If you want to flesh out where the contrast between Obama and Edwards lie, you’ve got to take a look at their respective careers before they enter elective politics.
  Edwards entered politics from a successful career as a plaintiff side trial lawyer.  He was representing poor and middle class clients harmed by corporate greed. Obama got his inspiration to enter politics after spending the early part of his life as a community organizer, bringing people together to solve problems for the greater good.
  Arguably, both are noble career paths. However, I believe one strategy is far more appropriate for the task at hand…healing a nation divided and instituting a more open government.
 Edwards is running his campaign as a trial lawyer. The American people in this scenario constitute a jury and he is the plaintiff's lawyer, eloquently and forcefully trying to convince them that the defendant corporation is clearly at fault for the harms in question, and that the plaintiff deserves to be properly compensated. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of power and change. In a courtroom, there is ultimately just the jury, and a (supposedly) neutral judge. If the lawyer can spin the tale in just the right way, the jury will find for the plaintiff and justice will be served.
 The problem is that nothing else will really change. The rules of the game allow for a limited number of plaintiffs to collect their individual rewards, while keeping the power structure firmly in place. The jury and the plaintiffs are in the end just random individuals with no real power. In all likelihood, at the conclusion of the case, they will never even see each other again.
 The trial lawyer then, while often incredibly effective at winning for his or her individual clients, cannot ultimately bring about the kinds of fundamental changes in the power structure and rules of the game that are needed.
 Obama is running his campaign as a community organizer, putting together a coalition of disparate allies around a common agenda that focuses more on creating a more democratic process than on any particular set of outcomes. Although Obama's rhetoric is toned down as compared to Edwards, the implications of what he's doing are far more radical.
 By bringing new people into the political process, by passing into law the most far-reaching open government and ethics reform legislation since Watergate upon entering the Senate, by appealing to Republicans and independents, by running an open and inclusive campaign based on grassroots organizing and small donations, Obama's is attempting to fundamentally alter the political calculus that has ruled for the past three decades.
 Ultimately, Edwards talks a great game, but Obama has the strategy to get it done.
 
 
 




http://gambian.blogspot.com


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤