Bloggers today are taking note of a couple sentences in a NY Mag story

concluding that Obama “blew” his chance for an Edwards endorsement.

Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat…. Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal….

Of course, I don’t know what happened there that day. But, I suspect that it’s possible what’s really being described here are differences between Obama and the Edwards’ on strategy.

I don’t think that Obama cares any less than the Edwards’, or the Clintons for that matter, about poverty and health care. But, observing his campaign, it’s pretty clear that he thinks it’s better to address these issues in other ways.

Edwards was able to persuade Clinton to adopt his plan to establish a goal to cut poverty. But, it’s not clear why either of them thinks it’s a good idea to adopt this approach to policymaking. Both of them have advisors who’ve likely told them that all of the evidence suggests it undermines the policy proposals to put them under the “poverty” banner.

Besides, setting a goal to end income poverty sets the bar too low. We want more for our nation than an end to material deprivation using a formula based on the world as it was in the 1950s. We want everyone to be a full participant in our economy, in our civil society, and in our democracy.

Plus, as I’ve written here before, we cannot create the political space for action on a poverty agenda because of barriers created by widespread perceptions about the causes of poverty.

As for whether health insurance mandates (adopted by both Edwards and Clinton) are necessary to make a plan universal – it’s open to debate. We already know that mandates for car insurance don’t ensure universal coverage, despite the hefty penalty for going without in most states.

So, I’m left thinking that what’s been described as aloofness or glibness may have just been polite policy disagreement. And in any case, I’m glad that Obama didn’t agree to make a damaging strategic shift to get the Edwards endorsement. It’s refreshing to have a candidate who sticks to his beliefs in the face of a challenge, a candidate who understands that the impact of compromising can sometimes have the effect of undermining long term goals for a short-term lift.