John Edwards gave the speech of everyone's life the other day, a masterpiece of progressive populism, a verbal grenade tossed at the Establishment. The key line should be tattooed on Rahm Emanuel's face: "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."RTWT.

Not every pol could credibly deliver that speech. Few could. Only one top-tier contender could. It's the speech Edwards has been working toward since--well, perhaps since he was growing up working class in a struggling mill town, probably since he was an attorney fighting violent crime by corporations, certainly since he was making economic inequality the focus of his last campaign.

Edwards earned the ability to deliver that speech by preaching populism before populism was cool, by never taking a cent from K-Street, by fighting HMOs when he was a Senator, by helping to make poverty a big issue again, by breaking free from the Beltway, by casting his lot with unions, and, above all, by advocating positions that would give power to people at the expense of rich people and corporations. You can't say these words unless you have policies to back them up. The system, he said, is corrupt:

It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

In short, Edwards gave a speech saying exactly what progressives want pols to say. Most people in the sphere were thrilled. Ivan, a Gore supporter, wrote a Daily Kos diary on the speech and it shot up the rec list, where it co-existed for most of the day with a diary on the same subject by Edwards blogger Tracy Joan: a rare twofer. You could feel the buzz.

But the reaction from the big blogs was mixed, at best. The only blogger with a sizable platform to praise the speech was Matt Yglesias. Taylor Marsh and Open Left's Brklyn Girl objected to Edwards's criticism of Hillary, Marsh because it reminded her of the GOP and Brooklyngirl because it reminded her of Nader. Hmm. As if the Clintons' corporate-kissing were delightful and should be beyond criticism. Note to Marsh: the Lincoln bedroom trangressions were exaggerrated but not fabricated by the rightwing. If progressive bloggers want the next president to be no less plutocratic than Bill Clinton, then they should say so. Oliver Willis complained that Edwards waited till he was behind (God forbid) to give this speech. Willis seems not to know that Edwards has been banging essentially this same drum for years and gave a very similar speech in June. Like some conventional journalist, Willis is hanging on the national horserace.

The reaction of big bloggers to JRE's sublime speech points to a larger issue: the failure, or slowness, of progressive bloggers to line up behind what Striling Newberry calls the "essentially progressive major candidate." Edwards isn't the only option for progressives--a case can be made for one or two others--but he increasingly looks like the best option, a once-in-a-generation combination of electoral and ideological strength that shouldn't be bypassed without a good reason.

Determining the relative progressivism of the candidates isn't a science, but conclusions can be made, differences discerned. Let's look at two vital issues: health care and climate change. Edwards is the only viable candidate to offer both a plan for universal health insurance and a bold plan on climate change. And he alone is prepared to give these issues the priority they deserve. Listen to the Nation.

The Democratic debate has been driven by the populism of John Edwards's "two Americas" rhetoric, as well as the boldness of his proposals on healthcare and energy...Only Edwards has challenged the Democratic fetish about balanced budgets, arguing that moving to new energy and providing healthcare are more important.

Yet the only big or biggish (subjective, I realize) blogger to have endorsed Edwards is The General. Chris Bowers declared himself a "staunch Edwards supporter" but retracted his endorsement without offering a reason. David Sirota often praises JRE but is holding off on an endorsement. Amanda Marcotte went to work for Edwards but hasn't endorsed him. None of the Daily Kos frontpagers has endorsed a candidate.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with being undecided--I remained undecided through the last election--but the paucity of endorsements tells me that bloggers are reluctant to take sides. Chris Bowers agrees. In a typically thoughtful post, he cited three reasons why he hasn't endorsed: the presence of netroots handlers on the campaigns (who are his friends), a desire for access to the campaigns, the lack of consensus among readers, to whom he's accountable. His reasons are understandable--but not compelling. If his readers are split, then he can't endorse? Come on. Lead. And if you're not doing something for fear of straining your relationships with people in power, friends or not, it's time to reevaluate your priorities.

Am I being too harsh? Maybe bloggers are doing what a lot of progressives are doing: waiting to make sure Gore doesn't run. I wrote a Kos diary a while ago calling on big bloggers to get off the fence. It prompted mostly indignation, but Miss Laura of Daily Kos made an interesting comment.

The fact that tons of people will be reading, judging, and often taking violent exception to your choice means you're going to think it through a little more carefully. Am I really prepared to have this conversation with hundreds or thousands of people who will feel free to use it to attack every single thing I say? Note that here I'm saying something deeper than "I have a preference but don't want to say" - I'm saying that knowledge of the meatgrinder my preference would be put through is making me extra extra careful in my choices.

Fair enough, but surely Miss Laura overstates the awfulness of Kossacks. The vast majority of us would accept and even respect a thoughtful, well-reasoned endorsement. Would a few jerks use the endorsement to attack her? Of course. Deal with it. Such is the price of having a prominent platform.

Blogs shouldn't try to force consensus; nor, though, should they remain neutral for neutrality's sake. Why does this matter? Because, for one thing, if progressive positions and framing don't win candidates progressive support, there will be less incentive to run left. And Edwards or Obama will likely need a push from the netroots to beat Hillary: make no mistake, to remain neutral, whether you're a union or a progressive blog, is to help Hillary. It's odd to see elite bloggers fretting about Hillary's lead at the same time that they refuse to get behind an opposing candidate. And the sphere itself will suffer if it fails to give explicit support to a candidate, or candidates. There's strength in consensus, obviously. A progressive sphere that doesn't back a progressive candidate is less influential than it could and should be.

There's more...