Yesterday, I began sketching a few comparative points about the major Democratic candidates. Today, I continue this project.

Let me start by clarifying my argument about Obama from yesterday. More than a few readers wrote to object to my criticism of Obama. However, I did not feel I was being critical. I think the confusion stems from the distinction between "self-conceit" and "conceited." A few readers interpreted my essay to imply the latter, but I intended it to imply the former.

"Self-conceit" is defined principally as: "One's opinion or estimate of oneself; esp. high or exaggerated opinion of oneself, one's talents, attainments, etc." Meanwhile, "conceited" can be defined as: "Having an overweening opinion of oneself, or one's own qualities, etc.; vain." The latter implies that a person's opinion of self is inaccurately high. This is what "vain" and "overweening" indicate. "Self-conceit" can imply this, but not necessarily so. It can be used in a more neutral manner, i.e. "high" rather than "exaggerated." I intended this neutral use. I was not commenting on whether Obama has an overly high opinion of himself. My point was simply that he has a high opinion. Nevertheless, I should have been more careful to indicate the neutrality I wished to convey. "Self-conceit" can be defined as something approaching "vanity," "overweening," and "conceited" - and I should have been more careful to distinguish the use I was intending.

3. I'd like to return to Clinton's public style, which - as I argued - I think is frequently ineffective. I think that, for Clinton, her lack of natural ease and grace is not the only factor that makes her public style ineffective. I think that explains most of it - certainly I think that is why the average voter is less-than-enamored of her.

However, I wonder if - at least with political elites - there is something else to it. After all, her public style is not very good, but many politicians have cultivated an effective public style even though they are obviously unnatural and graceless in many political situations. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both come instantly to mind. I wonder if one of Hillary's problems is that she has retained the Clinton strategic "machine." You know - the cast of political operatives who helped win Bill Clinton two terms in the White House. Never has such a machine been so celebrated as the Clinton machine: Billy Bob Thornton never played Lee Atwater! This crew is still around - either working formally for Hillary Clinton's organization, or operating informally. I wonder if this is part of her problem.

Political campaigns are a lot like theater. Everything you see is, technically speaking, artificial. But effective campaigns - like effective theater shows - induce you to suspend your disbelief. They influence you to forget that what you are seeing is artificial, so that you can grasp - not in spite of, but because of the artifice - ideas that are real and true. They say that art tells the truth with lies. Political campaigns can be similar.

Bill Clinton's artifice was so effective that members of his stage crew became celebrities in their own rights. James Carville, Paul Begala, Mandy Grunwald, Ann Lewis, and so on. Hillary Clinton has retained many of these people. Beyond the actual individuals is the sense that Hillary Clinton has cultivated a top-rate stage crew that is on par with her husband's. Last February, Ryan Lizza referred to it as "HillaryLand." I wonder if this is a problem for her - if, at least with political elites who know who is working for her, this induces people not to suspend their disbelief. They are so aware of the stage crew and its presence in the play that they cannot but think of it. I would wager that most political elites, at least those whose political opposition to Hillary Clinton is not their overarching concern, probably look upon the stage crew quite favorably. However, the act of looking at the stage crew so intently spoils the intention of the crew's production. You are watching for their effects, rather than letting them affect you.

The simplest metaphor I can think of for this idea is the problem that the Wizard of Oz had when the curtain was drawn back. He ceased to be menacing when it was discovered that the menace was simply an artifice, a cleverly-designed stage trick. I wonder if Hillary Clinton has a similar problem. I am not comparing her normatively to the Wizard of Oz. I am simply commenting that because her artifice is so well known, it ceases to be as effective as it could be. In other words, the themes that she wishes to convey in her public style are not being conveyed because the work of the stage crew is so obvious.

Perhaps this is why her debate performances are always celebrated. After all, it is in the debates that she, and not her stage crew, produce the effects.

4. In my recent review of Edwards, I stated that I was confident that he would not receive his party's nomination. I still think this. However, I think that I failed to factor a real advantage that Edwards possesses.

I had been aware of this for a while, at least on some level. But it was only after I received more than a few emails from Edwards' supporters in passionate defense of their candidate that I began to acknowledge an intuition that had been lingering in the back of my mind for a while. I think that Edwards support base is certainly not as broad as Clinton or Obama's. However, I also think that those who count themselves as supporters of Edwards offer much more intense support. No candidate on the Democratic side has such a deep base of support.

Ultimately, this is simply not enough to win an election. Our elections do not register depth of support. If half plus one of an electorate supports a candidate only mildly, and half minus one would sacrifice all they have to see another candidate win - the candidate with the devotees is going to lose. However, I do think that the depth of support that Edwards enjoys will be enough to keep him vital longer than I initially thought.

What is interesting to me is that people who love and people who hate Edwards agree on the basic facts of him. The difference is that they infer from these qualities diametrically opposed conclusions. Those who love him believe that he is earnest; those who hate him believe that he is not.

My intuition is that most Democrats do not love Edwards, though they do not hate him. They are the ones who will decide whether he would be a viable general election candidate - and I believe they will determine that those who hate him could turn the public to their way of thinking. What I have called his political ineptitude is, I believe, hurting him with Democratic elites for this reason. Ultimately, his mistakes are fodder for those who hate him - and strategic Democrats will view him as too risky.