Posted on 08/04/2004 1:29:22 AM PDT by kattracks
The contrast between Sen. John Edwards’s empathetic, warm, evocative speech at the Democratic convention and Sen. Hillary Clinton's rote, tinny partisanship was all too obvious. If the former first lady thinks she can roll over Edwards, even if his ticket loses in November, she has another thing coming.The impact of Edwards’s speech will not soon dissipate. A national convention has not heard the likes of his speech in some time. His content was Clintonesque. His delivery had the compelling, uplifting quality of Martin Luther King Jr. His emotionality was worthy of Reagan. He is a star.
Hillary only has a partisan cadence to her remarks, a very conventional convention speaking style best used at highly partisan gatherings where her pauses can be animated by canned applause. But Edwards spoke not with his larynx but with his heart.
The former trial lawyer made clear that he understands what it is like to be downtrodden and to be trodden upon. He has felt personal pain in a way few of us ever have, and the furrows in his personality reflect the lessons he has learned.
His human approach to the Iraq war and his evocation of the pain and suffering it causes soldiers and families is a welcome contrast to the feel-no-pain patriotism that exalts the mission but does little to honor the troops themselves.
But the larger purpose of Edwards’s speech, like Clinton’s before it, was to put the War on Terror into a little box and not let it overshadow the domestic issues on which the Democratic Party is a clear winner. By talking about the economy and healthcare and the pain that many Americans feel, Edwards and Clinton both are seeking to conduct the election on a wider front than just national security and terror. In this sense, Edwards’s speech was not only eloquent but politically right on target.
For an era of political sound bites in which nothing longer than seven seconds makes it onto our TV screens, our political system is curiously structured around long, great oratory. Clinton’s State of the Union speeches were like the towers of a suspension bridge, holding his ratings aloft and raising them up whenever they sank.
Convention speeches do more to define a candidate than any other event. New York Gov. Mario Cuomo lived off his two cities speech for more than a decade. Who can forget Clinton’s line in 1992 that there are no more “us and them. There is only us?”
Even Al Gore rose to the occasion in his anti-tobacco speech of 1996 and his State of the Union-like catalog of programs in 2000. Bush-41, no great orator, captured our hearts when he called himself a “quiet man who hears the quiet voices.”
There is a dearth of real life experiences among our politicians. With both Bushes born to the purple, Clinton a lifelong career politician and officeholder and Reagan an actor, we don’t have political figures who know what it is like to be an ordinary person. With 11 senators holding their seats because their ancestors or husbands had them, we lack people who have suffered and come up the hard way.
Edwards’s real-life experience echoes in each line of his speech. He has lived in pain, and he has spent his life representing those who are suffering. His experience with life more than compensates for his scant political résumé.
The North Carolina senator has now talked his way into this pantheon of the eloquent. His speech will echo for the rest of his life and will vault him over others as he pursues higher office. Whatever else happens in his life, John Edwards will always have Boston. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton.
Hillary-Obama 2008 might face a primary challenge from Edwards-the-loser??? Why not have Gore, Dukakis and Carter run for President again while their at it??
What? I haven't seen anybody talking about that speech. Not here, not anywhere.
Ooookay....
Edwards' girlie-man speech was a joke, Morris.
Methinks Dick is goading Hillary.
Gee, Dickie's fawning over Edwards is making me want to vomit. Edwards has spent his life representing those who are suffering--ha! From the way I've heard it told he exploited people in pain to line his own pockets not considering the lives he destroyed doing it. Maybe Dickie is just trying to stick it to Hillary like a previous poster stated. He can't be serious with all this flattery. I've only heard snippets of the Edwards speech--was it really that great?
Before resorting to the usual and tired Morris bashing, focus again on the context of the article. Edwards vs Hillary.
I agree with the others that this is largely Hillary baiting, but the central point made is that Hillary has a credible obstacle on the horizon. I considered the Edwards speech mediocre, but in comparison to Hillary's it was indeed far superior. He hit all the touchy feely nerves while Hillary only got on people's nerves.
My money is still on Hillary, but Morris isn't obviously wrong in that if Edwards can develop this further in the party, Hillary might have some problems in her regal march to the '08 nomination.
(AWESOME JOB, C.P.!)
Ditto, but I think he went a little overboard in his praise of Edwards to make it believable.
BTW, someone reading from the NY phone book would have been superior hillary!'s speech, imo.
"Dick is at it again, Ultrashort one.
His observations are perfect. As always we will make his conclusion wrong.
Get me our FBI files, including those on new ones on Morris and Edwards.""
BTW, I've seen better speeches from high school debaters.
Dick Morris is applying for a job. Morris is trying to set himself up for 2008 and a go against Hillary. He thinks Edwards is the horse to back amongst the Dems. The Republican candidates in 2008 are not so obvious. Dickie wants back into the magic circle.
I believe that Morris may be on to something here. We hear a lot about the inevitability of Mrs. Clinton's rise to at least the Dem Presidential nominee, but while a core of feminist radicals love her, many in the Democrat party are put off by her brittle edge.
Edwards offers 1) a softer edge for the Dem housewives; and, 2) a countenance that does not leave the Dem girlie men who still have a little manhood left clutching their privates in fear.
Don't get me wrong, Edwards is sleaze, but he is one politician with national exposure that Hillary probably does not have a file on and he is more likable than Mrs. Rodham-Clinton.
Licorice: "What makes you think that if my masters got 950 FBI files once
and that it has been OK'd [wink, wink, wink, Berger, Gorelick, tail wag, wink]
that there cannot be another 4000 or more additional stolen FBI files now".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
