In December 2003, as John Edwards yard signs were sprouting like weeds around Des Moines, I knew Edwards was coming on strong when I spoke to a friend who had described himself and his wife as firm Dean supporters in the spring of 2003. Not only were he and his wife now backing Edwards, he had signed up to be a precinct captain.

I was surprised, because he had indicated that the war was his number one issue, and I wanted to know why he was willing to overlook Edwards' vote on the AUMF.

I can't remember his exact words, but they went something like this: I want Edwards to make the case against Bush with the American people as the jury.

In my first two front-page posts for MyDD, I told the story of how I came to support John Edwards for president, and explained why Edwards' strong stands on the issues are both good policy and good politics for Democrats.

Tonight I want to focus on Edwards' skills as an advocate. I think he's the best in our field to make the case for Democrats and for the progressive change we need.

We all know that Edwards was a successful attorney, but let's take a trip down memory lane to see just how good this guy was in front of juries.

I recommend this article, which appeared in the Washington Post in February 2004: Eager to Face Any Jury--and the Voters. The whole article is worth reading, but here are a few of my favorite passages:

From rural courthouses with Confederate memorials out front to the vast judicial complex in this New South capital, lawyers across North Carolina had the same rule of thumb for going up against their colleague John Edwards: Never let him near a jury.

"The problem was that all the older women wanted to take him home as their son, and all the younger ones wanted to go out with him," rued an attorney for several doctors sued by Edwards on behalf of brain-damaged babies. "You'd think, 'Okay, if the women like him, the men must hate him.' But then the guys just saw him as one of them."

Got that? The women loved Edwards, and the men liked him too.

If you are wondering why Edwards polls better than Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Republican presidential contenders, it's because he gives up less ground to the Republicans among men.

Going back to that Washington Post article, several people attest to the fact that defendants were desperate to settle so as not to let Edwards in front of a jury. So much so that other lawyers were able to get better settlements just by threatening to refer their clients to Edwards.

Much has been written about the case of Valerie Lakey, the little girl who was disemboweled after sitting on a defective pool drain. Here's something you may not have read about that case:

 Retired Wake County Superior Court judge Robert Farmer, who presided over the Lakey case, recalled that "all the lawyers in Raleigh" came to watch Edwards's closing argument, packing his courtroom to overflowing, much as voters packed Edwards's New Hampshire appearances to take in his "Two Americas" speech. "He argued for an hour and a half," Farmer remembered. "He never used one single piece of paper. He never said, 'Uh.' I watched the jury, all 12 and the alternates. They had their eyes totally focused on him."

Now, moving to the political arena, I encourage you to look at this post by Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com from April. Blumenthal describes Janet Harris's work in creating "tag clouds" following the Democratic candidates' debate on MSNBC. Click the link and view the clouds to get a sense of the kind of language used by our presidential candidates.

Here's the most important part:

A few quick observations, with an assist from Janet (who is the president of the media analysis firm, Upstream Analysis):

   * Notice the more frequent use of wonkier language by Chris Dodd, particularly the use of "administration," "multinational," "stateless," etc.
    * Now contrast that to John Edwards, whose answers tend to use everyday language and deliver a message loud and clear message: "America," "believe," "united."

The research on persuasion and framing tells us that we need to connect to people at the level of values before we can expect to get them on our side of an issue.

John Edwards is able to connect with people at this level. I can't resist posting one last quote from that 2004 Washington post article:

"You never walked away and said, 'That was the most brilliant speech I ever heard.' It was just something everyone could understand," said one defense attorney.

I will write more about Edwards as a communicator in future posts. Now, just for fun, I encourage you to read his closing statement in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, which occurred at the beginning of Edwards' term in the Senate. I was living overseas in 1999 and wasn't following the trial that closely, so thanks to "catchawave" for putting up a Daily Kos diary containing Edwards' remarks.

We all know that the outcome of the impeachment trial was predetermined, so I don't mean to suggest that Edwards influenced the jury's vote in this case. Still, his remarks are a good read and a reminder that this guy is a great advocate.