Just so you can know what the heck I was talking about, I’m putting all the videos of the speeches I saw in one place — at least from the candidates that have a snowball’s chance in hell.
Here’s Richardson:
Here’s Obama:
Here’s Edwards:
Here’s Hillary:
OK, Obama won the straw poll, and everybody seems to have been gaga over his speech — which was indeed terrific. See for yourself.
But I have to say, I was moved more by Edwards. Maybe it’s the recent dissonance of Obama’s support for coal-to-liquid, or the grotesque anti-Hillary shenanigans of his campaign crowbar crew that were rattling around in my head, and prevented me from really hearing the music of his speech.
But in any event, Edwards seemed more earnest, more real, simpler, more unaffected. When he talked about his presidential run as his mission in life — “I will speak for the poor. I will speak for the disenfranchised” — I believed him.
In short, Obama gave a great performance — which is not to be discounted or belittled in the least; we need that. But Edwards seemed to speak from the gut; yes, he covered a lot of policy ground, but it all fit in his value system, and he seemed to be personally invested.
I don’t know — make up your own mind.
I agree with your assessment of the speeches.
I couldn’t care less about the speeches you posted, but I would like to see Mike Gravel’s.
here.
<
p>
Here’s Mike, anyway.
<
p>
I love listening to Senator Gravel. He’s so right on so many levels.
…as a side note, you have reported booing during Clinton’s speech. From what I have read elsewhere, the boos came while she was discussing responsibility of the Iraqi government for their own security (succinctly stated). Were the boos actually for Clinton, or for the Iraqi government? Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the two, but what is your opinion?
They mostly came from a protest group called Code Pink, not the audience at large. It was a little bit curious, but it seemed to the audience, and me, that blaming the Iraqis for their failures is a dodge of America’s central responsibility for the mess. That’s what they were responding to, IMO.
I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, regardless of my (negative) opinion of her.
<
p>
The booers are pretty much irrelevant to my opinion of her.
1)Obama
<
p>
While I will admit my own bias I feel that this speech most fluently combined substance and style. As an orator Barack has that kind of smooth fluid transition style reminiscent of a preacher. This rambling but fluid motion sounds authentic and real, yet he also effortlessly includes real policy meat and positions into the speech without sounding boring or wonkish. I really feel that this shows Obama at his best, its his ability to combine this vast intellectual policy knowledge alongside his ability to captivate an audience and sell this policy. His healthcare policy is not that different from his opponents or even from John Kerry’s, his Iraq policy is similar to his opponents, but what we forgot in 2000 and 2004 and what made Bill Clinton such a great politician is the fact that our candidates need to have great policies and the ability to sell them to the people. Kerry sounded far too intellectual and senatorial when he explained policy, Obama doesn’t, he gets impassioned about these issues and he can sell that passion to the American people.
<
p>
2) Richardson
<
p>
He did a great job articulating clear policy differences with the other candidates, he sounded very knowledgeable and experienced, and for the first time he made a speech that sounded almost eloquent. He had a lot of good metaphors, transitions, alliteration, things that while insignificant policy wise do go a little way in making a candidate more attractive than another. His speeches are sounding a lot better and to say that Richardson has become an eloquent speaker is saying a lot since his speeches used to be simplistic, heavy on the meat and substance but light on style. He doesn’t have the same ideal medium that Obama does, his style is still very meaty, but I can see Richardson speaking to the American people especially those in the West with this plain spoken style and I can see it resonate on the campaign trail. Focusing on Iraq and climate change really is his best way of differentiating himself from his fellow Democrats and he did it in a really classy and respectful manner, pointing out Edwards’ hypocrisy and the inaction of the sitting Senators including Obama in matching their actions on Iraq with their words.
<
p>
3) Edwards
<
p>
Again I have an anti-Edwards bias, but he really is trying to be the Howard Dean of this cycle and while that might be a great strategy in getting early buzz, left wing money, and early leads in the early states, much like Dean I see him fizzling out. My big criticism of his speeches whether it be the populist Two Americas of 2004 or the more leftward lurches of 2007 is that they are overly simplistic, black and white, and a little wild. In fact and maybe its the Southern accent, but it kind of reminds me more of George Bush than Bill Clinton who Edwards thinks he is channeling. Whats funny is I like his domestic policies a lot more than most of the other candidates, but I can’t see him selling them to a skeptical swing voter, especially the independents who tend to be more economically libertarian. It seems that he is offering big government and higher taxes and the GOP will rail him over the wall with this, and while as a Democrat I personally don’t mind either if they serve the common good, he risks setting us back with the libertarian voters who are deserting the GOP in droves and could make 2008 a truly landslide realigning election for the Dems.
<
p>
4) Hillary
<
p>
Shrill, overly focus group tests, poor ability to deal with the interrupters and the booers, a mediocre speech with a mediocre message and modest policy changes. Hillary could have run in 2000 with this message, but in 2008 we need real strikingly different leadership, a radical vision to change our country, this is the Take America Back conference after all, and we really need to have a drastic change in a new direction. DLC style Clintonian leadership worked for the 90’s and could have continued working had Gore won but after Bush we need a radically new departure and we need to not only undo the damage which Hillary confidently has assured us she will, but put in place a bold new program to not only take us away from the path to failure but put us onto the path to success. She has started to succeed in distancing herself from the 02 vote and her history as a wimpocrat pre 2006 and Im shocked she has so give her credit for that, but she must articulate a bolder vision and a grander reason for her election.
<
p>
Sorry for the long posts but things needed to be said.
It took me a while to get through them, but the longer format was a nice break from the steady diet of soundbites that passes for campaign coverage and debates these days. Since the reality is I’ll be working my butt off to elect whichever one wins the nomination, I’m glad to observe they all acquitted themselves well and had their moments. Any of them would be a huge upgrade over our present sorry situation and would be far better than the leading Republican candidates, all of whom appear determined to persist in waging war in Iraq, ignoring climate change and pandering to the religious right.
<
p>
Considering both presentation and content, one woman’s ranking best to worst (but none bad): 1) Obama 2) Edwards 3) Clinton 4) Richardson.
<
p>
Obama really has the gift of connecting with an audience, and since our last two Democratic presidential candidates faltered in that department, I don’t underestimate the importance of those skills. (I also didn’t have Charley’s reluctance to go along for the ride since Obama has heard reason on CTL, and I never gave a fleep about staffer-gate, not least since the story was peddled to the press by the Clinton campaign). In addition to ending the war, Obama calls for universal health care, higher fuel efficiency standards, COLAs for the minimum wage, closing Guantanamo, ending the assault on constitutional rights & habeas corpus, easing the process for employees to elect a union, and other good stuff.
<
p>
Edwards also impressed. I liked his focus on issues of inequality and injustice, not just nationally, but around the world. Great line about it being time for us to be patriotic about something other than war. Calls for universal health care, capping greenhouse emissions.
<
p>
Clinton is too chilly a speaker for my taste, but she gets credit for raising the issue of voting rights and voter suppression, in addition to getting out Iraq, climate change etc. I thought her opening on stem cell research was a misread of her audience – leading with and spending too much time on a centrist issue for an activist group.
<
p>
Richardson had good things to say on fighting climate change. I didn’t resonate with removing “every last soldier” vs. “almost all” from Iraq as a big differentiator relative to other candidates. Seems early and unwise to box himself in on that point. Delivery was much improved over the last time I saw him, in the SC debate. It bothered me that he didn’t speak to any other issues besides the war and climate change. The others all managed to give some indications about where they stood on at least a few other important matters – economic inequality, voting rights, health care, union elections, education, stem cell research, erosion of civil liberties etc.