What to debate?

A few days ago, I suggested that the leading Democratic candidates have three different definitions of change. Now I suggest that they also have three different arguments in mind: Hillary Clinton wants to continue the debates of the 1990's. John Edwards wants to return to the debates of the 1890s. Barack Obama wants to start the debate of the 21st Century.

OK, there's some over-simplification there. And regular readers will know that your editor favors Obama. But there's not as much bias involved as you might think. The arguments of the '90's remain un-resolved; many of us faulted Bill Clinton precisely because he did not push those arguments hard enough. As for the populist arguments that John Edwards is making, haven't you felt, during the past seven years, that we are re-fighting the battles--for workers' rights, for government protection of the public's health and welfare--that were fought at the turn of the Twentieth Century? And as for Obama's desire to open up a new kind of debate, even those of us who support him enthusiastically must admit that we do not yet know what that debate may involve, much less how it will turn out.