How Far Apart are Edwards and Obama?

Paul Krugman today lauds the populism of John Edwards, saying that the best strategy for a Democratic candidate is to "run with the populist tide". I wonder what he thinks of Matt Cooper's latest piece in Portfolio, which says that Edwards is, not, in fact, half as populist as Krugman might like to think:

Edwards may wax like William Jennings Bryan when he's onstage, but behind the scenes he sounds like an anodyne Democrat in the mold of Harry Reid.... If you look at the positions he's taken, they're really not that different from those of the other Democratic candidates, even though his rhetoric is decidedly more combative.

Krugman bases his column on differences between Edwards and Obama on the healthcare front: Obama wants to "sit at a big table" including the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, while Edwards says that it's "a complete fantasy" to think that those industries would willingly negotiate away their power.

But I'm with Cooper on this one: Krugman's concentrating, here, on rhetoric, rather than substance. In reality, the differences between the Obama and the Edwards healthcare proposals are slim, which is one reason why the debate is moving to the how rather than the what.

Tactically, it may or may not be a good idea for Edwards to wax populist. Krugman certainly thinks it is. I, on the other hand, think that the Obama approach is more likely to attract Republicans who are disgusted with the Bush administration but who fear the idea of electing a leftist. Of course, neither of us has much in the way of political-strategy credentials – although I'd note that Clive Crook comes down on my side of the debate in the FT today. The substance of the candidates' policies should be what really matters, and I do believe, with Cooper, that there's less of a gap between Edwards and Obama than Krugman implies.