The *Real* Real Deal

[incapsulated]

This is a pro-Edwards, anti-Kerry type article. Make of it what you will.

Don't come down on me, this isn't the whole article and it's not longer than 4 paragraphs! :P

"Over two days I saw John Edwards and John Kerry speak at Dartmouth College. Edwards exhilarated my wife and me and the rest of the audience. We left the Kerry event before it ended and would have gone earlier if we had not hooked a ride with a more-patient friend—for we were bored, disappointed, and angry. Kerry has congratulated himself for abandoning "Washingtonese," but he was premature."

"How, we wondered aloud driving home, could a man in public life for decades, running for President for more than a year, not do better than this? How could he say things like, "Two-hundred percent of poverty" or refer to his chairmanship of a Senate committee as—if I heard correctly—"Foreign Ops"? When he was served up a home-run pitch, "Why is this election so historic?", how could he begin so promisingly—"Three words. The Supreme Court"— but then maunder on inconsequently, satisfied with hitting a single? Why, above all, is he still running on his résumé? We know he's qualified to be President; his job as a candidate is to make us want him to be President."

"As a personal-injury trial lawyer, John Edwards has made millions from his ability to persuade juries of ordinary Americans—by stirring their hearts with words, gesture, and sincerity. In contrast, John Kerry suffers from terminal Senatitis. Senators speak to themselves. Their colleagues don't listen to them. They can't see a single face in the galleries. The tradition of unlimited debate encourages prolixity. Senators talk (and talk) not to persuade but to justify their votes, and they inveterately sound defensive. Asked how an advocate of programs to help children could "favor ... partial birth abortion," Kerry caviled that he did not "favor" it; then he quoted the exact language of a resolution he supported allowing the practice under narrowly delineated conditions—in short, he justified his vote. Edwards would have evoked the agony of a woman faced with severe harm if she carried her baby to term—wanting that baby more than anything in the world and then being told that bearing it could kill or maim her. That is the stuff of tragedy, not legislation-speak. Kerry was asked why so few Senators have been elected President, and his answer on abortion showed why."

"Again and again, in his Dartmouth speech, Edwards created waves of applause with his precise darts of language—"It's wrong!", "We can do better than this!", "Join our cause!". Kerry, who buried his applause lines in the gray lava of his monotone, got his loudest cheers when he entered the room. Once he opened his mouth the energy began to seep away—at any rate, in the "overflow" room from where we watched Kerry on a giant screen. Listening to him, I saw a long line of Democratic bores—Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bradley, Gore—who lost because people could not bear listening to them."

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2004-01-26.htm

[Skwmom]

1. The Real Real Deal is Clark.

When Clark entered the race many of us referred to him as the real deal. I was going to make up real deal t-shirts and send them to his campaign office (I wish I had though I did make up ones for my family). Edwards is all fluff and no substance. I'm sorry but this country is in shambles. We need someone other than a personal injury attorney with a slick stump speech to turn it around. With a personal injury background and ZERO credibility on national defense there is no way Edwards can get elected - I don't care how great he is at giving a stump speech.

[incapsulated]

2. Well, I agree of about Clark, of course..

Although they all could learn a thing or two about public speaking from Edwards. If all you get is a soundbite, it better be good, you know?

I found what he said about why so many Senators are so dull as speakers somewhat insightful though.

[texasmom]

3. Well, this article elaborates on my fears...

This is what I am very afraid of: (from article)

..."I fear he could talk his way out of victory—that, excited by his résumé, his panache as a war hero, Americans from coast to coast will be disappointed in the real man; that, just as we did at Dartmouth, they will long for him to stop his answers at the one-minute mark and by minute two will have tuned out and by minute three will pine for the terse nullity of George W. Bush..."

I think that Kerry's resume is great, and I think that is what the people in Iowa and NH were thinking about when they compared him to Dean. I don't think they had time to think about the matchup on tv, though, over months between Bush and Kerry. Far too many swing voters vote for personality--how else can you explain that those same people voted for Reagan *and* Clinton. I'm convinced that 40% of American voters will vote for Bush no matter what, 40% will vote for the Democrat no matter what. The middle 20% (give or take a few) will vote for the guy they like the best personally. I think it has to be Clark or Edwards. If Kerry gets the nomination I really hope I'm wrong.