There's a great article in Slate today about John Edwards' setting himself up as the "anti-Obama."

He and Hillary could compete so fiercely against one another that they could create a real opportunity for Edwards.

From Slate:

"I hope you will put a really rigorous test to [the presidential candidates]. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the rhetoric. It's not enough to talk about 'hope' and 'we're all going to feel good.' We're past that. This is a very serious time in American history. It's time for anybody running for president to treat this seriously. I have talked about hope and inspiration in the past, and they're wonderful things, but you have to translate them into action." The only way it could have been clearer that he was talking about Obama would have been for him to hold up the Illinois senator's book jacket and point to it.

Edwards is not the only other candidate to watch while Obama and Clinton get set to throw down, watch for Richardson to keep making gains.

Nobody's past makes them exempt from what they're doing now.

And right now, Obama is full of hot air and vague platitudes, whereas Edwards is giving specifics, leading with tough, critical issues like global and U.S. poverty, and leaving Clinton and Obama in the dust when it comes to being real.

If Obama wants to do tough important work that influences the country, he's much more in a position to do it now than when he was doing grassroots organizing. I'm eagerly awaiting him to do that.

Finally, Obama is advocating writing Bush a blank check for the war to continue, and Edwards is not.

John Edwards said his vote was wrong and he said it with a sincere apology. We are still waiting for Mrs. Clinton to make her apology. The bigger goal is to defeat the Republicans and remove the one-party rule they have pushed into every political appointment in DC.

"Why is it shocking to people that Obama can raise money?"

Well, first of all you must start from the standpoint that the money raised by ANY of these candidates is shocking. Clinton, Obama and Romney (at a minimum) all smashed prior records for the first quarter of a presidential. It's INSANE.

$6mil in a quarter from the internet is also unprecedented. 100,000 donors! That's twice as many as Clinton, and just a huge number. Moreover, while they are of course smaller donors, by the same token they are nowhere near tapped out legally speaking, and can be gone to again and again. Obama's supporters are looking less like a disconnected group, and more like an organized mass. That's powerful.

But the really notable thing is that, as someone intimated upthread, this was supposed to be a Clinton Coronation. Her game was to raise so much money so fast that other candidates simply couldn't hope to keep up. She has a built-in network of support, a bully pulpit for free media, and the consumate political team.

And Obama has very nearly wiped all that off the board. He draws better crowds, he has almost as much media attention as Clinton, and he's outraising her on money for the primary--all while being perhaps the least traditionally qualified of the major candidates, and with perhaps as much as 15% of the electorate who isn't even sure who he is yet.

If a candidate loses in the primary, their general election donations have to be returned to the donors (or perhaps turned over to the DNC, though I'm not sure about that. All the candidates are saying that it gets returned to the donors.)

That's great Obama did so well, I'm shocked actually. I also gave to his campaign as well as Edwards. Since I'm out of the country and it's way too early I haven't decided which one I want to bet behind.

Certainly I'm worried that Edwards isn't going to be competitive enough for a few different reasons. I hope I'm wrong though. I like many don't want to see Hillary Clinton win the nomination. Hopefully, this will be a heated race with the best candidate possible as the nominee.

I think it will be a 3-way race at least through Feb 5, certainly. And all he really has to do is overtake one of them in a major primary state early, and he's in it for a good bit longer. He's actually doing great fundraising and is really running a recent hot streak that may continue to build, so he's got a lot to be happy about too.

I don't like Hillary much, but your basic New Democrat President--while frustrating--is of little long term threat to the country and might even be vaguely positive for it, and after six years of Bush I might settle for someone who simply isn't pure evil. (How sad THAT is to contemplate the truth of).

I'd be thrilled with either Obama or Edwards I think, so at this stage having Hillary as a worst case nominee is a very good thing indeed. I tell you what, any objective observer has to say that the Democratic options as a group look a whole, whole WHOLE lot better than what the Republican frontrunners look like. And the GOP knows it; a recent poll I saw indicated that 60% are unsatisfied with the current group; Dems are 60% satisfied.

I'd be thrilled with either Obama or Edwards I think, so at this stage having Hillary as a worst case nominee is a very good thing indeed. I tell you what, any objective observer has to say that the Democratic options as a group look a whole, whole WHOLE lot better than what the Republican frontrunners look like.

Romney and Giuliani are as strong as any of our candidates, both in terms of fundraising ability and charisma. If either of them make it through the primary to face Edwards or Obama, the electoral math will get really screwy in 2008 as several "reliable" states for both sides in the northeast and south will be put into play.

Not in the primaries, Sal. That's why I said "as a group," meaning that for Democrats, I think any of the three would satisfy most of them. For Republicans, that's not the case.

Obama's whole thing is "we need hope and to move beyond politics as normal."

What specifically do we need to do to fix health care?

Here's what Obama says: As a first step, Barack Obama wants to hear from you. He is hosting a series of community discussions around the country to hear not only from policy experts, but also from real Americans who are struggling with the health care system, doctors and nurses, people with insurance and without it. Those who are struggling to pay their bills, or forgoing care because of high costs.

Obama expects his presidency to be judged on whether he provides high-quality affordable health care coverage for all by the end of his first term. We are not short on ideas to address the problem, but what we have lacked is consensus and political will.

That is, Obama isn't willing to say what he supports.

Contrast that to Edwards:

The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:

* Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
* Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
* Creating regional "Health Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
* Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.</i>

Evan, I'm uncommitted -- it'll either be Barack or Edwards -- but seems a little early for you to be going after Obama. Edwards was already a candidate for the Presidency in 2004, and served on a national ticket. People know him. Just how many times in 2004 did you hear, "Son of a millworker...." Obama's still introducing himself to voters -- which is exactly what he should be doing.

More, as a fellow activist and organizer, you should be happy that their campaign is engaging and getting more people involved, even if Obama's not your guy. Creating a new type of politics isn't just fluff -- there's substance behind it. Just this week I spoke to an organizer who'd never given more $50 to a presidential candidate who gave $500 to Obama online, even as she was trying to come up with the money to make a down-payment on her first house.

When she heard Obama speak, he brought tears to her eyes. This is from an activist who's both managed campaigns and played a central role in succesful non-profit advocacy. Great that you have passion for your guy, but going after Obama isn't helping Edwards or more importantly, our chances of winning back the White House next year.

Barack Obama brought tears to my eyes once, too, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best presidential candidate.

And he's allowed to have flaws. Furthermore, if Evan can point them out before the Primary, what makes you so sure the Mighty Wurlizer won't do it during the General, or even help us along in the Primary, Charlie?

So do we bury it, tell people who mention it that they're 'not helping Democrats win back the Oval Office' and hope no one reads Blue Oregon? D'oh! Too late!

Or do we talk about it, shine a light on it, and refute it, like you just did?

What's healthier?

It's no stretch to say that I think the world of Sen. Obama. He's a very impressive man, in so many ways. In fact, $25 million isn't the shock number; 100,000(+, by the time I post this) distinct online contributors is.

I thought he'd burnt away the web geeks with that Sistah Souljah crap at Kos and the rest of Left Blogistan. I guess not, and I'm happy about it, even if I was one of the very iPeople he had a problem with.

But Evan's points are valid, and they amount to a light pre-game workout six months before the Super Bowl of Oppo Noise, and he doesn't deserve to be scolded for it, however gently.

Besides, didn't the Big Dog himself say, not too many Harkin Steak Frys ago, "You fall in love, then you fall in line."?

I think we're still at falling in love. You call for falling in line too soon, and people get cranky.

I just hope we still have multiple candidates in the race, late, and even a floor fight at the DNC. You laugh, but I think THAT would be healthy.

I think Evan's comments are premature for where we are in the cycle; it's still early and people are still getting to know Obama. It's not C-SPAN time yet. Still, a healthy primary debate is good, and my last line a little sloppy. I do think an unduly bruising primary can hurt a nominee, but I don't think that's going to happen next year nor are Evan's comments really that harsh.

Getting back to the original post, $25 million -- and 100K donors -- is a staggeringly impressive accomplishment for a campaign that kicked off ten weeks ago.

Robert wrote, I think aside from all of the negative attacks on Senator Obama from his own party, he will make a good president.

Could you point to some evidence for that assertion? I don't believe the Democratic Party has attacked him. They generally stay out of primary politics.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the Democratic Party.

Robert wrote, I think aside from all of the negative attacks on Senator Obama from his own party, he will make a good president.

Could you point to some evidence for that assertion? I don't believe the Democratic Party has attacked him. They generally stay out of primary politics.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the Democratic Party.

I've generally stayed out of primary battles, because yes, Hillary, Obama, Edwards or Richardson would all be good presidents.

I just don't fawn over Obama like some people, and that's because I don't generally see him taking real stances on real issues. I think politics has been dumbed down into platitudes, and it bugs me.

Should Obama be talking substance to the voters in public appearances? Maybe not. But he could at least have real stances on his web site.

He's had three years to develop his campaign stances on key issues, and all he's saying is that he's listening?

Contrast that to Edwards, who is being more detailed, and specifically, talking about POVERTY. Now, that's generally not a frame pollsters are happy with, because pollsters suggest you use language that makes everyone think they're in the middle class, and we're doing things for the middle class, and, well, forget the poor.

Is is a vote winner to talk about the poor? Maybe not. But it's a strong, ethical stance. And I dig it.

One final note, I loved the Daily Show video about Chris Dodd with the song "Who Are You." Brilliant. :)