Edwards supporters should be proud of their candidate for running a strong campaign focused on the issues. They now must consider which of the remaining contenders deserves their votes, which candidate best matches the spirit of Edwards' platform. I believe Obama is the natural second choice; there are several concrete areas where he and Edwards split with Clinton.

First, there is the obvious matter of Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraqi war, a vote Edwards characterizes as a mistake. Obama opposed the war and predicted the results in 2002.

Second, there is Obama's efforts on ethics and lobbying reform , supported and advanced by Edwards but belittled by Clinton . Hillary, of course, stated that lobbyists represent real Americans at YearlyKos, while Obama and Edwards described lobbyists as obstacles to reform.

Third, there is Clinton's hawkishness on Iran, demonstrated by her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, of which Edwards said "Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that's supposed to be diplomacy?" Obama was not in DC for the vote but issued a statement opposing the bill . Obama is also more open to face-to-face negotiations with foreign leaders, which Clinton refused to commit to absent preconditions.

Fourth, there is the drug war issue, where Obama and Edwards support needle exchange while Hillary tried to triangulate, saying "We’ll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances." Another difference: Clinton expressed opposition to retroactive resentencing, in contrast to Edwards and Obama; Edwards answered "Should that change be retroactive?" with "the answer is yes, absolutely."

Fifth, there are the "intangibles" which Lakoff attempted to identify. The "hope" and "change" rhetoric from Obama, often incorrectly dismissed as fluff, builds coalitions that exert political pressure to achieve progressive goals. This is what we need to make universal health care a reality .

Sixth, I believe Obama is closer to an anti-establishment candidate like Edwards than is Clinton. Here's how Edwards put it :

We still have work to do. And the hopes that both Senator Obama and I have for this nation and this country that we love so much, they’re real hopes.

I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Reverend Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living in a fairy tale.

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are all strong candidates, and now with Obama versus Clinton there are no wrong choices for Edwards supporters. In my opinion there are, however, solid reasons to prefer Obama (some discussed above) and to believe that he would more closely match the goals of Edwards supporters.