Speech Comparison

Stepping back a tad, the bottom line from todays Edwards and Obama speeches is that they were both really, really good qua rhetoric. If either of those guys is the nominee, Democrats can at least sleep soundly at night knowing that their party's general election speeches are going to be delivered by people who can deliver speeches very, very well and who have good speechwriters.

I'm not sure I'd really agree with Brian Beutler that Edwards' speech was "more substantive" -- what it was was more policy-oriented. The point of Edwards' speech was "I have these seven policy ideas that you'll think are really great and therefore you should infer that I'm a good guy." Obama's speech, by contrast, is aimed at convincing you that "I'm a really good guy who has a good approach to politics and legislating and therefore you should infer that I'll implement good policies." Thus, Obama spends less time on the details of his program and more time on his theory of political change.

All of which, I think, is fine, but it does make his campaign the much more conventional one, which is slightly ironic in light of his greater pretense to be running a different kind of campaign which is, itself, a very conventional kind of claim to make. All that said, they're both very impressive, and I wish both of them (or, indeed, Hillary Clinton who I suppose is most likely to win) -- or at least one -- would adopt my view of Iraq and the residual forces issue.

UPDATE:

Here's Obama's speech:

And here's Edwards' speech:

Enjoy.

Comments

I think Edwards was way more substanstive than Obamer. I also liked the shout out to issues that we care about, like minimum wage and unionization.

Posted by Kirston Lee | June 19, 2007 5:02 PM

Hillary Clinton who I suppose is most likely to win

Most likely? Try nearly certain.

When was the last time there was a clear establishment favorite who did not win the nomination? I'm thinking Carter in 1976.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 5:05 PM

The point of Edwards' speech was "I have these seven policy ideas that you'll think are really great and therefore you should infer that I'm a good guy." Obama's speech, by contrast, is aimed at convincing you that "I'm a really good guy who has a good approach to politics and legislating and therefore you should infer that I'll implement good policies."

What I infer from that is that Obama would actually have a chance of winning in November, because his approach is more attuned to how (most) voters actually decide.

And maybe this is more 'conventional' in general, but it certainly isn't 'conventional' on the Democratic side. In election after election, we've put up candidates who "have these seven policy ideas that you'll think are really great" and expect the voters to infer that they're good guys. There are some exceptions, of course; Bill Clinton comes to mind. Also Jimmy Carter. Who are, now that I think of it, the two Democratic candidates who have won in the last 40 years.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 5:07 PM

Both screenshots look like they were taken the exact moment that the assassin's bullet hit.

Posted by Anderson | June 19, 2007 5:07 PM

Can someone remind me why we are boycotting YouTube? Everything seems to be on these newfangled platforms now.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 5:11 PM

"it does make his campaign the much more conventional one, which is slightly ironic in light of his greater pretense to be running a different kind of campaign which is, itself, a very conventional kind of claim to make."

Yup.

-----

"The point of Edwards' speech was "I have these seven policy ideas that you'll think are really great and therefore you should infer that I'm a good guy."

I think the point of Edwards' speech is that "I'm going to stand proudly for progressive policies, and therefore you should stand with me to move the country's politics in a progressive direction."

It's a point that Reagan made from the opposite direction 27 years ago.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 5:12 PM

Edwards looks like he's doing Jon Stewart's Bush impersonation: "See, it's cause I'm the Decider. ... ... Hehhehheh"

Posted by cleek | June 19, 2007 5:12 PM

What I infer from that is that Obama would actually have a chance of winning in November, because his approach is more attuned to how (most) voters actually decide.

It's more important to actually have the ability to project the image of being a good guy with a good approach to politics, rather than to recognize that that's what you need to do and openly try to do it. One can project strong "leadership" and "character" while talking about minutiae, and one can fail to project that image while talking about broad principles.

Also, these are the primaries. I'd imagine that the proper approach to take now is different from the proper approach in the general.

When was the last time there was a clear establishment favorite who did not win the nomination? I'm thinking Carter in 1976.

Was Dukakis the establishment favorite?

Edwards looks like he's doing Jon Stewart's Bush impersonation: "See, it's cause I'm the Decider. ... ... Hehhehheh"

Yes. This is absolutely, 100% right.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 5:23 PM

Kriston:

"I also liked the shout out to issues that we care about, like minimum wage and unionization."

Any comments by JE about unskilled immigration and its impact on the working poor?

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 5:26 PM

I think Obama's actual health care plan and his sponsorship of the Coal to Liquid bill show that his rhetoric is just that. The Edwards' plans speak for themselves. A solid commitment to starting to address the crises that we are faced with.

Posted by w | June 19, 2007 5:26 PM

Any comments by JE about unskilled immigration and its impact on the working poor?

No. I guess he lost your vote, Fred. I'm sure he's very disappointed.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 5:29 PM

Was Dukakis the establishment favorite?

In 1984, as for the Rs this year, there wasn't a clear establishment favorite at the beginning of the process, and the early primaries really mattered. But when most of the top leaders in the party are agreed on someone, that's who wins.

The problem is that writers by their nature greatly overestimate the importance of messaging, and underestimate the importance of institutional support.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 5:32 PM

1984 s/b 1988.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 5:32 PM

Well gosh, since unskilled immigration may have as much as a 3% impact on the wages of the working poor, I'm shocked Edwards didn't make that the focal point of his speech. I'm sure the benefit of unionization is a pittance next to that number.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 5:33 PM

But when most of the top leaders in the party are agreed on someone, that's who wins.

This is surely a theory that should be tested, but could you make clear exactly how many data points factor into your analysis? How many "clear establishment favorites" have we even had since 1976?

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 5:36 PM

What I infer from that is that Obama would actually have a chance of winning in November, because his approach is more attuned to how (most) voters actually decide.

Obama is describing the approach that wins in November. That's quite different from practicing or embodying it.

And let's get the details of the setting right. This is the Take Back America conference. The audience doesn't consist of disengaged swing voters. It consists of Democratic activists, and it's time for you to tell that what you're going to do for the movement. The kinds of things one ought to say there are very different from the kinds of things one ought to say at a campaign stop in Cincinatti in August 2008.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 19, 2007 5:36 PM

lemeul: starting in 1960, in non-incumbent elections, the "establishment" nominee won in '68, '84, and '88. And let's count '04 too. The "establishment" did not win in '60, '72, '76, or '92. I guess '92 is something of a weird situation, because the DLC was clearly insurgent within the Democratic Party, but had too much. So, four out of eight.

What happens, of course, is that the "quasi-establishment" candidate has a very good shot. Clinton was DLC. Kennedy was either second (behind LBJ) or third (behind LBJ and Humphrey), but still had lots of institutional support. Carter versus ... well, I can't tell who was supposed to be the left- establishment. Only McGovern nomination truly involved a takedown of the party establishment.

Looked at this way, one can make the case that Obama and Hillary have an equal chance, but that Edwards is SOL. It's possible that the dynamics have changed, but it's unlikely.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 19, 2007 5:37 PM

Nicholas: I was considering Clinton the establishment candidate, based on his leadership of the DLC. I would not exclude incumbents, either, since they often face challengers who draw on the same "insurgent" support base as Obama, Bradley, Jerry Brown, etc.

You have basically the same dynamic on the Republican side.

one can make the case that Obama and Hillary have an equal chance, but that Edwards is SOL.

The last part is true anyway.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 5:54 PM

"lemeul: starting in 1960, in non-incumbent elections, the "establishment" nominee won in '68, '84, and '88. And let's count '04 too. The "establishment" did not win in '60, '72, '76, or '92. I guess '92 is something of a weird situation, because the DLC was clearly insurgent within the Democratic Party, but had too much. So, four out of eight."

First of all, the method of choosing a nominee changed drastically after 1968. All evaluations must begin in 1972 to be a reasonable measure of how the open primary system works.

Second, after Cuomo dropped in 1992, pretty much any reasonable analysis would conclude that Clinton was the establishment choice.

So by my count, we have the establishment choice winning in '80, '84, '88, '92, '00, and '04, but losing in '72 and '76. So I get 6 out of 8.

Furthermore, the primary rules were changed after 1980 to make it easier for the establishment choice to win. The establishment choice has won every contest since.

So, to sum up, Hillary is the favorite. But it's important to remember that there is a difference between being the favorite and being inevitable.

"What happens, of course, is that the "quasi-establishment" candidate has a very good shot."

I'd strongly disagree here. Both of the insurgents who won, Carter and McGovern, were not the "quasi-establishment" candidate.

In fact, by my reckoning, the "quasi-establishment" candidates, folks like Kennedy in '80, Gore in '88, Tsongas in '92, Bradley in '00, and Edwards in '04, have never won.

Hillary's position of strength is precisely designed to repel a "quasi-establishment" candidate like Obama who is trying to run in the same track that she is.

Edwards, on the other hand, is running on a different track than Hillary. And while I wouldn't bet on him to win the nomination at even money odds - Hillary truly is the favorite - he does have a clear path to outrun her if he can gather enough steam in the early contests.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 5:55 PM

Also, these are the primaries. I'd imagine that the proper approach to take now is different from the proper approach in the general.

-and-

This is the Take Back America conference. The audience...consists of Democratic activists, and it's time for you to tell that what you're going to do for the movement. The kinds of things one ought to say there are very different from the kinds of things one ought to say at a campaign stop in Cincinatti in August 2008.

Well, yes--and that's exactly the problem, isn't it? Obama is being criticized all over the left blogosphere not because he isn't progressive enough (his voting record should establish that he's well within acceptable limits) but for not sounding progressive enough. The problem, of course, is that satisfying the desire the Democratic base to hear what they want to hear cripples a candidate in the general election.

Obama is describing the approach that wins in November. That's quite different from practicing or embodying it.

I agree that there is a difference between those two things; I don't agree that Obama is doing the former rather than the latter. From what I've seen (and take that with a grain of salt), what he's doing really does have a lot of appeal for general election voters.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 5:57 PM

"it does make his campaign the much more conventional one, which is slightly ironic in light of his greater pretense to be running a different kind of campaign which is, itself, a very conventional kind of claim to make."

This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back, Matt.

Posted by JSE | June 19, 2007 5:57 PM

All evaluations must begin in 1972 to be a reasonable measure of how the open primary system works.

Second, after Cuomo dropped in 1992, pretty much any reasonable analysis would conclude that Clinton was the establishment choice. So by my count, we have the establishment choice winning in '80, '84, '88, '92, '00, and '04, but losing in '72 and '76. So I get 6 out of 8.

Exactly. Thanks, Petey.

Edwards, on the other hand, is running on a different track than Hillary. And while I wouldn't bet on him to win the nomination at even money odds - Hillary truly is the favorite - he does have a clear path to outrun her if he can gather enough steam in the early contests.

Wishful thinking. I like him better than Clinton too. But it ain't happening.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 6:01 PM

"In fact, by my reckoning, the "quasi-establishment" candidates ... have never won."

I left off John Glenn in 1984 as another example of the "quasi-establishment" candidate.

In a lot of ways, I think the '84 race provides a template for '08.

Hillary is well positioned to hold off Obama for many of the same reasons that Mondale was well positioned to hold off Glenn. The "quasi-establishment" candidate, by definition, is running on the same track as the establishment candidate. And barring an implosion-sized gaffe, there is just no room to get by the establishment candidate.

The vulnerability comes from someone running on a different track.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 6:02 PM

"Wishful thinking. I like him better than Clinton too. But it ain't happening."

It's certainly an uphill stuggle, lemuel.

But don't confuse "Hillary is the favorite" with "Hillary is inevitable". Those are two different things. And the former is the correct analysis of the '08 race, not the latter.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 6:07 PM

The problem, of course, is that satisfying the desire the Democratic base to hear what they want to hear cripples a candidate in the general election.

Whereas if you tell the Republican base what they want to hear - which every single candidate other than Ron Paul has been doing - it's all peaches and cream in the general election, right? The conventional wisdom seems pretty skewed here.

Is Edwards toxic in the general election because of all the base-pleasing sounds he's been making? We may never find out, but it seems to me that he's still the most electable choice out of all of them. If you think Edwards has no chance in the general election because of how he's run the primary, I'd be very happy to make a wager on that proposition.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 6:08 PM

The problem, of course, is that satisfying the desire the Democratic base to hear what they want to hear cripples a candidate in the general election.

And you call yourself a blogger! :-)

I think the netroots are right, and what you say isn't generally the case. We've been trending leftward on Iraq for a while, and we'll probably keep doing so into 2008. Universal health care is a goal that most Americans accept. The country is now left of David Broder and the Beltway centrist consensus. Clear and forceful opposition to GOP positions on Iraq, and to GOP foreign policy distortions, helps a Democratic presidential candidate win.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 19, 2007 6:09 PM

The vulnerability comes from someone running on a different track.

So what's your model?

Institutional support matters. Not just in the troops on the ground sense -- which is important enough on its own -- but in terms of media coverage, endorsements, access to donors, etc.

I assume you've worked on campaigns. I have albeit state and local, not national. At that level, when you're evaluating a potential candidate, you look at (in rough order):

* Stature/recognition in the district.
* Fundraising potential.
* Institutional affiliations (union member, church, etc.)
* Campaign skills and work ethic.
* Demographics.
* Worldview/politics.

The entirety of what gets discussed in blogs is just a small piece of what makes a successful campaign.

And Dem primary voters are, by and large, loyal Democrats -- that's why they're primary voters. They're going to be very responsive to Dem elected officials and leaders of key constituencies, meaning labor and the African-American community. Those are mostly to overwhelmingly in HRC's corner.

The only scenario I can see where Edwards wins is if unhappiness over the war reaches the point that it becomes the defining issue in the primary. And even then, I think Clinton has the savvy and the flexibility to shift as far to the left as she needs to.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 6:18 PM

The problem, of course, is that satisfying the desire the Democratic base to hear what they want to hear cripples a candidate in the general election.

No. What might cripple a candidate in the general is actually running the same style of campaign in the general that you ran in the primaries. It has nothing to do with any policy positions you took in the primaries.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 6:28 PM

Whereas if you tell the Republican base what they want to hear - which every single candidate other than Ron Paul has been doing - it's all peaches and cream in the general election, right? The conventional wisdom seems pretty skewed here.

Three points: 1) there are half again as many self-identified 'conservatives' as there are 'liberals', so what may work for conservatives won't necessarily work for us; 2) even so, we don't know yet if the Republican base-pandering will hurt the current crop of candidates, so we can't exactly cite them as examples; and 3) what did work very well for the Republicans (until 2006) was a facade of moderation combined with below-the-radar dog-whistle appeals to the crazies. It's worth noting that a sizable minority of the people who voted for Bush didn't know what his policies were, didn't agree with his policies, and in fact refused to believe that those were his policies when pollsters described them to them.

Is Edwards toxic in the general election because of all the base-pleasing sounds he's been making?

I wouldn't say that, because I honestly don't know. What I am saying is that our purely emotional desire for progressive appearance as well as substance does us no favors; and that, conversely, combining progressive substance with a moderate or post-partisan surface appeal is our best bet. (Whether Obama successfully embodies that approach remains to be seen.)

We've been trending leftward on Iraq for a while, and we'll probably keep doing so into 2008. Universal health care is a goal that most Americans accept. The country is now left of David Broder and the Beltway centrist consensus.

Sure...but support for progressive policies does not automatically translate to support for progressive candidates. Most people may support progressive policies, but most people also loathe 'progressives'--or more precisely, their skewed and stereotypical conception of who we are and what we stand for. They'll happily vote for a politician who espouses progressive policies, just so long as he or she isn't a 'progressive'.

(And the Iraq war has probably firmed up support for progressive policies and softened some of the loathing for 'progressives', but there is still a disconnect there, and we ignore it at our peril.)

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 6:30 PM

"So by my count, we have the establishment choice winning in '80, '84, '88, '92, '00, and '04, but losing in '72 and '76. So I get 6 out of 8."

Furthermore, let's knock a few of those 8 races out of the mix.

The primary rules in '72 and '76 were dramatically different than they are now. There were winner-take-all primaries that enabled a plurality, rather than majority, campaign to take the nomination. So let's start measuring after those two.

Let's also knock out the races in '80, '84, and '00 out of the race, as Carter, Mondale, and Gore were all either incumbents or psuedo-incumbents from their time as Vice President.

Now we're down to a sample size of 3 - '88, '92, and '04.

In both '88 and '92, the establishment choice dropped out of the race - Hart in '88 and Cuomo in '92, leaving weird races. In '04, the race was dominated by a candidate that the party was desperate not to nominate. Actually one can draw some real parallels between '88 and '04, where both campaigns were defined by a party eager to coalesce around a candidate to stop a candidate deemed a sure general election loser - Jackson in '88 and Dean in '04.

In short, I don't think you can refer to history to say that Hillary is inevitable. We've never had a candidate in the open primary era running from the left of the field who does well in general elections matchups, as Edwards does. You rule him out as a potential nominee at your own peril.

To reiterate, I think the best template for '08 is '84. The establishment candidate is a pseudo-incumbent who isn't actually a sitting President or Vice President, who doesn't do very well in general election matchups, and who is widely seen as inevitable. The "quasi-establishment" candidate is running as the "beyond politics" alternative. And a third candidate is lurking in the wings while being ignored by the national press.

Of course, the establishment candidate ended up winning in '84 after a spirited challenge from Hart. But I think that by having been exposed to the national audience already, Edwards is inoculated against some of the techniques that Mondale used to beat down Hart.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 6:32 PM

"And Dem primary voters are, by and large, loyal Democrats -- that's why they're primary voters. They're going to be very responsive to Dem elected officials and leaders of key constituencies, meaning labor and the African-American community. Those are mostly to overwhelmingly in HRC's corner."

Dem primary voters are also very responsive to the Dems in early states who have had a chance to get to know the candidates well.

They tend to be more responsive to the judgment of early state Dems than are to the judgment of elected Dems.

If Hillary can win the early states, this thing is obviously over. But if Edwards can win early states, Dem voters nationwide will give him a serious look. And I'd bet they'll like what they see.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 6:36 PM

What might cripple a candidate in the general is actually running the same style of campaign in the general that you ran in the primaries. It has nothing to do with any policy positions you took in the primaries.

I think too jarring a shift in tone after the primaries would hurt a candidate as much as running the same style of campaign. It's a balancing act.

And I would agree that it has more to do with style than with policy positions as such, but I don't agree that it 'has nothing to do with any policy positions you took in the primaries.' The more detailed the policy proposals, the richer the target. On health care, for example, 'universal health care' is far more popular than any specific plan for achieving it.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 6:46 PM

don't confuse "Hillary is the favorite" with "Hillary is inevitable". Those are two different things.

Anybody who thinks they absolutely *know* what's going to happen in the next several months is a fool. As petey says, it's uphill for Edwards (and I'd say for Obama too, probably), but neither LP nor anyone else positively knows what's going to happen. It's just silly.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 19, 2007 7:01 PM

I appreciate the conversation here and learning more of the nitty-gritty of the nominating process, but what continues to confuse me is why, given her clear unpopularity among a significant portion of the Democratic base, Hillary Clinton is so favored to win the nomination. Okay, I understand she has the institutional support and accept Petey's analysis that historically this makes the difference, but why exactly is this the case? The nominating process, the caucuses, primaries, etc., present themselves as involving an important degree of consultation with run-of the-mill-Democrats and one would think that the broad malaise regarding HRC would have a more concrete impact on the choice of nominee. Maybe my view is skewed living in liberal 'ol Eugene, Oregon where there's a lot of antipathy to Hillary, but I think something is missing in the process here.

Posted by Warren | June 19, 2007 7:03 PM

I think too jarring a shift in tone after the primaries would hurt a candidate as much as running the same style of campaign. It's a balancing act.

I dunno. "Nothing to do" was probably an overstatement on my part, but basically I don't think the majority of voters even pay attention to the primaries. Or policy positions, for that matter. I don't think the shift in tone would really hurt all that much.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 7:07 PM

Most people may support progressive policies, but most people also loathe 'progressives'--or more precisely, their skewed and stereotypical conception of who we are and what we stand for.

And that's a big part of the raison d'être for the Edwards candidacy. He says solidly progressive stuff, but with a Southern accent, so nobody stereotypes him as the kind of person who uses phrases like "raison d'être". To disengaged swing voters, he looks like he's just another good-hearted small-town southern boy.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 19, 2007 7:07 PM

"As petey says, it's uphill for Edwards"

To repeat myself:

We've never had a candidate in the open primary era running from the left of the field who does well in general elections matchups, as Edwards does.

Hillary has a lot of built-in advantages. But there is a compelling logic behind Edwards that has a good shot of playing out to Dem voters in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

Imagine a morning in January 2008 where Edwards has won the Iowa caucuses the night before. The race will suddenly look very different than it looks right now.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 7:09 PM

Warren: What you're missing is the simple fact that HRC is NOT unpopular with a significant portion of the Democratic base.

In fact, she is VERY popular with the Democratic base (as are all of our candidates, thankfully IMHO).

She is unpopular with a relatively small group of opinion-leaders in the blogosphere, but you're average Dem likes her, quite a lot.

Posted by Andruw | June 19, 2007 7:13 PM

"what continues to confuse me is why, given her clear unpopularity among a significant portion of the Democratic base, Hillary Clinton is so favored to win the nomination."

Because she owns low-information Dem voters at the moment.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 7:14 PM

And that's a big part of the raison d'être for the Edwards candidacy. He says solidly progressive stuff, but with a Southern accent, so nobody stereotypes him as the kind of person who uses phrases like "raison d'être". To disengaged swing voters, he looks like he's just another good-hearted small-town southern boy.

That's true (with a caveat below), and I didn't really intend to sound negative about Edwards; truth be told, I think either he or Obama could do very well in the general, and I think he and Obama are pursuing different but valid approaches to resolving the dilemma I've been talking about.

The caveat is that the Republicans have already acted to pre-empt Edwards' 'good-hearted small-town southern boy' appeal with the whole 'Breck girl' meme, and it has gained a foothold. If Edwards allows himself to be defined that way this early, he's screwed as the nominee.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 7:18 PM

"what continues to confuse me is why, given her clear unpopularity among a significant portion of the Democratic base, Hillary Clinton is so favored to win the nomination."

Because she owns low-information Dem voters at the moment.

Here we go again. Seems like all blog discussions of elections are based on the idea of a direct relationship between the candidate (or, at best, the campaign) and the voters, as if there were no other institutions or stakeholders mediating between them.

HRC is favored because she's supported by a plurality of Dem elected officials, unions and African-American leaders. A good campaign is just not enough to allow Edwards or Obama to overcome this base of support.

I do agree with Petey that Edwards is better positioned than Obama to take advantage of a major shift in the landscape, such a huge upsurge in anti-war sentiment. But absent that, he's toast.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 19, 2007 7:21 PM

...basically I don't think the majority of voters even pay attention to the primaries. Or policy positions, for that matter. I don't think the shift in tone would really hurt all that much.

Most voters aren't paying attention at this point, but oppo research types are. Everything is recorded and everything lives forever.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 7:21 PM

"HRC is favored because she's supported by a plurality of Dem elected officials, unions and African-American leaders. A good campaign is just not enough to allow Edwards or Obama to overcome this base of support."

I again suggest the '84 race as a template for precisely how that base of support can be overcome.

Early state voters are vouchers to the rest of the Dem electorate just like Dem officials are. Victories in early contests speak volumes to low-information Dems.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 7:26 PM

Republicans have already acted to pre-empt Edwards' 'good-hearted small-town southern boy' appeal with the whole 'Breck girl' meme

For all these things, the proof is in the polling. Edwards does very well despite his substantial past exposure to the right wing noise machine. At present, the RCP summary of polls has him as the only Democrat with a lead over Giuliani.

Republicans are going to figure out some way to attack whoever we nominate. But some attacks will succeed, and others won't. Against Edwards, they aren't succeeding.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 19, 2007 7:29 PM

Matt,

Your posts today have been informative and interesting and all. But your blogging skills are really slipping when Sullivan has out-panda blogged you for the day.

Posted by Brian | June 19, 2007 7:36 PM

"If either of those guys is the nominee, Democrats can at least sleep soundly at night knowing that their party's general election speeches are going to be delivered by people who can deliver speeches very, very well and who have good speechwriters."

Just wanted to say that Obama mostly writes his own speeches, and he definitely writes his own books. He's chief speechwriter. I dunno about Edwards exactly, but his biography "Four Trials" was ghostwritten so his speeches probably are too.

Posted by Korha | June 19, 2007 7:49 PM

"Just wanted to say that Obama mostly writes his own speeches"

Amazing how all those Axelrod touches manage to creep into the speeches Obama writes himself. Great minds must think alike.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 7:56 PM

For all these things, the proof is in the polling. Edwards does very well despite his substantial past exposure to the right wing noise machine. At present, the RCP summary of polls has him as the only Democrat with a lead over Giuliani.

True enough. At the same time, the Swift Boat attacks didn't hurt Kerry until well after the primaries. I hope it doesn't become a big thing, but it feels to me like the sort of attack that could.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 19, 2007 7:57 PM

I'm a little late with this, I realize, but I think there's a pretty strong case that the 2004 establishment candidate was Lieberman, and we all know how far Joementum got.

Yeah--Kerry became the anti-dean establishment pretty late, but back in June of 2003, Lieberman was very clearly the party favorite.

Posted by brad | June 19, 2007 8:01 PM

"I think there's a pretty strong case that the 2004 establishment candidate was Lieberman"

You're an absolute loon, if you think that.

Kerry was the consensus establishment candidate by March 2003 at the very latest.

Posted by Petey | June 19, 2007 8:06 PM

EDWARDS: Edwards' firm stance on poverty and inequality is exactly why I support his presidency campaign. The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty. Imagine how different the world would be. On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutrition, which is peanuts considering our $522 billion military budget this year.

OBAMA: Even though Barack doesn't seem "seasoned" enough to lead the country, I think the important thing is that he has been talking about issues that really matter. From war to poverty to education and health care, he has been supporting issues that make a difference in people's lives. Hopefully the support he has garnered from his platform shows other presidential hopefuls that there really needs to be a change in this country's policies.

Posted by ellec | June 19, 2007 8:09 PM

Maybe you had to be there, but Obama struck me on the video as pretty boring. The hagiographers over at TAPPED have lost their minds. The "low-information" voters I can understand, but why the Take Back America crowd isn't solidly behind Edwards at this point boggles my mind.

Posted by Jose Peterson | June 19, 2007 8:40 PM

You're an absolute loon, if you think that.

Arguments that involve petty name calling are ALWAYS stronger, petey.

Kerry was the consensus establishment candidate by March 2003 at the very latest.

Eh. It really depends on how you want to define the term. Kos, today, dug up some polling data showing that Lieberman was way out ahead of everyone else in June 2003.
http://dailykos.com/

I realize that's a bit different--a number involving popular support and name recognition and all that, not "establishment" recognition, but I think it's safe to say that Lieberman was an early frontrunner and certainly a DLC favorite.

And here's Ezra Klein, many blogs ago, apparently, in 2003 noting that Clark was entering the race as the new defacto establishment candidate.
http://www.notgeniuses.com/archives/001032.html

The more I look at it, the more it looks like no one can reasonably claim there was such a thing as an establishment candidate for 2004 (at least not anything like the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton.) If Kerry was the establishment candidate in March 2003, he certainly wasn't by September or November or December. By the end of 2003, dude had to mortgage his house just to stay in the race. If he had been the locked in establishment candidate, I imagine he could have raised enough money to not have to take on $6 million plus in personal debt.

Posted by brad | June 19, 2007 8:42 PM

I'm sure this isn't needed...but just in case, no, Lieberman was never the establishment candidate, and Kerry/Gephardt very much were, from day one.

Posted by Andruw | June 19, 2007 8:43 PM

Andruw--how could Kerry/Gephardt be the establishment candidates? The whole concept implies strong backing by a large group of entrenched staffers, etc. for one person. To have establishment candidates is to have no establishment candidate.

I'm willing to grant that I wasn't right to suggest that Lieberman was the establishment candidate (although he was pretty clearly the early front runner given that he led all the early polling data, which is what I based my comment on.) But no way was the support Kerry received in 2003 from the powers-that-be meaningfully comparable to what HRC receives. Don't look for her to have to mortgage her house to stay in the race. Don't look for the DLC to drag in Clark, etc.

Posted by brad | June 19, 2007 8:54 PM

Obama just proposed a living wage. Is this the first time he's done that?

Posted by Omar | June 19, 2007 10:22 PM

"Amazing how all those Axelrod touches manage to creep into the speeches Obama writes himself. Great minds must think alike."

Really? Cuz Obama's speeches sound pretty unique to me. Not like Edward's speeches circa 2003 at all, and Axelrod was a major strategist on that campaign as well.

Anyways, we know for a fact that Obama wrote his 2004 DNC speech, his Presidental Announcement Speech, and his speech in Selma himself. He has speechwriters, too, of course--but because he doesn't have time to write all his speeches, not because his speechwriters are better than he is. A good case could be made that Obama is, in fact, the best speechwriter right now in American politics.

I would recommend Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father to anyone who doubts his skill as a writer and manipulator of rhetoric.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2007/The-Speech/

Posted by Korha | June 19, 2007 10:35 PM

they were both really, really good qua rhetoric

Can't you just use the word "as?"

Posted by TW Andrews | June 20, 2007 9:56 AM

I would like to see both Obama and Edwards support more international affaris. Problems like global poverty are affecting each and every one of us on a daily basis. The U.S. should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (an international pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by aileen | June 20, 2007 9:33 PM