The New Republic Convention Blog suggests a basic problem with Sen. Edwards' primary theme, contrasting him with Barack Obama:
Why is this a problem for Edwards? Because focusing on how we're all alike (i.e., aspirations) is, rhetorically, much more hopeful and uplifting than focusing on how we're all different (i.e., everyday reality).
This is a useful thing to keep in mind, even if we accept that the two speakers are not necessarily contradictory, but provide different parts of the whole -- after all, if all was well now, why would we need new leadership? In other words, we all have similar goals, but aren't all fulfilling them equally. Sen. Edwards is equally upbeat and optimistic, but still his discussion of the here and now is a tad bit grim at times.
As with his "two Americas" approach, this doesn't truly put forth a universal message. We are divided, but I think Obama's approach is better, since it is division often arising from artificial means, or a false consciousness arising from forgetting how we basically agree on so many things. There are problems, not just economic though, that need to be faced. And, Edwards did a pretty good job talking about some of them.
Still, I think the overall theme has too much of a simplistic division of the nation into two parts, which is as crude as red v. blue. What is this "our America" stuff? Are Republicans not true Americans? I do think the message that: "We must build one America. We must be one America, strong and united? is a good one. The problem is, and the speech suggested this, is that we are divided for any number of reasons (race, wealth, party, beliefs, and so forth). I think he has to tinker his message some.
John Edwards' speech overall was mixed bag and appeared not to have as much energy as some of his past efforts (did he have a cold? did he tone it down given who is coming next? is he not quite ready for his new role?). The personal stuff about his family came off well, as always, and he is a good promoter of John Kerry. The anti-negative theme is good too, but rings a bit hollow given some rhetoric on the anti-Bush side. Some of the word pictures of the victims of 9/11 and the war in Iraq also were particularly poignant.
Some of the policy stuff, especially the foreign policy, didn't really do it for me. Didn't quite sell it, but that's not really his job. I think that was left for Kerry. Overall, he did seem a bit green at some points, as a back-up player with an important role to play all the same. I think he will excite some people, while others won't respect him too much. The fact, however, that Cheney is his opposite number helps to balance things considerably!
Sen. Edwards' speech overall suggests a sort of realistic optimism. This is interesting given his sunny deposition and reputation as a font of optimism. Besides the importance of family values (or family and values, not a bad thing, if handled correctly), this shines through:
Like all of us, I've learned a lot of lessons in my life. Two of the most important are that first, there will always be heartache and struggle. We can't make it go away. But the second is that people of good and strong will can make a difference. One's a sad lesson; the other's inspiring. We are Americans and we choose to be inspired.
We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism. We choose to do what's right even when those around us say, "You can't do that." We choose to be inspired because we know that we can do better because this is America where everything is still possible. ... Let's ensure that once again, in our one America - our one America - tomorrow will always be better than today.
It is in a sense a weird combination, almost like you mixed a conservative with a liberal (the true definition of a populist?), but in many ways it works for me. There is a book out there about how the Democrats eventually lost Kansas, once the home of progressives and populists. They too might appreciate his message.