My Advice to John Edwards

Well, I've returned. And since a lot has happened since I've been gone, let me dive right back into politics. I'll resume a more balanced selection of post topics once the caucus/primary frenzy dies down.

So you all probably know that Obama won Iowa by a wide margin, with Edwards in a distant second and Hillary Clinton in a very close third. The Republicans are probably fairly happy about that, because Obama's probably the second most beatable Democrat in the field right now (the most beatable being the extremely unlikeable Hillary, for reasons I've largely covered).

But the salient takeaway for me from the Iowa Caucuses is simple: John Edwards, my candidate of choice, needs to fire his speech writers. After the caucuses, each candidate gave a speech which amounted to a ton of free media exposure (and since John was outspent 6:1 in Iowa, he could use it). These speeches were shown repeatedly on all the major networks; quotes were used frequently; and overly-thorough analysis was conducted. John needed a home run here. And he didn't get it. While he didn't whiff completely (I'd say he hit a grounder to third for a single), he seemed almost uncomfortable giving his own speech. His content was good, but I'm blaming his speech writers. Ignoring for a moment that they know their candidate so poorly they made him slightly awkward and uncomfortable in the midst of discussing issues about which he is more passionate than anyone in either race at the moment, the whole speech structure was messed up.

There was a large chunk in the speech in which he spent a lot of time talking about how bad things have gotten. He told a lot of sad stories about lack of health insurance and poverty in America. He provided a lot of statistics. And only after he had essentially sent the message that we're headed towards a dystopia unless something is done, did he go back to what pundits have been calling "the politics of hope." The first part of that section was not an appeal to hope, but rather, an appeal to fear.

BIG mistake.

This is a guy who was the poster boy for "the politics of hope" four years ago. And since this speech, Obama has had pretty much a monopoly on being the hopeful candidate. Edwards, through the fear appeal, annihilated any memory voters had of him being the happy hopeful warrior of the working man.

What kills me the most is how easily this could have been fixed. Instead of lots of sad stories, lots of statistics, and an image of a dystopian future followed finally by hope and the word "fight" (which only appeared in the last 30 seconds of the speech), all he needed to do was change the presentation. He could have kept all the content the same. But he needed a syntactic formula more like the following:
1) One or two sad stories highlighting a single problem
2) One or two statistics to multiply that sadness by millions, explaining the problem
3) The statement "We can, we must, and we WILL do better!"
4) A declaration of his intent to fight, which includes the word "fight."

This is how he brands himself as the happy warrior who embodies the politics of hope once again. By the ends of this speech, he's already set up two things which he can clearly state: 1) things are bad, but he expected them to change and 2) there's going to be a fight, and he wants to be in it.

At the end of the speech I'm proposing for him, his message, his conclusion, is simple:
1) We can fix what is wrong, but we have to fight, to create mini revolutions in the way our society works
2) Invoke Thomas Paine's quote: "If there is to be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
3) Insist that we fight for these things now. Fight poverty, fight for health insurance for all Americans, fight against fear both domestic and abroad, that we come together with one voice to create new revolutions, so that we, like Thomas Paine, can one day turn to our children and with that same voice teach them of an America better than we ourselves inherited. Say, "Let us spread hope across this nation so that we can lift each other up from these woes; let us start this fight now so no one need suffer or fear needlessly; and let us establish these revolutions to last throughout the generations, so our children and their children never know the fear that grips those in poverty, those without insurance, and those without an education today. Let us start this fight now so we can give to our children a better America, as our parents did for us."

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages."

That should have been the speech John Edwards gave. One with hope and momentum, one that built a thundering crescendo of emotion and ended with the happy warrior using the politics of hope to lead us into a fight we can win, a fight for us, our neighbors and our children. Achieving the American dream through hard work and determination. That should have been John's speech. And it still can be. But he's running out of chances to give it. And he doesn't seem to want to listen to me.