Both John Edwards and Barack Obama delivered speeches today at the Take Back America conference, and by all accounts they were fairly spectacular. Matt Yglesias has both video and analysis, for those interested.
For my money, the more I hear Edwards speak, the more I'm torn about my support for Obama. High flying rhetoric is great, but sooner rather than later he's going to need to start focusing on policy specifics. Edwards has, I think, left him with no other choice.
UPDATE: More from Ezra here and here. His summary?
Edwards said better things, Obama said things better
Also, this point I think is critical:
Edwards and Obama sell their ideologies. It's a real difference, and entirely a function of their oratorical talents. For those who believe that Reagan's skills as a communicator proved a president's rhetoric can significantly alter the ideological direction of the country, Edwards and Obama both offer slightly different, but nevertheless completely plausible, models for how a liberal politician could do the same.
I didn't say it when I first wrote this post, but that is precisely the reason I am now so torn between these two candidates. Both do such a stunningly good job of selling progressive ideas that I believe either could in fact drive a long-term re-conceptualization of our politics. As I've long argued through this blog, the long-term forces shaping political realignments may not be rhetorical, but the proximate causes of such shifts almost always are rhetorical. From the beginning, my interest in Obama was driven by the fact that he seems to be a politician who has the very real potential of driving a realignment. At the time, he seemed to be the only one. But the more I hear Edwards, the more I think he too may be able to pull one off.
Not one progressive realignment candidates but two? How on earth could I possibly be so blessed?!?
UPDATE II: Adele Stan says Obama made her cry:
I found myself weeping during Barack Obama's levitational address, during which I found myself embodying a veritable panoply of cliches, including goosebumps and smeared mascara.It's not that the junior senator from Illinois said anything that I hadn't already heard him say: it was the way he made use of the energy that was in the room. He took what the crowd so eagerly wanted to give him, channeled it through, and gave it back to them. He became more preacher than politician -- no, make that faith healer -- as he delivered his standard lines about how hope is the reason he is standing here before us, meaning the hope that the civil rights activists had that they could indeed prevail against racism.
Obama may be part preacher, but for my money, his use of energy is more reminiscent of a good progressive DJ than anything else. In fact, if there's one thing that separates him from quite literally every other political speaker I've seen in my lifetime, this would be it. He understands how to mold, shape, and - yes - manipulate the energy created when large groups of human beings come together in common purpose in precisely the same way a good electronic music DJ does. In fact, it wasn't until I saw Obama speak that I recognized the connection between public speaking and DJing, a realization I immediately began to try and put to work in my approach to teaching.
When it comes down to it, there really are only two reasons I DJ. The first is that I love the music, and that I love hearing it loud. The second is that I love the effect using music to manipulate the energy of crowds has on both them and me. As a DJ I do it so that together we can all, at least for a time, forget everything and share a moment of true collective happiness with the hope that memories of such experiences will somehow spur people to live better lives. (Yes, it sounds cheezy, but I really do mean it). Obama's method really is quite similar, except that instead of using music as his medium he is using ideas. Which, when you get down to it, is a much more direct way of changing the world.
Obama is a DJ. Thus ends today's lesson.
UPDATE III: Garance Franke-Ruta thinks Obama is an energy-efficient appliance?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
