Kerry and Obama -- they both intellectualize and distance themselves from

themselves when they talk. This was the reason that Kerry could not connect as well with people as Bush could. Kerry talks in the abstract. So does Obama. That is why Kerry likes Obama. Kerry hears his own language in Obama's language.

I prefer John Edwards' direct, concrete evocation of imagery when he talks. Edwards is actually the more intellectually flexible and the quickest of the lot to respond to questions and others' ideas. But Edwards is much more direct in his response. Just compare the language of their speeches.

Here is Obama

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington.

To end the political strategy that's been all about division, and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.

Because that's how we'll win in November, and that's how we'll finally meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

We are choosing hope over fear.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usobam0105-transcript,0,7073760.story


Inside Politics
Transcript: Kerry's Super Tuesday speech

Wednesday, March 3, 2004 Posted: 12:04 AM EST (0504 GMT)



For more than 30 years, I've been on the battle lines, on the frontlines of the struggle for fairness and for mainstream American values. And in 2004, I pledge we will tell the truth about what has happened in our country. And we will fight to give America back its future and its hope.

There are powerful forces that want America to continue on exactly the path that it's on today. And there are also millions of Americans who are hurt by the policies that favor the few, who doubt whether government once again can work for them.

Millions more live in fear every day that they will lose their jobs or lose their health care or lose their pensions. My campaign, our campaign, is about replacing doubt with hope and replacing fear with security.

Together we are going to build a strong foundation for growth by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and investing in education and health care.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/elec04.prez.kerry.transcript/index.html

We are going to rise up. We're going to create an America that all of us believe in, because the truth is, when we speak up, when we speak up for James Lowe and the millions like him who live in the darkness, when we speak up against corporate greed and for the 37 million Americans who live in poverty, when we speak up for single moms who have no place to live with their children, when we speak up for hundreds of thousands of veterans who served this country proudly and are homeless, with no place to live at night, when we do that together, as a nation -- and Iowa caucus-goers did it tonight -- when we do it, America is a better place.

It says something about who we are. It says something about our character, because, when we do, America rises up. America becomes what it's capable of being.

And what began -- and it is not over -- what began tonight in the heartland of America is , the Iowa caucus-goers said, enough is enough. We are better than this. We are going to bring the change that this country needs. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

J. EDWARDS: And you have created and started a wave of change, a tidal wave of change, that will travel from here to New Hampshire, to Nevada, to South Carolina, all across this country...

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

J. EDWARDS: ... because we know the torch has been passed to us. We stand proudly on the shoulders of our parents and grandparents and all those generations who came before us. And we take our responsibility seriously.

And this tidal wave of change that began tonight in Iowa and that will sweep across America, when that wave is finished, when it is done, every one of us are going to be able to look our children in the eye and say, we did what our parents did for us and what our grandparents did for us, which is, we left America better than we found it, and we gave our children a better life than we had.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/03/se.03.html

(Look way down at the end of the page. The speech is not divided into paragraphs.)

Notice how Edwards does not use intellectual, abstract words to summarize facts. He states the facts. He tells stories. He uses action verbs that create a sense of movement. Edwards' language is far, far, far more real and effective than either Kerry's or Obama's. Kerry and Obama have great voices. Obama speaks with the intonation and rhythm of a gospel preacher, and that is entrancing. But Edwards moves us to action. Edwards defeats the arguments of his opponents with the facts.

Obama would say: There's a lot of hunger out there, and I will propose a program to defeat hunger.

Edwards says: 37 million Americans go hungry.

Obama says: We will do something about homelessness.

Edwards says: Single moms have no place to live with their children. We are going to change that.

Kerry and Obama are both good senators. They think in terms of programs. But, the American people get tired of hearing ideas expressed in abstracts. That is a European way to express ideas. Americans want action and they want action language.

Watch European movies. The characters talk a lot. Watch American movies. The stories are told in action. Americans think in action. The American language is verbs, one after the other. Kerry and Obama speak a sophisticated English that many Americans don't really understand. Kerry and Obama are Ivy League.

Edwards talks and thinks American. He is not an ivy league scholar.

So it is understandable that Kerry would endorse Obama. They speak the same language. It happens to be the language of a lot of DUers. But it is not the language of middle America. Edwards speaks American. I'm backing Edwards. He is our best bet for the White House.

they just cry at his speeches...you run with that--:rofl:

tht they are both very cerebral. But, the similarity ends there.

He just hasn't experienced that moment when a person comes to terms with himself. Obama is playing a part. Kerry has always been playing a part.

And, on top of it all, they are both Ivy League. They talk like college professors. As I pointed out. Obama uses the cadence of a gospel preacher, but his language is strictly Ivy League.

The immediacy of Edwards' language is the most compelling in the long run. The Obama people have heard a lot of Obama. If you go to Edwards' website and watch his videos, you will see a person who is really connecting to people and their problems.

Obama will be easily destroyed. People will become tired of his language. He is not talking about facts. He is talking about abstractions. He does not really know the facts.

Obama has been in government too long.

Edwards is the only one who mostly has worked in the real world. His view of the world was not created in a legislature or in D.C. We need Edwards to lead our country.

I was raised by a preacher. That cadence, the cadence that Obama uses, is extremely familiar to me. I look and hear beyond that voice and tone. Edwards tells the truth and he presents the facts to back it up. Edwards speaks from his heart and he evokes immediate images. Obama talks about things. I prefer Edwards' manner of speaking. You cannot disagree with what Edwards says. You can easily discount or even just ignore Obama's generalizations. Rush Limbaugh will have a hay day with Obama's language -- already has. Edwards brings the conversation back to the terrible facts about what is going on in our country over and over. There is no arguing with him. It is easy to argue and quibble over Obama's (and Kerry's) generalizations about what is going on. It is tough to ridicule or quibble with Edwards' stories. Is Rush Limbaugh really going to make fun of Mr. Lowe who could not speak for 50 years because he had no health insurance? I don't think he will get far with that.

As many have pointed out, all you need is one fact -- like a terrorist or supposed terrorist attack, and Obama's generalizations quickly seem irrelevant. His speaking style will seem powerless. Even if there is a terrorist attack, Edwards will be able to focus on the facts and the concrete measures he will take. Edwards is our best candidate by far.

Kerry is bitter because he lost the 2004 election. Kerry did not place a single TV ad in Edwards' home state. Kerry ran a disastrous campaign. He never found his authentic voice. He is backing Obama because he likes Obama's overly intellectual, ivy league style and because he is jealous that Edwards was able to run this time. Kerry tried to run for 2008 but no one wanted to support his candidacy.

Have you forgotten how the Republicans used the bit about the Democratic "elite" meaning the intellectuals against Democrats to win the election? Obama is going to be unable to beat that one back. He is very much a part of the intellectual elite that Americans have been rejecting since Adlai Stevenson.

Edwards is a brilliant man, but he is not a part of the intellectual, ivy league "elite." He comes from a small town. He is very ordinary in his speech. Edwards is our best candidate. Vote for Edwards.

The guy has written books about coming to know himself.

What a fucking crock

had offers to be a university professor. There were times when he was seriously tempted to accept one of the offers. Talented people are often able to excel in more than one field.

Which is it?

I do agree with Kerry on one issue: American wants change. I think Obama's love and peace and why can't we all just get along approach is premature. The Republicans are going to eat Obama up for breakfast and spit out the remains at lunch.

You guys are going to have to make up your mind.

that the audiences that have been listening to Senator Obama agree with you on that.

Obama seems to be connecting with people.

Do you see what your typing?

:wtf:


:rofl:

He happens to have dark skin. But he is Ivy League all the way. So is Bush of course. But you would never know it from hearing or seeing him in action. Obama is going to fall on the fact that he is part of the elite. Has everyone forgotten 2004. We need Edwards. He can win. He is not part of the elite. See my post above on this thread.

And was back in a nice suit and tie.

Your anti-intellectual rant is so gelastic and derisory, if not just plain risible!

:rofl:

I like that he wants to hold the corporations accountable too.

And Bush had to bus in people!

Oh, and those are Kerry's non-celebrity rallies. With another star at the event, he attracted anywhere from 80,000 to 120,000 people.

Kerry and Obama don't blink as much when they speak. Edwards blinks a whole lot more when he speaks. I like that!

I wish he would just put his damn glasses on.

zalinda

I don't see much of the intellectual in Obama. He's playing it down.

the fab four are all worthy of being my President.

Peace.

I think that came across in New Hampshire too. At the debate Obama seemed a bit removed. He does much better in prepared speeches, but tends to have a delivery very much like a sermon. Edwards is a fiery populist who speaks spontaneously from the gut.

that is all.

A good debater can make a prepared speech seem as if they just grabbed it out of the air. While I am not suggesting that it is wholly prepared word for word, the subtext of his message never varies far from his main thesis...

Peace.

I'm sure with Edwards, he is very prepared for those speeches. It's the perception.

Kerry is intelligent. So is Obama.

I'll take "intelligent" over vapid anyday.

That's what Bush relies on.

He could probably shuck and jive his way to a lower price, too.

You're joking, right?

I could never connect with a chest-beating grunting and twanging moron like Bush. I guess many Americans prefer the anti-intellectual good old boy approach, with the candidate stringing together anecdotes instead of concepts, but I can't help myself; I just can't bring myself to vote for someone based on down home lowest common denominator thought processes. I want to be spoken down to by someone of superior intellect. I want to have to struggle to understand complex subjects as discussed by the candidate because they are complex and we live in a complex world. I want the best intellectual in the oval office because it isn't a job involving cutting brush or riding mountain bikes. It is a job where the intellect is exercised all day, twenty-four hours a day. That's one reason why I loved Wes Clark as a candidate. It's why I like Joe Biden. It's why I liked John Kerry.

I like Edwards and I don't think he's just a good old boy stringing together folksy tales like someone might do at a Rotary Club meeting. I think John Edwards is an intellectual. His Juris Doctorate of Law and his years of making difficult decisions in the courtroom make him one. His direct and imaged style is different from Obama's or Clinton's style. But whoever wins, I think we will get an intellectual as a candidate.

Perhaps Kerry and Obama and Edwards just connect with different types of people.

I connect more with Kerry. I really liked Obamas speech today. I am still undecided but I definitely prefer the more intellectual approach. I don't see what's wrong with that really.

Bush wasn't very intellectual sounding and see where that's gotten us.

Editing to add, I'm not trying to compare Edwards to Bush. I do think Edwards is intelligent as well, I just don't see anything wrong with Obama and Kerry's style of speaking.

It's inspiring to me. I can see where different people would have different tastes though.

Meg