ObBiDoddWardsSonnich Versus Hillary

Bottom line, before all the analysis:

Obama confronted Clinton in his way, Edwards confronted Clinton in his way, and none of us writing about the debate can say with accuracy which approach voters prefer.

In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle.

In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, “It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.”

Comments

I would have liked to see the Edwards on stage tonight go back to 2004 so he could redo his performance in the the Vice Presidential debate.

Anyways.

Posted by Korha | October 30, 2007 11:17 PM

I prefer a president who can think on his feet, is articulate in presenting the facts and policies, is consistent in his views, and clear in what his intentions are. With that as a measure, John Edwards wins out over Barack Obama tonight.

As for the so-called 'front runner', I think Senator Clinton showed tonight that she can be confused between her differing positions - such inconsistency does not play well in my book.

Posted by Edrie | October 30, 2007 11:17 PM

That's a great, great line from Lizza; extraordinarily perceptive. Of the two, I'll give my vote to the prosecutor tonight. I think he did what he wanted and needed to do - i.e., continue to make the two-pronged argument that (a) Hillary represents the flawed, overly calculating and secretive past and (b) that he presents the unsullied, promising alternative.

I think Hillary was exposed tonight.

Posted by Will | October 30, 2007 11:26 PM

Finally, Hillary deconstructed.. It takes Tim Russert to do that job. He did a fantastic job and I hope he does more of these. Obama was forceful and well on his feet. He is a real ball player and can jab well. Edwards did a fine job but I think a ticket of Obama/ Edwards is awesome.

Posted by Paul | October 30, 2007 11:41 PM

Lizza is exactly right, as usual. I went to law school and became a criminal trial lawyer. I just quit last summer. It's not my cup of tea. I am an Obama supporter. I like Edwards, and understand why people want Obama to be like him, because we need a fighter, not a lover, to beat Guiliani. Maybe, maybe not. But for a president, I want someone who sees the big picture, and really is a uniter. United we stand and all that. I'm also happy to have Edwards playing bad cop. There's a place for trial lawyers.

Posted by Phoebe | October 31, 2007 12:57 AM

I prefer the violin. In order to break this cycle of destructive and evasive politics, you have to stop playing the game according to those rules. Today's politics is all about soundbites and acting tough on tv. That is why Bush was elected, because she sounds good in 30 second clips. But if Lincoln was alive today, he would be slaughter in the current debate format. He was witty but his humour came from story telling. I take subtle over biting any day. Obama isn't your daddy's type of politican, he what we need today and in the future.

Posted by sonya | October 31, 2007 4:29 AM

Of course the standard formula for success in the general election is to have the presidential candidate himself remain high-minded and positive, and leave it to surrogates, perhaps including the vice-presidential candidate, to play the prosecutorial role.

In my lifetime, the classic example of this was the Gore and Clinton acceptance speeches at the 1992 convention. Gore gave his "It's time for them to go" speech, as effective a prosecutorial performance as one could want. But Clinton gave his "I still believe in a place called Hope" speech, which included a small "prosecutorial" section, but largely was about his version of the American Dream.

And I think the Democrats could do a lot worse than to try to imagine who could give the best versions of those speeches in the 2008 convention, and pick their candidates accordingly.

Posted by DTM | October 31, 2007 6:53 AM

Let's clear something up here, Edwards didn't become a prosecutor, he was an ambulance chaser...so the foundation of Lizza's analysis is flat wrong. So, Edwards is more a kin to the kid who wasn't even good enough to get into the band in the first place...

Posted by Fast Johnny | October 31, 2007 7:19 AM

I had reservations about Edwards from the last election but tonight I think we saw a political ticket come together!

Obama 08!

Posted by JimmieFromDayton | October 31, 2007 7:21 AM

Edwards was not a prosecutor, but a trial lawyer being an advocate for the little guy wronged by corporate power. He learned how to expose truth in clear language that people understood. That is what he did last night. He clearly put forth his case that the system is broken and serves the super wealthy and disadvantages the rest of us.

Hillary is NOT that good at defense. I always thought that Hillary was supposed to be good at defense. Her supporters taut that she has had experience with the Republican attack machine.

She was easily knocked off her game last night and the attacks were mere observations about what she has done. Telling the truth seemed to confuse her. I think her skills in withstanding attacks are highly over-rated. And I am surprised.

If this is how she responds in a Democratic debate where they are still being polite, she would be demolished by the Republican attack machine. I think she believed her own hype. And I think Democrats need to pay attention.

Posted by Rene | October 31, 2007 11:29 AM

And after 8 years of Bush, we really really need a prosecutor to show up on the job in 2009.

Posted by Josh Medeiros | October 31, 2007 12:41 PM

I think it's hilarious when Repugnantcans call trial lawyers ambulance chasers...well, there's a reason those people called 9/11 in the first place! You put faulty products on the market you can expect to get sued when someone gets hurt.

Posted by Mark Billingsley | October 31, 2007 3:12 PM

I support John Edwards. It's also the difference between someone who came out of law school as a corporate lawyer (Clinton) and someone who came out as Perry Mason (Edwards).

Perry Mason was John Edwards' youthful TV hero.

Posted by maryinbelltown | October 31, 2007 9:42 PM

Fast Jimmy,

What a monumental idiot you are.

"So, Edwards is more a kin to the kid who wasn't even good enough to get into the band in the first place..."

1) your argument presuposses that being a prosecutor is the apex of the legal world. I assure you, little buddy, it is not. Skilled litigators are much more the envy of the legal world, not guys putting away drug dealers for 20 years.

2) I know you are clueless about what you say, so I cant fault you. Do you really think think Edwards is a lackluster lawyer. He is literally famous for courtroom skills.

3)Your comment suggests Edwards/Trial Lawyers to be untalented, unskilled etc. Crazy. Being a trial lawyer is one of the most intense gigs around; requiring toughness and intellectual dexterity.

In fact, unlike Clinton and Obama, who were nominally attorneys, Edwards was perenially ranked as one of the best attorneys in the country. Thus, legally speaking, he is far and away the most accomplished Democratic contender.

Believe me, people are much more afraid of walking into a court room with a skilled litigator than an underpaid public servant. Learn a thing or two while your at it.

Posted by Fast Jeffrey | October 31, 2007 9:57 PM