DNC Winter Meeting Superlatives

1:07 pm EST February 2nd, 2007 | Democrats | 14 Comments

So I attended the DNC Winter meeting this morning (I saw Jerome from MyDD there). Some thoughts:

Best speech: John Edwards. He really hit the audience’s sweet spot, and showed the difference between a candidate restrained by the senate and one who just lets go and talks like a normal person. Sen. Obama brought his “A” game as well, but Edwards beat him fair and square.

Worst speech: Dennis Kucinich. A dark and morose story about dead children in Lebanon may have all the political resonance in the world, but it’s no good as any kind of stump speech.

Best tactics: The Juggernaut. Senator Clinton’s team lived up to their reputation as the killer team of political operations. Team Clinton operatives were omnipresent handing out signs and stickers to give their candidate visibility. The Edwards folks had t-shirts and signs too (and the Obama people struck out big time there) but it was a sea of blue Hillary signs.

Most awkward moment: Hillary getting heckled. She left herself open to it by just not having a good position on the war and ending it – something every other candidate hit hard on.

ALSO: I’ve got nothing against them, but I can’t think of any strong justification for Dodd and Clark running. Nice guys, but why?

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

14 Responses to “DNC Winter Meeting Superlatives”

  1. mdhawkman says:
    February 2, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Oliver, I was there this morning as well and agree on every point you made but one:

    Obama’s speech was much better than Edwards’. They essentially had the same speech – hope, progress, etc. etc., but where as Edwards left me a bit depressed, Obama made me want to go out and volunteer for the campaign.

    Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

  2. jerry says:
    February 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    I think you’ve helped me understand that Hillary Clinton is Microsoft.

  3. Oliver says:
    February 2, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    I liked both speeches, but Sen. Edwards speech was a much better call to action, something we don’t get enough from our leaders.

  4. edgewater Joe says:
    February 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    If Hillary got heckled for the anti-war stance she still refuses to totally refute, then it’s not much of a “juggernaut,” IMHO. It’s a good ad campaign, but that’s it.

    The Iraq-atross is still draped firmly over her neck and shall stay there until she does something to remove it — or it sinks her.

  5. mike in dc says:
    February 2, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    regrettably, I only caught Edwards’ and Clinton’s speeches. If this is Hillary’s A game, she’s in big trouble with Obama and Edwards around.

    I look forward to those April debates.

  6. benny05 says:
    February 2, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Stand up! Edwards’ speech was a barn-barner!

  7. mike in dc says:
    February 2, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    I think Edwards has been running for president more or less since late 2002, while Obama’s been running since maybe 4 months ago.
    My guess is that Edwards knew he had to hit one out of the park at this gathering. Obama simply had to perform to expectations.

  8. dh says:
    February 2, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    The Obama people purposefully didn’t have signs or have music because his speech was somber. This is apparent from the fact that in the rally at GW he had hundreds of signs, music, and gave a different speech.

  9. wizznilliam says:
    February 2, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    If you don’t know why Clark should run then you have not read much about him or really listened to him… I have not watched this DNC speech but I supported him the last time he ran. The man is VERY, VERY, VERY intelligent. And he probably has more executive experience than all the other candidates combined. After having two terms of Bush, “Why Clark?” is a no brainer.

    Why Edwards?? Cause he was in the Senate for a term and can give nice speeches???

    Why Obama?? Because he’s in the senate for one term and can write nice books and give nice speeches???

    Why Clinton?? Cause she has been in the Senate for 1.5 terms and her last name is Clinton??? Does being first lady prepare you to be president?

    Can we get a REAL frickin president for a change!! In my opinion Clark would be that. Only problem is no one will try to know that because this whole thing is nothing but a big frickin popularity contest. They might as well be running for National Homecoming King/Queen.

  10. lily says:
    February 2, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    HRC will be a lousy candidate if we are foolish enough to nominate her. If elected, her foreign policy won’t be much better than Bush’s.
    There is a lot more to Obama than one term and two books. His name is on nearly every essential progressive legislative proposal put forth since he got elected. The latest is legislation to preserve the right to vote ( to prevent the harassment tactics of the Republicans) He also crafted legislation to address election fraud. His statement on Iraq is the most detailed and substantive.
    During the same period HRC attempted nothing progressive. Edwards, of course, has been out of office but his in office track record is mediocre at best.
    I’m glad she got heckled. Her campaign staff people act like she is owed the nomination.

  11. lily says:
    February 2, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    BTW I love Clark. I’d be thrilled if he won.

  12. Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy says:
    February 2, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Clark’s would be a fine president but I don’t have much confidence in his ability to run and win a campaign. I actually did some phone banking for him in 2004. I like him a lot, but let’s be honest, this time he’s running for secretary of defense. I hope he gets it — he’d be a huge improvement over the SQ, and America needs more folks like him in power.

  13. Eryka says:
    February 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Glad for your comments. I think I have about a year to make a decision. We still haven’t gotten through Hurrican Season.

  14. calling all toasters says:
    February 2, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Why is Clark running? Oh, I dunno: maybe because he has more foreign policy experience than Obama, Edwards, and Hillary put together. Or maybe because he’s a little smarter than they are. Possibly because he automatically nullifies any Republican talking point about being tough on terror. Or maybe because he was way out in front in opposing the war. Could be because he takes far less crap than the other Democrats (think of him as the anti-Kerry).

    But, of course, he isn’t getting Tweety and MoDo and the chorus of Beltway idiots chattering about him, so perhaps he shouldn’t bother.