He's already used it to criticize Clinton on health care. He should also use it to criticize her (and Bill Richardson) for championing NAFTA and Obama for supporting two pieces of lobbyist-loved legilsation: the 2005 Energy Bill and atrocious tort "reform."

But Edwards, for now at least, seems to be setting his sights on Clinton. By criticizing Clinton, Edwards also makes the case that he, not Obama, is the real agent of change. Obama is trying to fashion a "Fourth Way" that splits the difference between the populist progressivism of Edwards and the corporatism of Clinton. Accordingly, as this New Yorker piece points out, Obama's criticism of Clintonism is mild and mostly platitudinal, with vague claims that he'd be better able than Clinton to unite the country. Edwards, by contrast, criticizes the Clinton presidency--a logical move for someone who's rejected the philosophy named after the former president. You shouldn't pretend that the Big Dog isn't beloved. Nor, though, should you pretend that the Clinton years were a progressive Golden Age. Clinton gave us increased inequality, the rise of the Washington Consensus, and punitive, underfunded welfare "reform." Edwards, to his credit, has criticized all three developments.

But Edwards shouldn't and won't limit his criticism to the nineties or to Clinton. Contrary to the claims of Chris Bowers, there are significant differences between his policy positions and those of both Clinton and Obama. Edwards needs a pithy way of explaining those differences. To that end, I suggest that he add something like this to his stump speech.

Let me clear: I have enormous respect for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, and if either one of them emerges as the Democratic nominee, I'll do everything in my power to help them win. But there are some importance differences between me and them, and to make an informed choice voters need to understand those differences.

On pretty much every issue my position is better and bolder than theirs.

Take foreign policy. You all know about the Global War on Terror that Bush launched, this disaster that's given us more terrorists and fewer allies. I'm the only Democratic contender to oppose it. I've offered in its place a counterterrorism plan that actually counters terrorism, one based on cooperation between us and our allies.

Also, on foreign policy, I'm the only candidate who's pledged to lead an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. And by doing so, I'll cut the bloated military budget.

And take health care. I'm the only of the big three candidates to propose a plan that would provide health care to every man, woman, and child in America.

Energy? I'm the only one who says no--absolutely no--to nuclear power, which is both inefficient and dangerous.

Taxes? I'm the only one's put out a comprehensive plan to gives most Americans a tax break. At the same time I'm the only one who would roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would leave Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans in place for two years, until they expired. That's money we need as soon as possible for health care and other vital programs.

You see, we need to be honest about the country's finances. For me, universal health care and energy independence and reducing poverty and giving middle class Americans a tax break are more important than a perfectly balanced budget. I've made my choice. Obama and Clinton haven't. If it's a choice between a balanced budget and all the programs we need--and it is a choice, believe me--which would they choose? Voters need to know.

Finally, on the all-important issue of money and politics, I'm the only one who's never take a penny from federal lobbyists and I'm the also the only one who's called on Democrats, all Democrats, to say no to lobbyists. Unless and until my party gives lobbyists the cold shoulder, we won't get the kind of change we need.

Oh, I almost forgot. Buy my book.