Here's my ranking of the Democratic candidates' speeches today at the DNC. I'm ranking them for their eloquence, passion, ideas, power, and response from the audience. I'm also considering whether their speeches might have helped or hurt them.
1. John Edwards. Hands down, the winner today was John Edwards. His speech was powerful, passionate, eloquent, and elicited a huge response from the audience. I heard more than one person say that his speech sent chills up and down their spines. Basically, Edwards had the crowd in the palm of his hand. I think this speech really helped Edwards a lot. Wow.
2. Chris Dodd: Gave a fiery, liberal speech that was a bit repetitive and long-winded but connected with the audience. Frankly, I was surprised at how enthusiatically Dodd was received by the audience today. Does it matter? Hard to say, but most likely there will be a "dark horse" emerging from the crowded Democratic field, and Chris Dodd today made his case that that horse should be him.
3. Hillary Clinton: A bit of a tough audience for Hillary (although lots of Hillary signs and supporters as well), with some persistent hecklers on the issue of Iraq. When Hillary said "I propose capping troop levels," someone yelled "BRING EM HOME!" Hillary did make a strong statement that "If I had been President after 9/11, I would not have started this war." She finished strong (the last paragraph got people cheering) after a bit of turbulence during other parts of the speech. I'd say that Hillary Clinton didn't hurt herself at all today, and may have even helped herself by not backing down to the rude and disrespectful hecklers. No matter what else people say about her - and they've said it all! - this woman is tough, smart, and knows how to fight.
4. Wes Clark: This was a fine speech but probably not ideal for this true "blue" audience, which was looking for something to get excited about (aka, "red meat"). Clark's speech was very serious, very "adult" in tone, certainly no pandering. That's good, but it didn't excite the crowd particularly (and I've seen Clark do this many times). Another problem was logistical; for whatever reason, there was a long delay before Clark's speech, and by the time he started, a lot of people had drifted out of the room or were engaged in loud conversations. It took half his speech to get most of the crowd listening intently. Still, Clark was received respectfully today and certainly didn't hurt himself in any way. We'll see what happens if when he announces for President; my guess is that Clark will be a strong "dark horse" contender if he runs a netroots campaign and if Iraq and national security are still the top issues in 6 months, 12 months from now.
5. Barack Obama: A strong speech in terms of content. His discussion of cynicism and hope, as well as his line that "[t]imes are too serious to let the cynics win this time," worked well. But for some reason, maybe heightened expectations for someone seen as a "rock star," Obama's speech today seemed a bit underwhelming, flat, like he was holding back, tired, subdued or something. I'd say that Obama didn't hurt himself today at all, but he also didn't particularly help himself either.
6. Dennis Kucinich: Red meat for the far, FAR left wing crowd, perhaps (10 minutes on the damage done to southern Lebanon by bombs made in the USA), but besides that, there's not much to say. Not a very powerful or eloquent speech, even on its own merits. I think the vast majority of the crowd was sitting there trying to figure out why this guy is running for President. Not much of a reaction one way or the other. Yawn.
P.S. Aside from Kucinich, I am proud that we have such strong, impressive candidates running for President this year as Democrats. After today, I am very optimistic that we're going to take back the White House in 2008.
P.P.S. A big winner today was Nancy Pelosi, who was praised by just about everyone. Howard Dean also was greatly praised for his 50-state strategy, which apparently now is considered to be brilliant, despite that fact that Dean took a lot of undeserved heat for it during 2006. What's the expression, success has a 100 fathers but failure is an orphan?
[UPDATE: John Edwards' speech is now available on his website. Wes Clark's speech will be available here. I don't see Obama's speech on his website, or Hillary Clinton's speech on hers yet. Chris Dodd has photos and blog coverage on his site]
I think Edwards did pretty well, but I disagree about HC. On TeeVee, she came across as quite.... um,
Well, it sounded like she was trying to address a hall without a microphone.... I'm still looking for a word that wouldn't repeat the right-wing 'meme".
I also agree about Obama's speech. From the TV angle, his constant referring to notes and insistence at looking off towards 'camera right' was distracting. He seemed a little off his um.... "game".
Thank you for providing such a complete review.
I agree with some of Lowell's assessments. Edwards did have the crowd up and on it's collective feet with the "stand up for..." whatever. But I must say, all his talk of courage to stand up for the right thing rang very hollow in the face of his total lack of courage to stand up and vote against the IWR before he ran the first time.
Lowell also noted the prolonged delay between Obama's speech and Clark's, while the DNC did some housekeeping. It seemed a bit distracting and a bit disrespectful for his supporters to take that time to get up and leave (after just two speeches!) before giving the other candidates their time. The noise level and activity in the room should have at least prompted the DNC member introducing Clark to ask the crowd to take a seat before he began.
I actually had to duck out before Hillary, but my buddy watching on TV said she actually used the line "My name is Hillary Clinton, and I'm running for President." I'm no Hillary-hater, but easy Bob Rumson (I assume Sorkin refs are encouraged on RK?).
FWIW:
1. John Edwards - always a polished speaker - walked away the clear surface winner today mainly because of the energy from the (dare I say his) audience. Let's just say that it proved the point that when organization salts the audience ... but watch the DNC members reactions (looked to me like 10% support) they want someone who can win.
LOTS OF ENERGY!! CLEAR APPEAL TO UNION MEMBERS. "WILL YOU STAND UP FOR AMERICA?"
2. Hillary Clinton: "I know a thing about winning campaigns" was the line of the day. IMO she should start and end with that and kill off the "start a conversation". The DNC members (looked to me like 30% support)want a winner and yes, as Lowell points out "this woman is tough, smart, and knows how to fight." The room had plenty of energy and showed organizational strength.
3. Barack Obama: I agree with Lowell "A strong speech in terms of content. His discussion of cynicism and hope, as well as his line that "[t]imes are too serious to let the cynics win this time," worked well." ... Lowell also hit the nail on the head with,"But for some reason, maybe heightened expectations for someone seen as a "rock star," Obama's speech today seemed a bit underwhelming, flat, like he was holding back, tired, subdued or something. I'd say that Obama didn't hurt himself today at all, but he also didn't particularly help himself either."
NO ENERGY - NO ENERGY - NO ENERGY --- Called for a clean campaign --- NO Organizational Strength Shown (draft Obama signs - I think leftovers from the 04 convention)
4. Wes Clark: Lowell's correct "This was a fine speech but probably not ideal for this true "blue" audience" he could have given it at a military academy ... my personal choice to be the VP on the ticket did nothing to sway me to move him into the P category.
5. Chris Dodd: Lowell ranked him second but I agreed with this part "repetitive and long-winded but connected with the audience" ... IMO the audience connection and energy was because he was 1st up ... he's in the race for V-P
6. Dennis Kucinich: "I think the vast majority of the crowd was sitting there trying to figure out why this guy is running for President."
GREAT JOB LOWELL! THANKS!
The last time we ran a candidate on pure merit, we got Dukakis. I do like Warner, but I don't think he's presidential.
John Edwards can spout all the sad stories he wants, but I noticed that none of them were about Iraq. In other words, somewhere in America there's a little girl who no longer has a father because he was killed in Iraq, and somewhere in America there's a woman with a low wage job but who's now also without a husband because he's been killed in Iraq, and somewhere in America there's a young man who may not be able to afford to go to college right now, but it no longer seems all that important because his big brother has been killed in Iraq and he'll never to to college. But then, of course, I don't think Edwards wants to get very personal about something he not only supported but hyped and cheerleaded for months in advance of any vote.
And Obama can talk about hope all he wants, but hope won't get us out of Iraq, hope won't bring peace to the Middle East, hope won't prevent the Bush administration from bombing Iran. So, yes, I'd like some details, some plans, some specifics, about how he's going to turn all his hope into real life action.
And as for Hillary Clinton, what can I say other than I hope she's not the candidate. If you think the Bush administration has been controlled and secretive, I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be just as controlled and secretive. After all, I think of Hillary Clinton's secret health care task force meetings as the precurser for the Cheney secret energy task force meetings. And I think in spite of her sudden desire for U.S. troops to be out ofIraq before she hopes to become president, that she's still going to keep trying to show us all how tough she is. And I'm not interested in anyone who has to spend so much time trying to convince me how tough he/she is and then turn on a dime to show me how really approachable he/she is.
Second, as I said, think of Clark's speech as a speech aimed at the other candidates, a shot across the bow, so to speak, to let them know what they can expect to have to answer for. When he said he was the only candidate that was going to stand at the podium who had actually done what needed to be done in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East, that was a reminder that he has real experience in these matters, that he's been a doer, not just a talker about woulda, coulda, shouda, maybe will. And when he said that the most ardent supporters of the ward had now changed their minds, that was aimed at Edwards and Clinton, and that politicians were now poll-testing their positions, that was aimed at Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. After all, it seems to have turned into some kind of a bidding war: Obama, out in 14 months - Edwards, out in 18 months - Clinton - out in 23 months. But, of course, none of them say exactly how to do this in an orderly and safe manner for both the troops as they leave and those still there - they all just say they'll leave the planning and implementation for that to the military. Democrats have made a lot of the fact that President Bush and SecDef Rumsfeld weren't listening to the commanders on the ground in terms of troop strength, for example, but none of these plans seem to have anything to do with listening to any military advice at all, at least not that they're letting us in on, but instead are driven purely by politics. Maybe they'll all get so exhausted trying to one up and out do each other, that they'll all collapse under the weight of trying to remember what position they took when and which dates and numbers they threw out are the most current and, therefore, the only ones that matter.
As for VP, Clark wasn't interested in being Dean's Dick Cheney in 2004, and I doubt he's any more interested in being Edwards's or Obama's Dick Cheney. If either of them are the candidate, they'll have to stand on their own national security/foreign policy creds. As for Clinton, if she's the candidate, I doubt she's going to want Clark on the ticket with her, because even she couldn't claim to have more national security, foreign policy, defense, and military experience, knowledge, and credibility than Wes Clark.
Go to http://www.youtube.c...
Wes Clark provided Democrats a sobering assessment of our country's current foreign policy and the war in Iraq on February 2, 2007 at the 2007 Democratic Winter Meeting. He also asked why we can't do better, especially on putting equality, justice, balance, and fair play
back into American life.
I will add, too, that his message was for the DNC Members who were there to seriously evaluate the candidates and what they had to say, not how they could pack the room to create a roar. These members have been around the block and know they have to sift through the chaff to get to the wheat.
So, I'm sticking with Clark, someone who's first impression on me as to why I wanted him to be president and beleived he'd be a great president hasn't wavered a bit. And that impression was, here's a grownup, and that's exactly what this country needs, a grownup.
The video should be on the Students for Barack Obama website soon.
Though maybe it was better in person.
I think he gave a fine speech. He was pretty vague on foreign policy except for the fact that he wants to get out of Iraq. He wanted to establish some balance, saying that while we should not be involved in stupid wars, under his leadership the United States will remain engaged in the world.
His most original line was probably the one about patriotism not just applying to war or to foreign policy, but to making the US stronger at home. That was a very nice move.
I haven't seen the other speeches yet, but Lowell's assessment of Edwards seems to be good. I think he gave an excellent speech for this point in the process. I suspect that he will have one of the strongest grassroots operations. One of the things he maybe trying to do is turn grassroots enthusiasm into cash.