One of the greatest mistakes that we make as Democrats time and time again is assuming that the majority of the electorate makes decisions the way we in Left Blogistan do...that they study policy, records, and position papers before making an informed decision about a candidate.
We are wrong. George Bush didn't get elected because of his policies. He got elected because he was "compassionate" and apparently most of the country wanted to drink a beer with him (although now, I'd imagine most of those people would throw a Busch in Bush's face if they had the chance.)
Most voters go for the emotional connection - the fire in the belly, the personal connection (I have young kids, he has young kids, so he must understand), the thinking that he might just be like me.
Let's face it. Al Gore was probably one of the best policy candidates we've had in a long time. John Kerry had a huge and distinguished record as a senator. He was a war hero. And he lost.
We as Democrats delude ourselves into believing that just because we have a better policy voters will vote for our candidate, without giving them that connection to the candidate. Without giving them that reason to get personally engaged.
The majority of voters don't pick their candidates the way we do! The majority of the voters don't care about ten-point plans. They don't care about the specifics. They just want to feel good about their vote!
Right or wrong, this is just the way it is.
Let's be clear: words matter. Words turn the apathetic into the sympathetic, the disengaged into the activist, the dispirited into excited. Words engage voters.
Which is why the latest line of attack from the Clinton campaign confuses me:
"Over the years you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches and some of those speeches were probably pretty good, but speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank. Speeches don't fill your prescriptions or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That's the difference between me and my Democratic opponent: my opponent makes speeches. I offer solutions."
...
"Now if he would only copy my healthcare plan and provide coverage for every single American instead of standing in the way," she said. "There's a big difference between us: Speeches versus solutions, talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change, but you and I know better. Words are cheap."
Would the Civil Rights movement have been nearly as potent without Martin Luther King, Jr. giving speeches, rallying the troops, and marching on Washington?
Would a generation of apathetic young voters have been inspired to get involved, volunteer for public service, and believe we could go into space without John F. Kennedy asking them to help their country?
Barack Obama understands the power of oratory in getting the lay public involved. He understands policy and process aren't enough.
Last night in Wisconsin, Barack Obama took on Hillary's claims that speeches don't matter.
DON'T TELL ME WORDS DON'T MATTER!
UPDATE: KerryVision has a great video of the speech with a little more content and better quality.