There are two "change" candidates in this race, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both candidates began this race with a very similar tone. Now, the two couldn’t be more different.
Obama’s message is to bring a new majority, through a message of unity, to bring about change.
Edward’s message is to be confrontational in order to bring change.
Which is better? I don’t know.
But the real question, at this point in the race, is.......which message can get a Democrat elected in November 2008?
I’m no fan of Charles Krauthammer, but he said it best today:
"If young people show up to caucus, advantage Obama. If older people show up to caucus, advantage Clinton. If angry people show up to caucus, advantage Edwards!"
I hate to quote Charles, but I just couldn’t put Edward’s increasingly confrontational persona into words better than he did. I’m not sure if America is ready to elect a black candidate, or even a woman. But I’m absolutely convinced that America is not going to elect an angry candidate. And that is what John Edwards is becoming---"the angry candidate".
Recently, John Edwards attacked Barack Obama by claiming that he is too nice....that he won’t be able to bring about change because he isn’t confrontational in his rhetoric.
Edwards himself made the point at a typical campaign stop in Vinton, Iowa, last week. "Barack is not angry or confrontational enough to get it done," he said. "He's too nice a guy; he's too conciliatory.
Obama’s response suggested that he’s not quite as "nice" as Edwards suggested. Obama hit Edwards with a zinger.
"They say, 'You can't vote for Obama because he's too nice, he's too polite, he's not angry and confrontational enough,' " he said during a speech at a community center here yesterday. "Change is not going to come just because we holler and shout at folks. There's no shortage of anger in Washington. We don't need more heat. We need more light."
Who’s Message can win in 2008?
The point of this diary is not to determine which candidate is right or wrong. The point of this diary is to ask: Who’s message do you think can win in 2008? It’s an important question because, as we all know, you can’t bring change unless you can get elected. And you cannot get elected unless you have a message that appeals to hard-core Democrats, swing voters and moderates.
I want change is this country, whether confrontational or unifying. But I don’t want our nominee to yell at people all the time. I don’t our nominee to go around picking fights with everyone under the sun. Our nominee is not going to be elected with an in-your-face, confrontational, angry style and message. We’re not going to bring in a new majority in congress by becoming the "angry party".
I don’t want our nominee to appeal only to people’s anger. I want our nominee to also appeal to hope, also....the hope that there’s a brighter day ahead for America, following 8 years of George Bush. That is what people want. That is the message that can win. That is why Obama has more cross-over appeal than any of our candidates, appealing to both independents and moderate Republicans.
As Obama put it, "we’re not going to bring change by hollering at people."
Sooner or later, people will begin to tune you out.