I’m feeling a little under the weather tonight so I decided to stay home and watch the Iowa JJ Dinner on CSPAN. We don’t often write about national politics, but I decided to jot down my thoughts as I watched the speeches. You can find them below the jump. Before I get to that, however, I want to draw attention to the dominating performance put in by the Obama Iowa Field Team. Watching the dinner on TV, all you could hear was the Obama crowd chanting “Fired Up! Ready to Go!” It was very cool - major kudos to the staff that organized it.
Overall, this was Obama’s night. His crowd was dynamite and his speech was the best I’ve heard him give since 2004.
Read more below the jump.
Edwards: Nice speech from a great speaker. The bar is a little higher for Edwards because he is a gifted orator, but he cleared it. His voice cracked a couple of times during the speech, it was probably laryngitis but given that it seemed to happen at emotional points in the speech, added a nice touch. Didn’t criticize Clinton by name, but delivered a blistering critique of the “90s”, it was an effective attack. All that being said, I can’t support Edwards because of his decision to accept federal matching funds. Nominating John Edwards would be a strategic disaster for the Democratic Party. I give the speech a A-
Richardson: I know Flash is a big fan, but Richardson is just not that impressive to me. He’s got a great resume, but he just isn’t Presidential. He subtly criticized Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden by saying that Mukasey should not have been confirmed without a filibuster - all four Senators skipped the final vote. He didn’t mention names, but you could read into it. In light of that, its kinda funny that he got all holier than thou at the end of the speech and talked about how Democrats can’t tear each other down. I give this speech a C+
Biden: Biden was not the best Biden he can be. Tried the sober approach, but came off like a grumpy old man. I don’t think it worked at all. Took a shot at Obama at the very beginning turning to the Obama section of the crowd and saying “Hello Chicago!”, then said “have a sense of humor.” This performance should stunt the talk of a Biden surge in Iowa. “I come here tonight not to earn your endorsement but to tell you what’s on my mind.” That quote sums up the Biden speech - an exercise in personal indulgence, not practical politics. This speech gets an F
Dodd: As I listen to Pelosi’s lengthy introduction of Dodd, let me just say that I think he picked a lousy year to run for President. 2008 is a change election, why the hell would we pick a guy who has been in the Senate for 30 years? Dodd is speaking now, sucking up to Tom Harkin. This guy just reeks of decades on Capitol Hill. His language is SO Senatorial, and I mean that in the worst possible way. What an awful speech. This one gets a D
Harkin: I love Tom Harkin. Thats all. He gets an A+ for being awesome.
Clinton: Big moment for HRC, can she stop the slide? I’ll say this much, she’s two minutes into her speech and she’s already out preformed Dodd, Biden and Richardson. “Change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen” thats a two-barrell blast at Obama. She looks like a President - no doubt about it. The middle of this speech is boilerplate, not that great. She recovered with a great section on “invisible Americans”. She is setting up the end of this speech very well, speaking very quietly and slowly, she’s sucking ‘em in now lets she if she can blow ‘em away.
Not so much. I’m not sure I’m feeling this “turn up the heat” stuff. This speech was typical of the Clinton campaign: solid and mistake free. I give it a A-
Obama: As I mentioned before, this crowd is packed with Obama supporters. Their field team blew everyone else out of the water. Opens with a powerful indictment of Bush-Cheney. Moves to on the Clinton (though not by name). He’s giving me goosebumps. I had to stop writing, I was just too drawn into the speech. Damn. His speech just ended and it was a great one. Built up and up right through the end. I would be SHOCKED if he doesn’t get some traction out of that speech. A+++
Loading ...
He was sooooo Presidential and so huge in character and stature. He definitely owned the night. I was transfixed. It was as if no one else had spoken. Sorry to disagree about Hillary, but her cadence tongiht felt contrived — as if over studied. I’m a retired speech and language therapist and her “prosody” was not a natural rhythm or tone. It was just odd. It made me feel uncomfortable as a listener.
Wow!
This is guy is awesome. He has a powerful engine of high caliber. I think the other contenders are not as intense as he is.
Good luck Barack Obama.
God bless you, for you did not forget to help others.
Obama absolutely owned the whole event. Amazing! A new king has been crowned! I am totally impressed by Obama and his remarkable supporters!
Obama in my judgement performed very well and I believe he’ll be the next president of the USA.
he will have to try again in 2012
Really - you thought it was that good?
I watched it and got bored about half-way through and really had to struggle to listen to the whole thing. I didn’t think he batted it out of the ballpark when he really needed to and hence, kind of a disappointment. I have honestly been surprised this morning by all the praise
I also thought he looked like he was going to pass out at any minute from the flue or something and it was the same-old thing - talked about hope and not much else.
I mean, don’t give me wrong, there is no denying that he is a great orator and gives the best feel-good speech, but this wasn’t his best. I think his best was the speech at the DNC. This wasn’t bad, but not great by any means. I think I need a little less hope and more audacity.
I also thought it was a little odd that he decided to wait until the JJ Dinner to tell us why he has decided to run - seems a little late to me.
I thought Edwards did really good and Hillary’s speech was just bad - the “Turn up the heat” thing was just pathetic.
Nobody wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee more than the trolls, as we’ve seen here many times.
Obama was very impressive today on Meet the Press. Russert fired off a series of attempted “gotchas” and Barak handled them all very well. He showed a lot of character and class. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
you may not want her, but, you got her, enjoy
Sorry;
This whole Obama-mania thing makes Chris Mathews all hot… but it isn’t going to happen. Lets all do like the republicans (used to) do… and get onboard with the obvious nomination…Hillary. Then we can all put the same simple bumper sticker on our fuel efficient sedans and finally end up with a Democrat in office. Are we in the process of over-touchy-feeling another friggin’ election???
To a cross-dresser?? (sorry to any non GOP cross-dressers that I may have offended)
As someone who was “in the room” last night in Des Moines, and who hung out for most of the day talking, talking, and talking with Iowa pols, I would be awfully surprised if Hillary wins the Iowa caucus.
Maybe 3 to 1 Obama support (both in the stands as well as in the money seats) to Hillary’s. Might have been 3 to 2 Obama to Edwards.
Combine the energy and numbers with the charges that Hillary has been “planting” questions and I think we’ll be seeing some changes in the Iowa polls.
The acid test will be if all of those Obama supporters show up on caucus night. The word out of Iowa is that Hillary has a lot of the old guard, who, whatever else you think of them, show up. Obama has a lot of young people. If they show up, he could be the next President. If not, he could end up on a stage, promising to ‘take it to all fifty states’
I was there too Minny. You’re a bit tainted by your support as I am by the one I support (and MN Publius obviously is).
Hillary had two large and loud sections of supporters siting across from each other at the far end (play the sound acoustics to their advantage- which is why they sounded louder but were smaller in numbers).
Obama had three sections that weren’t position as well to make the noise. They were also creepy in their sitting on their hands for everyone except Obama. Hillary’s folks made some noise for all, including Obama.
Those people in the floor in the money section were dominated by Hillary supporters. Obama had some people come in but, they were not paying for dinner or sitting down, and were walked out after he came on stage.
Hillary is clearly supported by the ‘most likely to turn out and caucus’ people and Obama has a lock on the youth and minority. Not exactly the crowd who caucuses and votes in primaries on a regular basis. Knowing how confusing the caucus system can be, it will be tough for him to turn those into votes.
I wish that this was a world where the two (Clinton and Obama) could run together but alas, its tough to campaign for the other once the gloves have come off. Its why I think Hillary is moving in the right direction with the focus of attack being on how we have been short-changed by the Republicans all these years.
As far as speeches go, Biden was fine. He was serious and sounded smart. Richardson was dog food. Bad delivery and no message to take away. I felt sorry for Dodd. Edwards moved me with the best real life story of the night, but the tinge of “I deserve this” keeps me from getting behind him. Obama, had me clapping and thinking “Damn he’s good.” Hillary came across as steady, stable and ready. She also reminded us that this whole two Americas and have and have nots is something that she’s been fighting against for over 35 years (children, education and health care). IMHO, she wins.
I’ve just watched Obama’s speech and then Edwards’ speech. Both were quite good. And Obama’s campaign team definitely organized people well, which I respect.
But based on the speeches, Obama hardly “owned the night”. He did better than he’s done in recent debates, where he’s struggled to find his voice. But it’s very hard to say that this amounts to dominating his peers on the stump.
John Edwards wins in my book. I’m an Edwards supporter, so that’s not a big shock. But let’s look at the speeches. Not only is Edwards better able to connect with voters through story telling, he’s just simply the bolder of the two candidates. He told the audience that he would deny Congress and his cabinet health care benefits if they couldn’t deliver health care reform by July of 2009. Nothing Obama said came remotely close to challenging the status quo in such a powerful way.
If we want an alternative to Hillary, we’re going to have to identify who that alternative is, and quickly. Edwards is far more prepared for that task. I’d welcome an Edwards/Obama ticket. But there’s no question, especially after last night, about who should be at the top of that ticket, in my mind.
Matt -
Edwards can’t win. Look what happened to Bob Dole in 96. We can’t nominate him.
Edwards probably can’t win the nomination but he is beating Romney in head to head polls by a good margin (13 to 15 pts). And running neck and neck with Guiliani. This shows practically any Democrat can win the election. If Edwards picks Richardson for the VP slot the Democratic party would have a very strong experianced ticket.
Richard -
I was not clear enough as to why Edwards can’t win. Alone among the major candidates, he has decided to accept public financing for the primaries. Public financing has spending limits which would effectivley prohibit the Edwards campaign from spending money between late February and August. Meanwhile, his opponent will have the ability to spend as much as they want. This is what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. Clinton spent the spring defining Dole and Dole’s campaign never recovered.
In a normal election cycle, I would agree wholeheartedly with you but ‘08 has the Republicans with an extraordinarily poor cast of nominees and the Democratic Party with an extraordinarily strong cast of nominees. This coupled with Bush fatigue settling in hard on voters and economic fears. The dollar is, today, worth .91 Canadian? If only I had kept all those Canadian quarters I’ve been throwing away. The Democratic party is staged to make historic gains in moving the progressive agenda forward. 434 days left of Bush and his regime. Reaganism is dead and America’s experiment with fascism is finally coming to an end.
Zack — John Kerry had all the money in the world to refute Republican attacks and failed to do so until it was too late. So having the money doesn’t seem nearly as important as having the will to do so. Edwards has the will, and while he might not have as much money as Hillary or Barack, I think his campaign’s showing what they can do with the resources they have.
Also, I think it’s time to start rewarding candidates who take public financing rather than dismissing them. It’s time to make this a strength rather than a weakness. If you don’t like Edwards’ ideas or his campaign, that’s perfectly legitimate. But let’s not dismiss someone of Edwards’ caliber simply because he decided to do the right thing with regard to financing his campaign.
One of the most important messages of Barak Obama is that we need to seek out the things AMericans have in common, rather than the politics of seeking out 50.00000001% of the vote by stressing devisive issues.
That’s very, very important to me, my family,and my friends.
There are a number of issues a large majority can agree on. I would love it if 2008 was about that. Because Hillary is devisive herself, she offers nothing to me other than agreeing with my position on some issues.
Obama, in my opinion, is suprisingly the only candidate that reaches out with the perfect mix of security, compassion, a message that teaches us, and an offer of a handshake to some on the right who can see what’s happened to our great nation. Security is important, but so is rationality.
This quote is great.
“I have repeatedly said I would not take military options off the table. I don’t think any president can in any circumstance. What I have said is that until we have exhausted those efforts, then we are not doing what’s right for the American people. And this — look, part of the reason it’s important for us to talk to countries we don’t like and leaders we don’t like, it’s not that I think that in a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad that I’m going to somehow change his mind on everything, but what we do is, we send a signal to other leadership in Iran, to the Iranian people and to the world community that we are listening and that we are willing to try to resolve conflicts peacefully. That’s the kind of work to repair our standing in the world that I believe the next president’s going to have to engage in. We have to have a clear break with the Bush-Cheney style of diplomacy that has caused so many problems and has actually weakened our ability to deal with a very real terrorist threat.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/
He sums it up for me. The world is not only watching, but they are judging us. It’s time for a change.
Matt and Richard -
Its not a matter of having more or less money - Edwards will literally not be able to spend any money on advertisements for months. Edwards may have the “will” that Kerry lacked, but he’s not going to have the resources to do anything substantial if he is attacked. Edwards could have all the willpower in the world - he’s not going to be able to will himself a television presense in competitive states.
And sorry Matt, Edwards is not “doing the right thing”. Even if you accept the premise that the public subsidy is the correct policy (and I would suggest its a stupid and atiquated system that should either be replaced by complete public financing or abandoned) Edwards is doing it because he has no other choice - to be competitive in Iowa he needs the money the subsidy provides. If he believed so strongly in the system, why didn’t he take the subsidy in 2004? Why did he plan on not taking for the first half of 2007?
Also, saying “while he might not have as much money as Hillary or Barack, I think his campaign’s showing what they can do with the resources they have.” does not address my point. Edwards has all the money he needs right now because of the subsidy, but he is not going to have ANY come April. And even if you buy your premise, Edwards is in third place in every single national poll - and is falling further behind in Iowa.
If Edwards believes, as he said, that there is very little difference between himself and Obama, then he should get out of the race and endorse Barack. That would be the most effective way that he can contribute to the causes that he believes in.
Zack — I think you’re overly cynical about Edwards and public financing. Is there strategic calculation involved in this? Sure. Is it all about calculation? I don’t think so. And I think you do a disservice to the debate to suggest it.
You leave three things out of your analysis:
Republicans won’t necessarily have the time or money to beat up on their Democratic opponent, as Bush did in the last election. The Republican frontrunners are going to dump a lot of money into beating each other up, and they won’t have a presumptive candidate very soon. It’s even possible that they would be more broke than people say Edwards will be after the primary season.
Second, you’ve failed to mention what the DNC and 527’s can, will, and should do to define Edwards in a positive light and his opponent in a negative light should he win the nomination. They can do that without coordinating.
Third, it’s my understanding that while Edwards is committed to this strategy for the primary, the campaign’s hedging its bets with the general. I’ve read in at least one blog that they’ll challenge the Republican nominee to take public financing and if the Republican nominee takes a different path, the Edwards camp will reconsider.
And despite what Edwards himself says, I do not believe that Obama and Edwards are essentially the same. And I don’t think anyone watching these candidates closely thinks they’re the same. One is running as a populist. One is running as a candidate working to build consensus. They may get to the same place on some policy issues, but they have very different outlooks on the world and how they work to create the changes they want to see in the policy arena.
Finally, I just want to say that while I support Edwards over Obama, I like Obama, and I like how he positions himself as a national politician and leader. His 2004 speech moved me to tears. His first memoir is some of the most powerful writing on race since Baldwin. And I think that his message about paying attention to what we have in common is important for the political culture. That said, I don’t think it’s the right message for the next Democratic candidate for President, nor is it the right message if we want to honestly tackle the problems we face.
Matt -
You said
“Republicans won’t necessarily have the time or money to beat up on their Democratic opponent, as Bush did in the last election. The Republican frontrunners are going to dump a lot of money into beating each other up, and they won’t have a presumptive candidate very soon. It’s even possible that they would be more broke than people say Edwards will be after the primary season.”
They may be more broke, but if they are out of the public financing system they will be able to raise and spend money at will. Edwards will not. It will be a massive strategic disadvantage.
Then you said…
“Second, you’ve failed to mention what the DNC and 527’s can, will, and should do to define Edwards in a positive light and his opponent in a negative light should he win the nomination. They can do that without coordinating.”
Sure, but they can’t coordinate, which is a huge problem AND the RNC and conservative 527’s will be in the mix so the field still isn’t even AND this argument totally negates your earlier point about praising Edwards for taking public money. If his strategy is to rely on outside interest groups, then he’s not very committed to reform, is he?
Finally, a candidate’s campaign is the most powerful force in shaping and controlling his/her image. If the campaign is neutered because it has no money (from April to August!!!!!) it is a MAJOR disadvantage!
Then you said:
“Third, it’s my understanding that while Edwards is committed to this strategy for the primary, the campaign’s hedging its bets with the general. I’ve read in at least one blog that they’ll challenge the Republican nominee to take public financing and if the Republican nominee takes a different path, the Edwards camp will reconsider.”
Thats great, but even if Edwards opts out of public finanacing for the general, he STILL WON’T BE ABLE TO RAISE AND SPEND MONEY BETWEEN APRIL AND AUGUST!!!!
Look, Edwards may be a great candidate (and I think that is VERY debatable) but his campaign ended the day he took public financing.
Zack — Your first argument fails. It fails because Edwards and his campaign have already said that they would seriously consider foregoing public money if their Republican opponent also foregos the same. That would mean the gloves are off.
Your second argument also fails. There’s just no evidence to suggest that the DNC and 527’s couldn’t come up with very powerful frames that would significantly help Edwards. You’re right that relying on this argument contradicts my praise of Edwards. But it’s still a reality that these entities can and will be involved. The fact that they can’t coordinate doesn’t necessarily mean they have to play a weak role. (By the way, I hear you on the RNC and right leaning 527’s. Can you share with us what they spent as opposed to what the DNC and left leaning 527’s spent in the last election?)
And I think your third argument is a gross exaggeration. They won’t have as much money to spend between April and August, but no money? That’s not consistent with what I’ve seen. And again, it’s not consistent with what’s likely to be true among Republican candidates, who will have to spend most of their money on the primary as well.
Finally, I’m a little surprised to see you trashing Edwards. I’m obviously all for the vigorous support of candidates. I also don’t think it serves the people we champion when we do it at the expense of other public servants who seek many of the same aims.
I suspect neither one of us will convince the other in this series of comments. Thanks for the vigorous debate, though.