Kerry and Edwards, 2005, By DAVID BROOKS.
The Democrats are divided, and there is no better representation of the opposing camps than John Kerry and John Edwards. In his running column, David Brooks eloquently compares two recent speeches of the former candidates for the white house.
On one side there is Mr. Kerry whose entire focus is President George Bush. He began his
speech by claiming that Bush and his crew are rotten. He then added that Bush and his crew are loathsome. Overall, according to Brooks, Kerry
left the impression that Bush and his entire administration are evil. So extreme was the Kerry speech that Brooks wrote, “we all know
people so consumed by hatred for George Bush that they haven't had an unpredictable thought in five years, but in Kerry's speech one sees this anger in almost clinical form.” Everything according is Bush’s fault, and it was deliberate. Brooks: “All reality flows back to Bush. All begins with Bush, ends with Bush, is explained by Bush and is polluted by Bush, cursed be thy name.”
On the other side of the divide stands John Edwards, whose prose and posture takes an entirely different approach. The young, good looking former Senator who left politics following his campaign defeat spent the bulk of his speech on the troubles of ordinary people. He talked about money, power and the gap that divides the rich and the poor in America. His spent considerably less focus on being anti-Bush than on being pro-worker, and particularly minorities.
The Kerry-Edwards contrast is not merely an issue of style. It is a matter of substance. Should the
party fight because the Republicans do? Or should it have policies that challenge voters? Kerry thinks it’s style; Edwards talks issues. In either case, Brooks believes the emotional tenor of the party has changed and that “Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.”
More reviews about the New York Times