I'm not sure I have any idea who Edwards' economic advisors are.

Here's an objective overview from months back on all of the candidates' economic advisors, from Marketwatch. Of course, things change as time progresses, but it's instructive to read an article that isn't based on putting forward an agenda, at least, like George Will was doing:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/pr esidential-hopefuls-scramble-bring-econo mic/story.aspx?guid=%7B25FEEB56-2CCD-424 C-9AB0-0A1F5F423CDC%7D

This isn't a question about whether Obama himself is progressive. It's about what influences surround him. This comes out of a diary I wrote about why I want a broker convention to push a more progressive agenda and try to have a seat at the table of who advises whoever becomes President. When I wrote that diary, I was told by the poster whom I cite that there is no indication that Obama is centrist. The advisor by itself doesn't per se prove the point. but in the context of all else is know- his healthcare plan, his reagan comment, etc-- this is why at the very least he's running a centrist campaign. None of these things by themselves are smoking guns. They are circumstantial evidence. Most cases and  most of life isn't built on smoking guns. I simply want people to hold these people accountable by making sure about who surrounds them and we can hit the ground running with regard to pushing a progressive rather than centrist agenda.

I was speaking of activists who I know and am friends with who could not understand why I wasn't jumping on the Obama bandwagon last March( could have been April need to check my calendar).

At that time I already knew he had supported Joe Lieberman, Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegallis(spelling), and I knew despite the popular impression in the public that he was against the war, he hadn't even supported Murtha's plan for redeployment.

His rheteric was not reaching me either - "ending partisan bickering" giving us a "new kind of politics" - I was watching the governor I had worked so hard to elect( Patrick) get rolled by entrenched politicians in MA at the State House - he too wanted to "change the tone". The reality was, those entrenched politicians and interests aren't going to change unless you take them on.

So I kept going up to NH and managed to see all 8 candidates( Edwards 6 times, Obama 5 times, Clinton 3 times, Richardson 3 times, Dodd, Biden Kucinich and Gravel 1 time each); Obama with the Peru trade deal, missing Kyl Lieberman, moveon vote, just wasn't registering on my progressive meter at all as a matter of fact the arrow kept pointing to the right :)

What I noticed was that those that got on board early had made an emotional and financial investment in him and as Drew Westen writes that usually means that they had developed a "partisan brain"about him. Nothing I, or anyone else who was either an Edwards supporter or an undecided progressive  voter would say could get through to them.

They refused to discuss anything that challenged their view of him as a progressive.

Look, I wish Edwards had voted differently on a score of issues, I wish he hadn't worked for the hedge fund. I have to make a judgement on whether his "change of heart is sincere" - it seems to me as if it is. If something should come to light that would change my perception, I hope I would weigh that new information carefully and be willing to change my vote if the information warrants it. So far, it's Obama that keeps giving reason after reason for his progressive supporters to change their vote and they haven't - confirming Westen's theory about a partisan brain.

The link you gave about Obama's economic advisors is another eye opener that is important but technically useless to give to a person who supports Obama - there is so much out there that challenges his presentation as a progressive that one more thing isn't going to do much.

What is hurting him is that as each primary and caucus draws near( since Iowa) the general public which historically are late deciders are getting this information abouthim aand are questioning the very foundations of what he is running on - Rezko?looks like old politics to me, partisan bickering - the back and forth with Clinton looks like what? His record is getting a closer examination too and the voters are responding.

i look at hillary clintons foriegn policy experience during the clinton administration that she says she had, and I remember Rwanda.

I was 15 when I saw someone murdered on television. She did nothing, and Clinton played stupid while hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were slaughtered.

Here is an interesting interview (audio podcast) with Goolsbee by Megan McArldle.

http://www.theatlantic.com/audio/mcardle .mhtml

Ezra Klein evidently has an article about Goolsbee due out soon (which he mentions in passing here).

From my perspective, Goolsbee is one of Obama's best assets. I don't think traditional labels like "progressive" or "conservative" are very helpful here. Goolsbee is clearly interested in making the tax burden more fair and adding some balance to the distribution of benefits and burdens in our enononmy. To that extent, he is progressive. On the other hand, he is also much more sympathetic to market-based solutions than many on the left.

In any case, I do think it is important to know the candidates' advisors. It's just that I have a far more positive opinion of Goolsbee than the diarist does. And, it may be worth reminding some folks that Edwards' tax plan is based heavily on Goolsbee's work and actually cites Goolsbee.  

uhm-okay.