I thought I would briefly assess the five speeches given tonight by the major contenders in the Democratic and Republican debates.
In order that the speeches were given:
Romney: workmanlike, professional, gracious concession speech
Edwards: not especially gracious (he didn't congratulation Obama), impassioned
Clinton: comprehensive, gracious, dignified
Huckabee: relaxed, homespun, plainspoken and effective
Obama: passionate, inspiring, powerful
So, I thought all the speeches were good. But Edwards was a little disappointing in his failure to acknowledge Obama, and Obama's was the most inspiring - at least, to me.
Obama's speech beautifully captured what was most important about this evening: that American has moved on to a new plane, with a different approach to the challenges that face us. It almost doesn't matter what the specifics of this approach may be. At this point in the campaign, the conveyance of the feeling that change can happen is more important than the specifics. As Marshall McLuhan put it years ago, the medium is the message. And this, indeed, may be what separates Obama from Edwards, and from Clinton, too, and give Obama the nomination.
The same is true for Huckabee versus all of the Republicans other than Ron Paul. Huckabee sounds different. He seems more a person of the people than Romney or McCain.
The primaries are just beginning. Most of the possibilities prior to tonight are still in play. But the speeches we heard tonight give a good inkling as to where we may well be heading.
2 comments:
Paul,
I almost wanted to call you last night, I have never watched the caucuses before , actually never thought about them. They seem like a circus and not like what goes on in a new york primary. Do they also get to vote in the primary or is that it. I'm a little confused why the system is different in our states. I do not want to sound stupid because otherwise I am a very intelligent woman. Maybe you can clarify it for me alittle. I understand that it is a precursor for the country but what else.
You can call me any time, Dawn :)
The caucus system is complicated. Here's my best shot at explaining it:
1. In non-caucus primaries - like the one we'll have in NY in Feb - we go to the polls, just like a general election, and vote for our candidate. We just vote once. In some states, you have to register in advance as either Dem or Rep - in other states (like New Hampshire), you can decide which party you will vote for when you go in and vote. Some states give all delegates to the winner. Other states apportion the delegates (so, if the winner gets 60%, he/she gets 60% of the state's delegates). These are delegates, btw, to the national party conventions that nominate the candidates for President.
2. Iowa has caucuses not primaries. But the purpose is the same: to choose the delegates that will represent Iowa at the national conventions. To make matters even more interesting, the Reps and the Dems conduct the caucuses differently.
3. In the Rep caucuses, voters gather, talk, and cast their votes. Just one casting of the votes.
4. In the Dem caucuses, if some candidates get under 15% of the votes, they get no representation in delegates. So the voters talk some more - so that people who support candidates with less than 15% will go to a stronger candidate, or people from stronger candidates would go to a weaker candidate.
5. Last night in Iowa, Kucinich's supporters went to Obama (that's what Kucinich asked them to do), and I've heard it reported that many of Richardson's candidates did the same.
That's about it ... :)
Actually, I think the caucus system is more democratic than the primaries, because voters really get a better chance to express their views...
Post a Comment