Lessig on Edwards

Professor Lessig puts his two cents into whether the candidates should sport blogs. quite obviously, Lessig supports the idea- noting Dean's success so far with his own blog. and that's basically the point of his post- but i found his language on Edwards very sweet, so i quote a large chunk below.

"The experts say Dean can�t win. I�m no expert, so what do I know. So far I�ve only met the one man Karl Rove seems most afraid of � Edwards. As I�ve blogged, I think a great deal of the Senator. Indeed, he is the first politician to inspire in a very long time.
Edwards� campaign is run by a bunch of experts. They resist the fads of the net. They have a fancy website that feels like a 4th of July commercial. There is relatively little direct contact. There is very little of a bottom-up feel.
That�s all part of the strategy, they say, and again, who am I to question it. The plan is that Edwards should place in the first two primaries. But because he will have more money than anyone, he will sweep the next 20. So going slow, saving resources, etc., is the strategy. And he is sticking to the plan.
That may be right. But I would think what the campaign against President Bush needs is the passion and commitment that is spilling out everywhere on the web � mainly for candidates other than Edwards. How much could it cost to open a channel to enable this bottom-up rally? How bad would it really be to give Madison Avenue a rest?
It just seems weird to me: between the son of a mill worker, and the son of an investment banker, which would you expect to run the populist campaign, in style if not in substance?"

Dispite that this is basicaly a criticism of the absent grass roots of the Edwards campaign, Lessig seems unassuming and careful not to sound like a consultant expert. In any event, I'm thinking i agree with all his sentiments. Edwards is my guy, but i wonder how much harm there could be in having a little official Edwards blog on the side.
But, back to Lessig on Edwards: he refers to another post on Edwards. Here's a bit from that:

"But there was something different in this candidate this time. There was nothing crafted or rhetorical: it was simple and direct. And yet he seemed to ache when talking about the things he thought wrong. He spoke of the hatred that bad diplomacy is building around the world, and the crowd was pin-drop-silent as he reminded them of growing up as a nation thought the hero of the world. He spoke of civil rights � an easy topic in San Francisco � but he described speaking of civil rights, and his support for affirmative action, in town halls in North Carolina. And most importantly, he has a knack for understanding how to confront hard questions directly: Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the �correct� answer is �no�. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go."

Yup, I think that post is a good read.