Well, apparently Matt Yglesias had a different response. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/do_it_now.php#comments

And what exactly does it mean that Obama has to "walk through hell"?

And "that a man who would probably make a decent president doesn't stand a chance. It's just not his time"? Umm, mind lending me that crystal ball? I'm wondering whether to invest in Apple after all the iPhone hoopla....

I mean, give me a freaking break! Were you writing this with ink made from your smeared mascara? I really liked you describing your emotional/energetic response to Obama. But to treat that response as if it somehow reflects an inevitable Edwards loss, or almost anything about reality, other than your inner state, is borderline ludicrous, albeit disappointingly understandable.

"It's just not his time. The moment -- and momentum -- is Obama's"

Indeed. June 2007 is not Edwards' time. He's more of an even numbered year guy.

Edwards' time is when the year is divisible by two, and when the weather is cold.

Y'know, the time when folks outside the beltway get a say in the matter.

Now is the moment for all of you Hillary and Barack triangulators to dream of personality trumping policy and politics.

"But to treat that response as if it somehow reflects an inevitable Edwards loss, or almost anything about reality, other than your inner state, is borderline ludicrous, albeit disappointingly understandable."

All the little Beltway Shrummies are trying to stick a knife in Edwards right now.

They know their best shot at stopping him is to strangle him in the crib before the voters get a say.

They're a bunch of losers who want centrist policies to go along with a small tent Democratic party where their voices are loudest.

Up with personality! Down with American workers!

Is CSPAN recording and broadcasting this?

I REALLY like Edwards. I REALLY like Obama. But please stop with this crystal ball/navel-gazing BS about it not being Edwards' time. This is one day of speeches. Perceived by one observer. Spare me the inevitability crap. It's June.

Unlike a lot of people on these here interwebs, I'm not a big fan of Edwards as a candidate, so maybe I respond less viscerally than do his boosters to people opining that Edwards is bound to lose. Me, I don't know what's going to happen, and I have a lousy record of prognostication in any case.

That said, vorkosigan1's comment Were you writing this with ink made from your smeared mascara? strikes me as sexist and demeaning. You can criticize someone for letting their heart bleed onto the page without trying to make an issue of their gender.

"That said, vorkosigan1's comment Were you writing this with ink made from your smeared mascara? strikes me as sexist and demeaning. You can criticize someone for letting their heart bleed onto the page without trying to make an issue of their gender."

Amen.

Adele's cluelessness here has nothing to do with whether or not mascara is being worn.

Adele brought up her smeared mascara in the post.

What a disappointing set of comments. She spent the entire opening paragraph contextualizing the post, and everybody ignores that. It was a straightforward visceral response to the speeches. And the her visceral response was that Obama blew her away and Edwards' rightly vaunted chops at the podium paled in comparison, leaving a sense of certainty (which is a feeling, after all) that Edwards missed his shot.

As it's unlikely I'll get to do a live comparison myself, it's nice to occasionally get some reporting that makes you feel like you're in the room. I can't remember which (male) reporter did a similar piece on Edwards in early '04, but they add texture to all the policy reporting.

Great post.

Remember that hope is not a strategy. Obama has run a campaign largely on the basis of his personality--and you fell for it.

I don't want to elect an ideologue or someone who sings kumbaya. I want a nominee who will be an effective spokesman for the Democratic Party and implement its policies. That candidate is not Barack Obama. It's John Edwards.

"...it was the way he (Obama) made use of the energy that was in the room. He took what the crowd so eagerly wanted to give him, channeled it through, and gave it back to them." Well said, had the same experience being at his Seattle rally. Watched both Obama and Edwards today online. Don't want to be unkind to Edwards BUT Obama will be that once in a lifetime great president that this country and the world need.

The problem with Edwards is that he is trying to have it both ways. In the United States he is trying to run as the peace candidate, (despite having not only voted for the Iraq war but actually cosponsoring the resolution that started it.) When he speaks to Israel, he talks about attacking Iran.

Now I know that all of our politicians have to kowtow to AIPAC to some extent if they want to win, but take a look at this:

Edwards: "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Hmm, the only unthinkable option is nuclear war, right? It gets worse:

Q: ...Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?

Edwards: As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

So he plans to talk us unto war with Iran "if necessary" while at the same time criticizing Clinton and Obama for not making enough of a show when they voted down the latest war appropriation. (What would you have done had you been there, John? Last time you voted FOR the war....)

Anyway, Edwards is a good example of a politician that one has to keep a really close eye on to make sure that what he says one group is the same as what he says to another.

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

George, what an inane comment.

Did you know that Obama said his instinct would be to send missles into Iran?

See how easy it is to use quotes?

[T]he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

As to Edwards, you completely omitted other remarks he has made, including his remarks on Iran to Ezra Klein on 2-2-07.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12434

You have to twist what Obama says fairly far to make it seem like he wants to attack Iran. Obama says "at what point [b]if any[/b] will we go for a military option." and "[b]us launching some missile strike into Iran is not the optimal position for us."[/b] His instinct is to err on Iran not having nuclear weapons. Given that they are not actually trying to obtain them (they would not have IAEA inspectors if they were) this is a fairly safe statement.

Fairly different from Edwards [b]Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran[/b] after making broad hints about using nuclear weapons (ALL options...) against them in the body of his speech.

EricD: Yes, Edwards says other things to the American audience -- that is exactly my point. Is he for the war with Iran before he will be against it?

Edwards speech back in 2002 pushing for and co sponsoring the Iraq invasion reveals his lack of sound judgement. Don't see why we should trust his (or Hillary's) judgment now or in the future in any national elected office.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

What I like about this post is that it tries to find some room between the substance or fluff positions. People on this comment thread use the word "personality" to describe Obama's appeal and thus to make him appear less substantive than Edwards, the "policy" man. But at this stage in a presidential campaign, any candidate is going to fuse policy to personality and vice-versa. I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, but I like Obama, and I'd like to think it's not just for his personality. Adele's post got me thinking about the ways that emotions can be agents of intelligence and how Obama's appeal to my emotions is not just fluff. There's there there.

Since the time of Bush v. Gore, we Dems have spent a lot of time disparaging "personality" or "charisma" as characteristics that only the stupid and unwashed would fall for, while policy pronouncements are what we should be looking at. This fit the storylines we've been looking at--but it's not the whole story. Charisma MAY be a fill-in for someone whose policy positions are lazy or flat-out wrong, but it doesn't have to be. Charisma (we should remember this from Bill Clinton, as well) can be a tremendous force in getting one elected--but also--and we tend to forget this as well--in governing. A president who can back up decent policy by working well with other members of government and foreign leaders, as well as inspire citizens, will likely be a successful and popular president. Someone can have great policy ideas, but if they can't sell those ideas, they won't be very effective.

I feel like someone should offer you a cigarette, Adele.

What one shouldn't offer you is a job covering politics as a journalist.