Speech v. Speech

In Iowa City, John Edwards gives a pretty tough speech on Iran and against Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. One of her advisors told the New York Times that was because she was shifting from primary mode to general election mode. Well, we only need one mode from our president - tell the truth mode all the time.

That's an echo from last weekend's Democratic debate.

The content of this speech differs markedly from a set-the-table address Barack Obama gave in South Carolina on Friday.

I am running because of what Dr. King called "the fierce urgency of now." I am running because I do believe there's such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost here.

Two different visions of Hillary Clinton, two different candidates, two different ideas about how to beat her.

Comments

That speech was amazing and powerful by Obama. I have a link for those who may be curious.
I do hope he uses the gist of it at the Iowa dem dinner this week. If he does, it will be talk of Iowa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAkGr_Rrdn0&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ObamaHQ/

Posted by vwcat | November 5, 2007 11:48 AM

Obama's approach is pure but will be hard to beat Hillary's tough approach. On the other hand Edwards truthful aggressive approach is more effective against Hillary. In any case it will be difficult to beat Hillary's softening image and machinery.

Posted by Matt | November 5, 2007 12:08 PM

Edwards might pick up more support if the angry anti-Hillary Dems decide to pack in behind his campaign. Right now, they're scattered all over the place. Depends on whether the anger towrd HRC gets boiling hot.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | November 5, 2007 12:27 PM

Edward's criticism of Hillary Clinton do not rise to the level of convincing one that he would be a better President than Senator Clinton. By merely saying that he will always say the same thing no matter what the problem is or whom the audience is does not a better President make. He would be wise to explain to the prospective primary voters how his policies for dealing with the contemporary problems plauging our country are better and thus preferable to those being put forth by Senator Clinton.

Posted by bncthor | November 5, 2007 1:44 PM

When Senator Obama says "I am running because of what Dr. King called "the fierce urgency of now.", how does that have anything to do with his version of Hillary Clinton. I read the quote very carefully and did not see her name mentioned.

What is it with the media obsession about Hillary? If Obama orders eggs sunny-side-up, you will report on "Obama's breakfast dig at Hillary." Of course any candiate who says "elect me" is saying "don't elect Hillary" but that doesn't make every positive statement they make about themselves an attack on Hillary!

Posted by George | November 5, 2007 2:02 PM

The question is whether a candidate like Hillary can be brought down with brute force (Obama) or must it be done surgically (Obama). Neither approach is inherently more "tough" than the other, but I believe Obama's is smarter and more effective for a two reasons. 1st, Iowa - Being too harsh backfires in Iowa. 2nd, Gender - a man can't get hit a woman too hard.

Posted by RKA | November 5, 2007 3:02 PM

George,
You have to watch the video [the link provided by vwcat will take you there]. He does make his case, and eventually makes it against HRC, and while there's no sound bite in there, it's very thorough. My only worry is that there are tons of people who probably don't even know that she voted against the war. I didn't know, until recently, that she linked Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the runup to the war, which was blatant garbage. And I thought I was paying attention. Tons of people are just completely out of it. These people are not watching the debates. But then they won't be caucusing in Iowa either. So who knows.

Posted by Phoebe | November 5, 2007 3:30 PM

This is great for Obama. Let Edwards do the dirty work of going fiercely negative against HRC. Obama will be the beneficiary. When Dean and Gephardt tore into each other last cycle, they both suffered, and Edwards (campaigning at the time as Johnny Sunshine) gained. Typically both the shooter and the target drop in the polls when a candidate goes negative.

Posted by 45rpm | November 5, 2007 5:22 PM

Today 268 Iowa Republicans announced that they will caucus for Senator Barack Obama and 68 New Hampshire Republicans announced that they had changed their party registration to vote for Barack Obama in the primary, saying he is the only candidate in either party who can break through the gridlock in Washington because he has a proven record of bringing Republicans and Democrats together to solve problems. In Illinois, Obama bridged the partisan divide to extend health care to 150,000 Illinois families, pass a $100 million tax cut for working families and enact historic ethics reform.

“With all of the challenges our country faces, we cannot elect a President who will go to Washington and just get bogged down by the same partisan gridlock,” Brett Blix said. “That’s why I’m supporting Senator Obama even though I’m a Republican. He’s the only candidate in either party with a record of bringing Republicans and Democrats together to solve problems, and he will always tell you where he stands even when you disagree. There are thousands of disaffected Republicans like me who are disappointed by President Bush and the Republican presidential candidates who would consider voting for a Democrat who can bring about change we can believe in.”

Brett Blix is 30-year-old Iraq war veteran from Northwood, Iowa. He recently switched his party registration so that he can caucus for Senator Obama.

“I’ve been a Republican all my life, but the challenges we face are too great to choose a candidate based on his party—we need to the choose the candidate who can bring fundamental change to Washington and start getting things done again,” Jerry Spivak said. “Barack Obama is the only candidate who will be able to break the partisan logjam and inspire Americans to come together around real solutions.”

Jerry Spivak is a 57-year-old engineer from Nashua, New Hampshire. He recently switched his party registration so that he can vote for Senator Obama in the primary.

This public support from Republicans is yet another sign of Senator Obama’s crossover appeal. Previously, Obama received third place in a poll of Republican Iowa caucus goers – receiving more support from Republicans than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined.

“I’ve always believed that you can only bring about real change when people come together across party lines, and I’ve seen what happens when folks put politics aside and get down to work,” Senator Obama said. “If you can’t bring people together across the old fault lines, you simply aren’t going to be able to make progress on the challenges we face.”

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deeannaroberts/CrYy

Posted by vicissitudes | November 5, 2007 8:29 PM

Its Kirk and Spock I tell you -- the fist vs. the vulcan death grip!

Check out Nimoy's wiki entry -- he's an Obama supporter. Guess he see's the similarity to his alter-ego also.

Posted by donna | November 5, 2007 11:03 PM

Kirk and Spock is killing me. Thank you. That's just... perfection.

Posted by Phoebe | November 6, 2007 3:33 AM