In this diary, I am going to mention John Edwards' reputation as one of the country's best trial lawyers.
And it's not in an effort to smear him, either.
John Edwards' fantastic performance in today's final Iowa debate was one of the better showings I can remember for any candidate of either party since at least Bill Clinton in '92 or '96.
Edwards was sharp, smooth, witty, and 100% on message.
And it was a great, stirring message. A populist message, replete with appeals to helping the poor and the downtrodden, about moral responsibilities
Everyone here knows that I support Senator Clinton, so there isn't any particular joy in my saying that John Edwards won the debate, and won it clearly.
Clinton did well, but lost some style points with me for her vocal delivery and for looking to jump on Barack Obama a little too eagerly.
Hillary didn't hurt herself today, but Edwards really helped his prospects with anyone who watches/watched the debate.
Barack Obama is my #2 finisher for today's debate. He did very well, and earned points with me, personally, for both his defense of Joe Biden's record on minority relations (the moderator took a HUGE hack at Biden with a question about some statements Biden has made -- including one about Obama -- which could be perceived as being racially insensitive/questionable) and for how he skillfully reversed a Clinton attempt to score a 'gotcha' moment on him without missing a beat.
The only part of the debate that I recall Obama not being at his sharpest was when the moderator asked him how he would have voted on a farm subsidy bill that was presented in the Senate yesterday. Because there have been two Senate farm bill votes in two days (the one the moderator was asking about from yesterday and another one voted on today), Obama had to take a moment to remember which of the two pieces of legislation the moderator was referencing. The searching of his memory resulted in a brief pause in his remarks; therefore, this instant contrasted with the rest of Barack's uninterrupted delivery.
I found Obama too general in some answers, but that, again, is a fairly minor point. He did very well.
But Edwards was on a different level.
First, Edwards was exceptional with his tonal changes and voice dynamics. This is clearly a man who has spent a very long time rehearsing the most effective ways to appeal to a jury. Any trial lawyer can tell you that they are part actor and salesman, and Edwards was just outstanding on both accounts today. It's not that the other candidates weren't good, but compared to Edwards, they seemed monotoned and almost canned with their voices.
Second, Edwards hit his populist message over and over and over again, staying squarely on message. Every question he was asked he responded to with answers which came back to moral responsibility, helping the poor, defeating corporations, etc. Whereas the other candidates at times seemed like they had a list of buzz words which needed to be mentioned and checked off, Edwards would take each line of questioning and bring it back to where he wanted it and reiterate his message.
John Edwards, as a performer, is without peer among his Democratic opponents. Again, I go back to his trial lawyering. As a courtroom attorney, everything not directed at the judge (requesting motions, raising objections, asking to approach the bench, ...) is done for the jury. You have to win them over, and the better you are at doing it and the greater variety of arrows you have in your quiver, the more successful you will be, in general.
Well, John Edwards was one of the best. With his good looks, southern drawl, and vocal delivery, he must have been some force in the courtroom. I'll say this -- he could represent me anytime.
So, my feelings about today's debate aren't about what the other candidates did poorly, they're about what John Edwards did extraordinarily. Few Democrats can hear repeated appeals to fairness, winning the battle against big business and helping the needy without being swayed. Edwards delivered all those goods today, repeatedly, and delivered them with charm, humor and vigor.
If someone had put a button in my hand while I listened and watched and asked me to vote, I would have chosen Edwards.
Today was the first time in a long time I actually thought about Edwards, his chances to be the nominee, etc. His stated approach to what needs done in this country was clear, seemed sincere, and resonated with me.
I still support Hillary. But Edwards is now my #2. The more you see John Edwards, the more you like him. I don't know if that can be said of the his opponents, particularly the other "Big 2." I'm not saying they aren't likable, but they don't have the same level of compellingness that Edwards has, at least the Edwards we saw debating today.
Edwards has been hovering in the Iowa background all this time, while Clinton and Obama fought for turf.
After today, I can see the possibility of Edwards winning Iowa. The more people that see this debate, the more his numbers will rise -- it was that good.
He also could become the 'default' candidate for those disenchanted with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, people tired of the 'hardball' tactics.
I just had to write this diary to express how impressed I was with Edwards today. That is about as good as it gets in political debating, and, damn, it was fun to witness. If Edwards is the nominee I will enthusiastically campaign for him.
Today, I believed.
And more to the point, John Edwards made me want to believe.
[Edited]