> Is it farfetched to think that maybe--maybe--an Obama presidency *might* be
> more progressive than an Edwards presidency, free from (at least much of)
> the constraints of marketing?
I can't imagine any American president free from the constraints of marketing, but I really do believe there is a significant political gap between Obama and Edwards beyond the campaign hype. For many years, Edwards has forcefully criticized the corporate economy, and he advocates universal health care. Obama talks about making health care "affordable"--language that immediately capitulates to the health insurance corporations' contention that health care should be a market commodity. He's also vectoring the republican hype about a "social security funding crisis" (funny, he doesn't say anything about the "military funding crisis"!). Granted, he's no HRC, but he's significantly to the right of Edwards.
In any case, I'm not sure what difference any of this would make if any of the three were elected as President; the constraints of the position are likely to produce about the same results regardless.
Miles