For those who didn't like my inspired reaction to Obama's post-Iowa speech (and my oh my, there were many of you), I recommend Hendrik Hertzberg's critique of the address. Hertzberg was a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, and a general admirer of Obama, so his dissent from the gushers is interesting and, as always, it's gorgeously written.There's been a lot written about the rhetoric of the Democratic primary lately (much of it on this blog), and for good reason. Words are playing an atypically central role in the Democratic primary. Particularly as the conventional wisdom has hardened that "experience" is unimportant to the electorate -- and it's notable that RIchardson, Dodd, and Biden, all of whom ran on their tremendous experience, all flopped -- the race has really come to center around three distinct speaking styles, each being used as a stand-in for actual accomplishments. There's the soaring, spirit-of-history narration offered by Obama. The workmanlike, knowledgeable, wonkery of Hillary. And the fiery, people-focused populism of Edwards. In all cases, the candidate is using this rhetoric to argue that they are the true "change" agent. But none of them have a particularly distinguished record enacting change at the national level. This is, the reality of a campaign where the three viable candidates are Democratic Senators who all served after George W. Bush's election -- which is to say, during a period when they lacked a president willing to sign their legislation into law. So realistically, they had neither the time nor the alignment of forces to get very much done.But the end result has been an election heavily focused on the rhetoric of getting things done. Hillary proves her advantage by overwhelming you in details, and multipoint plans. Edwards proves his by flashing his passion, his outrage. And Obama proves his by being the most inspirational, the most elevating. On substance, I'd say that Obama's currently in the lead, as his rhetoric did lead to some changes in the electoral map of Iowa, to new voters and an unexpected win in the caucus. But it's notable that, for now, all we've really got is their rhetoric. Which is why I'm spending so much time talking about it.Image used under a Creative Commons license from J. Salmorai. TALKIN' BOUT TALKIN'.
For those who didn't like my inspired reaction to Obama's post-Iowa speech (and my oh my, there were many of you), I recommend Hendrik Hertzberg's critique of the address. Hertzberg was a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, and a general admirer of Obama, so his dissent from the gushers is interesting and, as always, it's gorgeously written.There's been a lot written about the rhetoric of the Democratic primary lately (much of it on this blog), and for good reason. Words are playing an atypically central role in the Democratic primary. Particularly as the conventional wisdom has hardened that "experience" is unimportant to the electorate -- and it's notable that RIchardson, Dodd, and Biden, all of whom ran on their tremendous experience, all flopped -- the race has really come to center around three distinct speaking styles, each being used as a stand-in for actual accomplishments. There's the soaring, spirit-of-history narration offered by Obama. The workmanlike, knowledgeable, wonkery of Hillary. And the fiery, people-focused populism of Edwards. In all cases, the candidate is using this rhetoric to argue that they are the true "change" agent. But none of them have a particularly distinguished record enacting change at the national level. This is, the reality of a campaign where the three viable candidates are Democratic Senators who all served after George W. Bush's election -- which is to say, during a period when they lacked a president willing to sign their legislation into law. So realistically, they had neither the time nor the alignment of forces to get very much done.But the end result has been an election heavily focused on the rhetoric of getting things done. Hillary proves her advantage by overwhelming you in details, and multipoint plans. Edwards proves his by flashing his passion, his outrage. And Obama proves his by being the most inspirational, the most elevating. On substance, I'd say that Obama's currently in the lead, as his rhetoric did lead to some changes in the electoral map of Iowa, to new voters and an unexpected win in the caucus. But it's notable that, for now, all we've really got is their rhetoric. Which is why I'm spending so much time talking about it.Image used under a Creative Commons license from J. Salmorai. 
