Oh wow, this is a great blog post, because it reminded me that Edwards created a major "DNC/DLC Faux Pas" when asked post election what he would have done differently, his response "Not listen to Mary Beth Cahill". OH MY. Thanks to DUer Benny for posting this in the Edwards Support forum :hi:
<snip>
Forward two years to Thursday morning at the University of Southern California. Now former-Senator Edwards was speaking at the Conference on Poverty convened by the Daughters of Charity Health System. What a difference just two years had made.
You can listen to the speech here (a 29.8 megabyte .wav file) and judge for yourself its power and content. For me, it was simply amazing to hear the depth and substance of the address, particularly in comparison to the one I had attended in 2004. Gone were the poll-tested phrases, the multiple planned applause lines, the refinements that come with a presidential campaign. Edwards came to speak about poverty and that is exactly what he did -- with great zeal. Edwards was not at all afraid to speak about the immorality of poverty, calling the participants in the conference into action.
After the speech, some of the others in the audience and I could not help but come to the same conclusion: if only Edwards had used that unreserved tone during the campaign... if only the well-paid consultants had not told him to rein in his language... if only he had given this kind of speech on the hustings...
This is not only about John Edwards. This is much bigger than him. The Economist's America columnist Lexington thinks along similar lines this week in describing the reaction to Al Gore's recent untrammelled speeches on the environment: "Mr Gore is generating far more political capital by breaking the political rules than he did by obeying them."
<snip> You can read the entire post at:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/4/10123/33689