There are two radically different games being played here

1. Do/say whatever it takes to get elected

2. Think about what you really want to do when you get elected and appoint your governing (as opposed to your campaign) team appropriately at that point.

For Obama it was easier.  Hillary was the front runner running a typically centrist campaign to try and overcome her partisan image and pull in some independents.  Position yourself slightly but distinctly to the left of her.  Opposing Iraq was a no brainer if you weren't so obsessed with not being trumped by GOP on national security. First focus on wresting the Dem nomination from the heir presumptive Hillary.  Otherwise she had it sown up anyway.

For Edwards the focus was perhaps more on trade and corporatism at the expense of workers.  Position yourself slightly to the left of the heir presumptive Clinton on social and economic issues.

In trying to secure her right flank Clinton left herself too exposed on her left flank on both foreign and domestic policy.

2)  So what would they all actually do if elected?  To an extent they have to at least appear to genuflect to their base which got them into power.  So the initial mood music and image management would certainly be different.  But very soon the actual election and how it was fought and won is forgotten.  Events dictate what happens next and for all I know Clinton could be more radical and decisive than the other two.  She certainly has waited a long time for her chance and for her there will be no next time.  I don't have a clue what Obama would do except that is focus might be more Asia than Europe.  Edwards might be more focused on domestic rather than foreign policy issues -provided events did conspire to force him to focus on trade and geopolitical issues more.

But its all guesswork.  You need to have the inside dope on what these guys discuss in private when they are not talking electoral politics.  It really has vry little to do with actually being President.

Index of Frank's Diaries