<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: John Kerry&#8217;s Convention Speech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/2004/07/29/john-kerrys-convention-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/2004/07/29/john-kerrys-convention-speech/</link>
	<description>Insight - Foresight - Hindsight</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hiram Wurf</title>
		<link>http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/2004/07/29/john-kerrys-convention-speech/#comment-248</link>
		<dc:creator>Hiram Wurf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/?p=595#comment-248</guid>
		<description>I would argue that something more interesting may have been going on with Edwards' speech.  Up until then he was Mr. 'Two Americas,' but now he's on the ticket with Mr. 'One America.'  So fundamentally Edwards' strength up until now was a rhetorical weakness.

In part this contrast was likely by design, the necessity of Kerry to assert dominance and form a clean break from the primaries with his speech (which I think he succeeded in doing).  In part it was inadvertent, the better message for Kerry and the Democratic presidential campaign was unity in the U.S.:  it plays both to historic Democratic strength and is the stronger posture to challenge Bush, pointing out Bush's shortcomings and broken promises.

So to answer your question, they didn't 'dumb down' Edwards speech, I just don't think they made it 'smarter' when they changed it to keep him on message.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would argue that something more interesting may have been going on with Edwards&#8217; speech.  Up until then he was Mr. &#8216;Two Americas,&#8217; but now he&#8217;s on the ticket with Mr. &#8216;One America.&#8217;  So fundamentally Edwards&#8217; strength up until now was a rhetorical weakness.</p>
<p>In part this contrast was likely by design, the necessity of Kerry to assert dominance and form a clean break from the primaries with his speech (which I think he succeeded in doing).  In part it was inadvertent, the better message for Kerry and the Democratic presidential campaign was unity in the U.S.:  it plays both to historic Democratic strength and is the stronger posture to challenge Bush, pointing out Bush&#8217;s shortcomings and broken promises.</p>
<p>So to answer your question, they didn&#8217;t &#8216;dumb down&#8217; Edwards speech, I just don&#8217;t think they made it &#8217;smarter&#8217; when they changed it to keep him on message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/2004/07/29/john-kerrys-convention-speech/#comment-247</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/?p=595#comment-247</guid>
		<description>So...did they purposely 'dumb down' Edwards' speech on Wednesday to make Kerry look better.

I coulda sworn Edwards is a better speaker than that.  

I mean...he's supposed to be able to convince juries...isn't he?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So&#8230;did they purposely &#8216;dumb down&#8217; Edwards&#8217; speech on Wednesday to make Kerry look better.</p>
<p>I coulda sworn Edwards is a better speaker than that.  </p>
<p>I mean&#8230;he&#8217;s supposed to be able to convince juries&#8230;isn&#8217;t he?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
