I want to point out what I think is a true difference between Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
NOTE: I am perfectly happy with any of the three and wish we could have ALL three in the Executive Branch.
When forming the government and choosing the key positions such as Chief of Staff, AG, DHS... the candidates have signaled how these choices would be made.
Clinton would play the experienced insider game. There would be compromises on personnel for future compensation that would alleviate fear in the opposition and create opportunity for her agenda. I am not saying they all would not do this to some degree, but this IS her game.
Obama would make choices that would further his movement of inclusion. His campaign dictates that his government would also be inclusive. The personnel choices would be made to not alienate his coalition of Ds, Is and some Rs.
Then Edwards.
Every personnel decision would be made to prepare for battle. And it will be a battle to make the institutional changes we desperately need.
There will be political realities that all the candidates will have to deal with but the campaigns themselves have telegraphed their positions enough to make presumptions. I challenge you to consider the candidates' positions and methods and project the government they would create. Is it the government you want?