Edwards gets as strong a reaction as Obama, maybe stronger. He starts by putting his former trial-lawyer skills to work. He paints various verbal pictures of misery–e.g., of an 8-year girl going to be hungry–and ends each one with the line, “It doesn’t have to be that way.” He ends this riff by repeating the question “will you stand up for [insert example of misery here].” This naturally provokes a big standing ovation. One of his examples, by the way, is of a child refugee. He doesn’t stipulate where he’s from. Maybe he’ll be from Iraq, after the Edwards pull-out.

Then he’s on to his next rhetorical riff which is that “silence is betrayal.” He says silence is betrayal on Iraq, although no one that I’ve noticed has been particularly quiet about it. This becomes, as you might expect, a call for tougher measures to cut off the war than the congressional Democrats are likely to pass. It’s also the occasion for Edwards’ (not so) veiled shot at Hillary. He says the White House is counting on Democrats to be “weak, political, and [either ‘careful’ or ‘cautious,’ I didn’t quite catch it].” This, Edwards says, is “not the time for political calculation.” Got that Hillary?

Part of his argument for withdrawal is that America is the “only stabilizing force in the world.” That would seem to suggest that we need to stabilize Iraq or no one else will, but never mind.

He says silence is betrayal about poverty, health care, and energy dependence too. He goes out of his way to praise people “who work with their hands” and the labor unions. He says he’s “proud to stand with them,” and asks, “Will you stand for the men and women of organized labor?” Another big standing ovation.

He ends with some effective lines and some hackneyed ones. Effective: “it’s time to be patriotic about something other than war.” Hackneyed: “tomorrow begins today,” and “people are counting on us to stand up for them.” His final flourish has shades of Howard Dean’s “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” line to this gathering in ‘04: “We don’t need to re-define the Democratic party, we need to re-claim the Democratic party.”

My first-blush reaction: Edwards is a better candidate than in 2004. He’s a skilled rabble-rouser, too stilted and manipulative for my taste, but a lot of Democrats are going to eat it up.