This won't be a long diary. I just want to get this thought out, and you can discuss it if you choose.
When looking at Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, I see three potential paths for the Democratic Party.
This nomination will determine whether the Democratic Party is a real opposition party (meaning totally divergent from the GOP) that "leads" ("rules") in a different direction by fighting for regular American families against the special interests and corporate power with John Edwards, or whether it begs the Republicans to play nice and come along with us with Barack Obama, or whether it rolls over and becomes more Republican-lite with Hillary Clinton like it did during the 1990s and the so-called Gingrich Republican Revolution.
The 2008 election is about more than a party label or a "first" (female or black nominee).
It is about whether or not the Democratic Party will be determined to present the American people with a different direction in "POLICY" with John Edwards by staking out positions that are dramatically different than the status quo, or whether it will focus on presenting a different direction in "TONE" with Barack Obama which is really just surface-level jive, or whether it will just keep plodding right along the same pushover insiders course that the Democratic Party has been on with Hillary "it's her turn, according to Terry McAuliffe" Clinton.
For Democrats who want real, substantive change, the choice among the top three Democrats is clear.
John Edwards should be your candidate. He's fought "AGAINST" corporations on behalf of regular Americans for years, and he would love to do so as your President. In fact, he would revel in it and wear it as a badge of honor. He's the most electable, just like he was in 2004, according to the PBS By the People study that said he would have defeated Bush by 11 points with room to grow, whereas as Kerry and Bush were tied in the research project.
Barack Obama was a civil rights attorney, which is a great and noble career, but the direction he would take is MUCH TOO CONCILIATORY for 2008 with the drastic change that will be needed in policy to correct the mess that Bush has created. As President, Obama would get his lunch handed to him by the Republican Party if there was a prayer that he could win the General Election.
Hillary Clinton fought "FOR" corporations as a corporate lawyer, one of her earliest cases being against ACORN (the citizen activist group). She's a free trader, much too comfortable with business as usual in the boardroom and in the halls of congress. The only change that she really wants in DC is changing her office from the Senate building to the Oval Office.
Which path do you want take?