Obama and Edwards

I tuned into the cable networks' coverage of Iowa last night, and saw John Edwards give his victory speech.

Yes, his victory speech.  He spoke as if he had won last night, even though he had finished well behind Barack Obama, and only a shade above Hillary Clinton. 

Edwards' speech reminded me of "The Music Man", a film that elsewhere has been called the Great American Musical.   Those who have seen the movie will recall Professor Harold Hill, the con artist who attempts to sell band instruments to the parents of an entire town.   As I watched John Edwards last night, I felt as if I might have been witnessing the reincarnation of Professor Harold Hill.

(Addendum: Dr. Mary points out, aptly, that River City was in Iowa.)

Indeed, North Carolina's own version of the Flim-Flam Man was on national television, attempting to convey the appearance of victory, while simultaneously fanning the flames of class warfare.  We heard about his family working in the mills, just in case there was a single American citizen who does not yet know about that.

And later Barack Obama gave his victory speech.  I have to confess that I had never seen Obama give a real speech.  While I had seen him in debate and in news clips, this was different.

He is an excellent orator stylistically, and has a commanding stage presence.  He appears to have the likability/charisma thing sewn up-- but we already knew that. 

I listened to the content of the speech, however, and there was not much there.  It was, for the most part, vacuous.  He used a recycled Clinton line-- about voting one's hopes, not one's fears.  What does this mean?  Are citizens supposed to be placing their hopes in the men and women running for office; or alternatively, placing their hopes in the prospect that the federal government will somehow give them more help?  Those would be very sad places for people to be placing their hopes.  It needs to be elsewhere.

Obama spoke repeatedly about how he represents the politics of unity-- not the politics of division.  George W. Bush made that claim also, and it sounds very nice.   But this type of claim really does not work if the candidate takes definitive positions.

And Obama emphatically does.  He declared during his speech that he would withdraw US troops from Iraq.  This is a very divisive, irresponsible position with which many people will strenuously disagree.  He also is pushing a particular plan for universal health care that many will find wrongheaded and divisive.

So Obama's claim of working to achieve unity is a bit misleading.  The fact is that he advocates a political agenda; and that agenda, if scrutinized, will not create unity.  But he will get favorable treatment from the media, and may be allowed, at least temporarily, to obscure or minimize the divisiveness of his positions. 

Then there is Hillary.  Of course, Senator Clinton's presidency would represent a de facto third term for her husband-- a constitutional feint that still might pass muster with the voters.  But after watching Obama, and considering how he would allow our efforts in the Middle East to implode, I was forced to consider whether Hillary might be preferable. (I never thought I would say it out loud.)

That is essentially the choice for the Democrats-- Obama, Edwards, or Hillary.  My father-in-law called last night to talk about the caucus results.  I asked him whom he would support among the three Democratic candidates if he had to choose. 

He said if this was the choice available to him-- Obama, Edwards or Hillary-- he would just go fishing instead.

Right answer.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I love it when you don't hold back, Joe;)

Edwards' family worked in a mill? No! Really?

Professor Harold Hill. Too funny. And spot on.

[Bubba]

Edwards pretending that he achieved anything at all last night is funny.

His campaign may be completely on life support after NH.

[Spag]

Joe, even more silly than Edwards was Hillary's claim that the high Democratic vote turnout meant that they "all" were winners last night.

How desperate is that for a claim to victory?

I really like Obama, I just can't get on board with his agenda. Way too Left for me.

[Joe Guarino]

Thank you, Mary. I was wondering if anyone would appreciate the Professor Hill analogy.

Mary, for conservative bloggers, John Edwards is the gift who keeps on giving. We just have to be careful not to overuse it.:)

Bubba, I agree with you about Edwards in New Hampshire. He is polling consistently in third place.

Sam, you are absolutely right about Hillary's statement. It was right up there with Edwards' speech. I suppose I didn't recall it as readily for this post because her presentation was a bit, er, subdued.

And I agree with you about Obama's ideology. The big question is whether he will escape scrutiny of his positions if he does get the Democratic nomination. Everyone-- especially the media-- gets so caught up in the "buzz" that they forget to think.

[Stormy]

As we move forward in the primaries, and should he get the nomination, Obama will have to take clear positions on his agenda as president. He really hasn't had to do that yet, as there is just slight degrees of difference between his and the others' political agenda. The vast majority of Americans couldn't really outline Obama's agenda as president. The question is whether any of Obama's opponents will get in a position where he has to succeed with ideas, rather than charisma.

Honestly, the thought of Obama, Hillary, Edwards and Huckabee as president scares me to death. With the possible exception of Hillary, the others would ignore global events and let them spin out of control. It's the Democrat agenda this year. It's solely focused upon government solving everyone's social and economic problems at home. Huckabee with a couple of exceptions is another Democrat.

[Fred Gregory]

Joe,

Like I said last night on this blog, although less eloquently, John Edwards is still a clueless bufoon and his victory statement proved it. Even John Kerry said earlier that his running mate was a phony
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/05/017442.php

[Everest]

Saw the Mclaughlin Group this morning, and Pat Buchanan had a great line about Edwards..."The guy that gets $400 haricuts and lives in a mansion can't play the guy with a hoe..."

The problem for Republicans with Obama is that he appeals to a pretty broad section of people. And while Iowa is not necessarily indicative of the rest of the country, all three Democratic candidates have basically the same platform. So Democrats are only having to decide which candidate they LIKE best. Since there are pretty stark differences in Republican candidates policy proposals, Republicans have a tougher row to hoe...so to speak.

[Bubba]

If I was still a Lib, I would definitely be working for Obama's nomination.

Hillary and John-Boy are damaged goods, and their likability quotient is only high among the most gullible of Dems.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, the one thing that has given me the most reservations about Huckabee is the record regarding commutation of prison sentences. The question is whether he will be temperamentally tough enough to deal with issues of war and terrorism and crime (where the federal government has jurisdiction).

Fred, I am beginning to wonder what will consume Mr. Edwards during the next phase of his life. Presumably, our state government will grant him another landing pad, as it did previously at UNC.

Everest and Bubba, I have not been following the Democratic race very closely, but my impression has been that Obama's position regarding withdrawal from Iraq is less nuanced. He advocates a rigid timetable, in spite of the success of the surge. But yes, he is steaming along on likability, which may be enough to get him the nomination.

His appeal will be a problem for Republicans in the event he gets the nomination. They would need to hammer away at issues, and hope that people listen.

[Fred Gregory]

Joe,

Chapel Hill always has a soft spot and a large check book for failed Democrat liberals, witness for instance Erskine Bowles and Hodding Carter.

[Brenda Bowers]

Joe, I loved your analogy to Prof. Harold Hill! And, River City is indeed Des Moines. Both in reality and in attitude.

I have never thought much of Iowa voters grasp of the reality of the United State's position and importance in the world from listening to their comments to the many nauseating interviews in "Mom's Home Cooking" joints. This years choices certainly confirmed my long held opinions. Obama and Huckabee----Dear Lord!

[Fred Gregory]

Joe,

Too early for this? " The Munchkins Parade "

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOEq-ImGWJ0

(h/t Just One Minute)

*Also left as comment at Spagnola (

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

I don't like none of them, that's why I'm voting for Yellow Dog http://www.yellowdog08.com

[Joe Guarino]

Fred, it appears the parade is going full blast, right on cue. And yes, Chapel Hill provides a warm home for NC Democrats, not unlike the mother's womb.

Thanks, Brenda. Regardless of what one thinks about the results, Iowa is obviously not representative. Let's see what happens with the next several primaries.

[Joe Guarino]

And Billy, you may be making the best choice. The dog is likely overall amiable, but does not come with bad policy attached.