Skip

Edwards on Edwards
July 17, 2007 8:40 AM   Subscribe

Elizabeth Edwards: the Salon interview. An earnest, candid conversation with one of the most interesting figures in the 2008 candidate cadre.
posted by hermitosis (90 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Video of Elizabeth Edwards responding to Ann Coulter on MSNBC's "Hardball" to which Mrs. Edwards refers in the Salon interview.
"Ignoring the fact that she exists doesn't make her go away. If it did, you wouldn't hear me utter her name. So I think maybe the better thing to do is simply confront people like her. Are you going to stop them? Under no circumstances will you stop them. But maybe you empower other people to stand up, and maybe that has an effect. When I travel, so many older people thank me for what I did. Because the vile kind of way Ann Coulter thinks and talks, that was not ever part of the public discourse until recently...

...I knew she was doing 'Hardball,' and I knew it was a call-in show. So I called the [Edwards] campaign about getting the number, and they were like, Oh, that's a good idea. And then I mentioned the 2003 column [where Coulter mocked John Edwards' discussion of their son Wade's death in a car crash] and you could see them get worried, like 'Oh, my God, she's carrying around in her mind a 2003 column? Maybe we don't want her calling ...'. And later on, I talked to somebody, not an advisor -- I really don't have anybody advising me -- and not someone in the campaign. She'd been in a previous campaign, and she said, 'Oh, I wouldn't have done that. I think that you put yourself at risk, subject to criticism unnecessarily.' I understand the advice -- if you were advising somebody you might say that -- but that exact attitude is what protects somebody like Ann Coulter. Nobody wants to jump in the mud puddle with her...

...So I got the number in case I wanted to call in. And I sat and watched [the show], and I thought, well, there's really nothing to call in about. It was getting close to the time I had to leave. I might have gotten on a plane and left -- I really might not have ever called. Maybe Chris [Matthews] brought some of those things up because he knew I was watching."
posted by ericb at 8:48 AM on July 17, 2007


In the media her statements about Hillary are being warped into catfight fodder. In actuality, her eye seems keen and her questions legitimate.

"...There is a need to get the debates more serious. You have these formats with 60-second answers, and in 60 seconds, John's position on healthcare sounds just like Hillary's answer, when it couldn't be farther apart."

"I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern?"
posted by hermitosis at 8:50 AM on July 17, 2007


So why ain't Elizabeth Edwards running for President? I mean, instead of First Lady?
posted by davy at 9:00 AM on July 17, 2007


Seriously. It would be nice to have a real First Lady for a change. Has Laura Bush ever said anything that didn't sound like it was run through a white-noise projector?
posted by hermitosis at 9:05 AM on July 17, 2007


I could be wrong, but I think heterosexual marriage is threatened more by heterosexuals.
Win.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:11 AM on July 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


She rocks--i'd be proud to have her as our First Lady (and she's a great influence on him, esp with rights issues)
posted by amberglow at 9:13 AM on July 17, 2007


John Edwards is already my pick for the office, and forgive me for not seeing the forest for the trees, but mostly all I can think about Elizabeth Edwards is that I hope she takes care of herself and doesn't leave us with a tragically gorgeous widower president.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:18 AM on July 17, 2007


I freaking love Elizabeth Edwards and I hope her the best of health. If I decided to vote for John Edwards, a big part of that reason would be Elizabeth.
posted by spec80 at 9:21 AM on July 17, 2007


So why ain't Elizabeth Edwards running for President? I mean, instead of First Lady?

Because she's never held elected office?
posted by OmieWise at 9:26 AM on July 17, 2007


I love, love, love her. I consider myself politically brighter than this, but I have to admit that a large chunk of my initial support of John Edwards is the fact that he was able to convince this woman to marry him.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 9:31 AM on July 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


She's certainly got a kind of stoic elegance about her, and a natural and effective communication style (I see more parallels than differences with Hilary in terms of style). In political terms alone, the big C is a difficult factor to predict. My guess would be that a larger chunk of people will consider a potentially infirmed wife as a legacy to the office than will be persuaded to vote for Edwards from any sort of sympathy thought process.
posted by peacay at 9:39 AM on July 17, 2007


I already support Edwards and I barely know anything about Elizabeth. I guess this means when I do see/hear her, I'll have to vote twice.
posted by DU at 9:45 AM on July 17, 2007


I like her as well. She's pretty remarkable. Thanks for this.
posted by MarshallPoe at 9:47 AM on July 17, 2007


I hadn't seen Ann Coulter before watching that video clip. I'm amazed and saddened that she has any kind of following. Edwards called her out for being a dick, and all Coulter could do in self-defense was be a dick.
posted by found missing at 9:56 AM on July 17, 2007


I have blogged using other screen names before.

I bet she's a Mefite...
posted by amro at 10:10 AM on July 17, 2007


Mrs. Edwards appeared in her husband's stead on a radio broadcast in New Hampshire before the 2004 primaries. The interview was taped on video for C-SPAN and I was fortunate enough to get a chance to watch the woman speak.

I have never been so affected by a political interview. She was not inspiring, in fact she was a little depressing, these are not the best times we live in. She was frank and uncompromising, and she wasn't lying to anyone about anything. She told a couple of cute stories about lean times in law school when they were newlyweds, anniversary dinners at Wendy's.

I didn't understand why she wasn't immediately deployed to the midwest to speak to everyone she could, because she might have won that election. But any one thing done well might have won that election, and the news that she had been fighting breast cancer was a sad day for me.

thehmsbeagle: I love, love, love her. I consider myself politically brighter than this, but I have to admit that a large chunk of my initial support of John Edwards is the fact that he was able to convince this woman to marry him.

I feel precisely the same way. She's the closest thing to a Jackie Kennedy we got these days.
posted by litfit at 10:13 AM on July 17, 2007


I could vote for Elizabeth Edwards.

I can't vote for John.
posted by RavinDave at 10:15 AM on July 17, 2007


Pity she's not, you know, actually running for anything.

Aside from her questionable taste in men I think she'd be an interesting candidate.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:24 AM on July 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm curious. Would it be a legally acceptable ticket to have Edwards for pres. and W.Clinton for V.P?
posted by notreally at 10:24 AM on July 17, 2007


i hope that cunt ann coulter dies in a slow grease fire. picking on people with cancer is about as classless as... well, as ann coulter.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 10:25 AM on July 17, 2007


"[As a trial attorney he learned] to describe complex medicine to people who aren't trained"

Forget med school, simply go to law school, sue some doctors and Eureka! You understand complex medicine!
posted by bilbo baggins at 10:43 AM on July 17, 2007


I could vote for Elizabeth Edwards.

I can't vote for John.


I don't think you can put that bizzare statement out there without a little explanation.
posted by DU at 10:44 AM on July 17, 2007


quarter waters and a bag of chips:

Watch your fucking mouth.

ann coulter is NOT a cunt, cunts are warm and pleasant.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:44 AM on July 17, 2007 [14 favorites]


AV, do you know the "green meat" limerick? That's the sort that quarter waters is referring to.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:50 AM on July 17, 2007


Bilbo Baggins, are you perhaps a medical student? This is the second comment I've seen you make in ten minutes about people not being sufficiently astonished by the awesome goodness of doctors and how extremely hard med school is - the other being the now-deleted one in the thread where the poor girl is having the uterine issue.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 10:50 AM on July 17, 2007


DU: I don't think you can put that bizzare statement out there without a little explanation.

Any candidate who exploited the Imus situation forfeited my vote. That's my primary litmus test; and most of them fail. But even if Edwards hadn't thrown in with the race hustles, he's simply too ineffectual to bother with. Reread the debates with Cheney:

CHENEY: "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11... "

Edwards should have crammed that gross and greasy lie down Cheney's throat. He knew it would come up (he brought it up). He certainly had dozens of instances at his disposal. Hell, if I recall, Cheney made that bogus connection a scant few hours earlier that very day.

Edwards did make several good points. He just didn't make them very well.
posted by RavinDave at 11:17 AM on July 17, 2007


I actually Saw Elizabeth Edwards at a pretty small gathering at Iowa State. This was like a month after her cancer announcement and she looked kind of frail. The biggest problem with her being a candidate is, unfortunately that she has late-stage cancer. It can be "managed but not cured" and I don't think people would vote for someone who might not make it through their term. :(

But yeah, she's way smarter then her husband, and I would much rather vote for her then for Hillary,

I've been more on the Edwards side as far as the primary, but at this point I'm not really sure he has a chance of winning this thing. It really does seem like Obama is the one most likely to beat Hillary right now. I like Obama, but I find him kind of boring. I think whoever wins the democratic primary will almost certainly be our next president.
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on July 17, 2007


Any candidate who exploited the Imus situation forfeited my vote. That's my primary litmus test; and most of them fail.

So we're facing a moronic war, suspension of habias corpus, torture, fiscal insolvency, government lawlessness, and you're main worry is the candidates' opinion of a shock jock? I hope you reconsider, because that's really idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 11:30 AM on July 17, 2007 [3 favorites]


I <3 Elizabeth.
posted by k8t at 11:31 AM on July 17, 2007


delmoi ... part of the reason Congress is infuriating people by their inaction in addressing these matters is that they they are playing to trendy mob sensibilities. It's frozen them in their tracks because they are so afraid to offend anyone. They're so timid that they won't even consider taking action unless they are given a signed guarantee from G-d that they will succeed. My Imus filter is a nice microcosm exposing that defect.
posted by RavinDave at 11:42 AM on July 17, 2007


I don't get the Imus filter. Are you pro-racism or anti-? Was Edwards too vociferous or not vociferous enough in whatever it was he said to throw you for a loop?
posted by DU at 11:45 AM on July 17, 2007


But even if Edwards hadn't thrown in with the race hustles

hahahahahahahaha

Oh, mercy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:03 PM on July 17, 2007


thehmsbeagle must have me confused with someone else, I have made 3 comments in entire meta career, and one (this one) mentioned "awesome goodness of doctors and how extremely hard med school is." Check out my history. Thanks!
posted by bilbo baggins at 12:04 PM on July 17, 2007


My Imus filter is a nice microcosm exposing that defect.

So can you tell us who does pass through your "Imus Filter"?
posted by octothorpe at 12:07 PM on July 17, 2007


OK, your history looks clean, but what have you got in your pocketses, bilbo?
posted by Abiezer at 12:09 PM on July 17, 2007 [3 favorites]


DU: I don't get the Imus filter. Are you pro-racism or anti-?

Golly. Didn't you know that anyone who didn't call for Imus's head on a pike staff is, by definition, a racist? This is a self-evident truth in the spirit of "Anyone who doesn't support Bush obviously hates the troops". The simple fact is that Imus often had highly literate guests and access to prominent politicians. More than most mainstream hosts, he could get away with throwing them curves and pinning them down on issues. Yes, he was abrasive and yes he went too far at times. But it was hardly worthy of the lemming-like rush to grab headlines, give voice to nincompoops like Sharpton, and dance a jig for political correctness.
posted by RavinDave at 12:26 PM on July 17, 2007


I'm curious. Would it be a legally acceptable ticket to have Edwards for pres. and W.Clinton for V.P?

It's legal, but because Bill already served twice, he'd be knocked out of the line of succession--plus. he's old news and didn't bother to help Kerry/Edwards at all in the past, so i don't think there's any love there.
posted by amberglow at 12:30 PM on July 17, 2007


I've been more on the Edwards side as far as the primary, but at this point I'm not really sure he has a chance of winning this thing. It really does seem like Obama is the one most likely to beat Hillary right now. I like Obama, but I find him kind of boring. I think whoever wins the democratic primary will almost certainly be our next president.

Obama and Hillary have to knock each other out of the ring for either to get the nomination--they're way way too similar in too many ways. I'm hoping Edwards then steps up to first place.
posted by amberglow at 12:31 PM on July 17, 2007


Any candidate who exploited the Imus situation forfeited my vote. That's my primary litmus test; and most of them fail.

I was thinking the very same thing the other night as I plowed my tractor-trailer through a crowd of third graders so I could get home in time for the "Scrubs" rerun. Thank God someone has their priorities straight!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:33 PM on July 17, 2007


ImusFilter.

Moving on...
posted by hermitosis at 12:33 PM on July 17, 2007




I always forget that when I see the Coulter skeletor-face and hear her snotty defensive voice, I throw up in my mouth. She should be confronted and forced to hear her words repeated back at herself more often. Good on Elizabeth Edwards for calling Ann on the verbal diarrhea that passes for her witty commentary.

I'm pulling for Edwards too, and I think he will make it very far in the race due in no small part to his wife's hard work on his campaign. It would be totally awesome if he got the nomination and pulled Gore in as his running mate. Fingers crossed, I can only dream.
posted by brain cloud at 12:53 PM on July 17, 2007


I love how the media and the other candidates mock John Edwards for being rich, not because he's rich (which they all are), but because he is the one candidate who speaks persistently about poverty and social justice and racism in America as his key issues.

It's like it's fine to be rich, as long as you don't care about the poor. Oddly, he is one of only a few of the major candidates to have grown up in the lower reaches of the middle class as well. And I'd love to know what Mitt Romney pays for his freaking hairpiececut.

Edwards is my candidate unless Gore enters the race; even then I'll be torn.

And his wife is amazing, to boot. A real person in a sea of phony.
posted by spitbull at 1:00 PM on July 17, 2007


I like Edwards a lot and would love to see him president. But frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with Obama or Hillary too. Any of them would be so much better than any of the moronic nutjobs running for the Republican nomination that I'd gladly vote for, contribute to and campaign for anyone who runs as a Democrat.
posted by octothorpe at 1:16 PM on July 17, 2007


Actually, all three of the Dem front runners have quality spouses, who would do well as the First Lady/Gentleman. Though it would be weird to see Bill Clinton in a red dress all the time.
posted by JWright at 1:25 PM on July 17, 2007


It's legal, but because Bill already served twice, he'd be knocked out of the line of succession

Not necessarily true- a person can't be elected for more than two terms. Succession is not elected.

I'd support an Edwards/W. Clinton ticket in a heartbeat (although I doubt Hillary would be amused). I'm already behind Edwards; he has (gasp) actual stances and ideas.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:25 PM on July 17, 2007


I'm really glad you pointed that out, homunculus. The way Drudge is presenting the interview is pretty disgusting. I hope people who find it on his site actually read it-- it may actually change their minds about the Edwards camp.
posted by hermitosis at 1:36 PM on July 17, 2007


Edwards was my guy for the last 12 months, but my excitement for him has really waned (despite the fact that I think Elizabeth is a great human being and would make a great first lady). First, he's been a weasel on gay marriage -- he wants "domestic partnerships," but marriage is only for straights. I mean, that isn't the most horrible viewpoint ever, but it reeks of 90's style Carville-esque triangulation to me -- don't stand on principle, but on what will get you elected. The second was the haircut kerfuffle -- sure, it was kind of a bullshit story, but it was a bullshit story that he didn't put to rest. And yeah, in the back of my mind, I'm always going to have trouble relating to a guy who gets a 1,200 dollar haircut.

Shallow of me I guess. But what the heck is he waiting for in terms of coming out strong against Hillary and making a break for the top?

Nice piece though.
posted by bardic at 2:24 PM on July 17, 2007


If your entire career might depend on a haircut, you couldn't risk spending $20 at cost cutters on a haircut that had even a 1% probability of making you look silly or bad.

Out of the cheap haircuts in your life, how many have been bad? I'd say it's about one in six or seven, for me personally. I don't think any presidential candidate can risk that.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:30 PM on July 17, 2007


Like I said, I'll admit to being shallow. But I think there's some substance to asking the Edwards campaign, Why the hell did you even allow this story to get traction in the first place? It was amateur hour, and in addition to not taking any strong stands on anything to differentiate himself from Hillary, my enthusiasm for him is long gone.

I'd be happy to vote for him, but if he's not going to fight for the nomination, why should I? (And believe me, I'm not all that stoked for Hillary, or Obama for that matter.)
posted by bardic at 2:46 PM on July 17, 2007


And I'd love to know what Mitt Romney pays for his freaking hairpiececut.

Don't forget Poland the makeup!!!

Romney’s Hair-Brained Hypocrisy.
When media reports revealed that former senator John Edwards had paid $400 for his haircuts, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stated that “he pays $50 for a hair cut including the tip”:
You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else.
Today, Politico reports:
Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services.”

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments — actually two separate $150 charges — were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif.
posted by ericb at 3:06 PM on July 17, 2007






But even if Edwards hadn't thrown in with the race hustles


You mean, like the lovely young ladies on the Rutgers basketball team? Who cared who rushed to the mic? Isn't what Imus and in my opinion, his even more disgusting sidekick, the issue? And that networks allowed them both to be horrible for years because they made a lot of money for them?
posted by etaoin at 4:15 PM on July 17, 2007


Interesting piece from Greenwald on Edwards v. Romney beautification scandals.

At the end of the day, however, let's face it -- IOKIYAR, at least according to the "librul" media.
posted by bardic at 4:30 PM on July 17, 2007


Edwards was my guy for the last 12 months, but my excitement for him has really waned (despite the fact that I think Elizabeth is a great human being and would make a great first lady). First, he's been a weasel on gay marriage -- he wants "domestic partnerships," but marriage is only for straights. I mean, that isn't the most horrible viewpoint ever, but it reeks of 90's style Carville-esque triangulation to me -- don't stand on principle, but on what will get you elected.

Obama and Hillary are no better, and Hillary is actually worse--She's been silent on our fights here and on getting parity with MA, and hasn't lent her voice or access once to help any of us here in NY--not in courts, not on tv, not anywhere. And she always only wanted private meetings with no publicity and still wanted us to act as an ATM for her. Obama going on and on about his faith and sucking up to preachers doesn't help him either. Edwards at least says "I'm not there yet" when he talks about getting there--Hillary and Obama don't even do that.
posted by amberglow at 4:38 PM on July 17, 2007


Believe me, I agree -- I'm not a big fan of any of the options, beyond "Please dear God not another Republican."

But if Edwards wants the mantle of being the "true" progressive, why doesn't he just grab the damn thing? Frankly, he's not doing himself any favors by playing it safe as he's been doing. Hillary has far too much money and Obama too much natural charisma -- Edwards has a niche he can fill, but he's reluctant to do so. There's just not a lot to be excited about.
posted by bardic at 4:41 PM on July 17, 2007


In terms of spouses, Elizabeth is openly, repeatedly and publicly pushing him (and their daughter is too)--Bill is not pushing Hillary to do anything in terms of our rights or any topic. Ms. Obama neither, to my knowledge. And in terms of legislation languishing in Congress (ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc), none of the sitting Senators running have expended even an ounce of breath or influence or work to help get them passed or even to the floor.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on July 17, 2007


He's taking many stands on tons of issues not even being discussed by the others, and he's far out in front of them--poverty among them, and jobs, and national health for all, and Katrina, etc...

I'm ok with her pushing him on this--until the general public shows they care that these things get passed and that equality is furthered (instead of showing the reverse as they do now) it won't happen. I know he'll be better than Bill was, and certainly better than every Republican in my lifetime. Hillary won't be better than Bill was--she won't even guarantee that she'll fight for national health after her past experience. Obama and Hillary's health plans are tepid at best and cover only a small fraction of the 45 million who need it-- they're not mandating anything either, and Edwards is.
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on July 17, 2007


straights have to show that this is a voting issue, just as the rightwing shows that bigotry is a voting issue.
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on July 17, 2007


He's taking many stands on tons of issues not even being discussed by the others, and he's far out in front of them--poverty among them, and jobs, and national health for all, and Katrina, etc...

Let me guess. He's against poverty, for jobs, for healthcare and against hurricanes?
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:06 PM on July 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's like it's fine to be rich, as long as you don't care about the poor. Oddly, he is one of only a few of the major candidates to have grown up in the lower reaches of the middle class as well. And I'd love to know what Mitt Romney pays for his freaking hairpiececut.

There was a politico article about Romney paying $300 for beauty services, but that includes makeup.

If your entire career might depend on a haircut, you couldn't risk spending $20 at cost cutters on a haircut that had even a 1% probability of making you look silly or bad.

Out of the cheap haircuts in your life, how many have been bad? I'd say it's about one in six or seven, for me personally. I don't think any presidential candidate can risk that.


No kidding. These guys can't look bad for minute. Seriously people.

But I think there's some substance to asking the Edwards campaign, Why the hell did you even allow this story to get traction in the first place?

I don't know if you realize this, but democratic candidates don't control the media. And I don't know, but maybe you didn't realize this but republicans really do have a huge influence in setting the media's agenda. The republicans can really drive non-stories in the media. Look at the story of John Kerry's "botched joke" or Nancy Peloci's expensive plane. Those were non-stories, but the media drove 'em pretty hard because republicans can call up their friends in the media and get a story out there, not matter how inane.

The idea that Edwards could somehow do something to "contain" the story is absurd.
posted by delmoi at 5:38 PM on July 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


If Elizabeth Edwards is one of the most interesting people in the 2008 candidate cadre, I'm glad I have opted to tune out this go around.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:55 PM on July 17, 2007


Ignoring the fact that she exists doesn't make her go away

I agree. Coulter and her ilk need more scrutiny, not less.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:23 PM on July 17, 2007


The idea that Edwards could somehow do something to "contain" the story is absurd.

Um, wrong. All he had to do was confront the story, fess up, and move on.

Is the media harder on Democrats than Republicans? Absolutely. So you'd think they'd have learned a few things by now. Between the hair-cut and the blogger flap, it's clear that Edwards isn't running the smoothest of campaigns.

So please, never take a job as a media consultant for a campaign. These people get paid pretty well to do exactly what you are saying it would be "absurd" to do.
posted by bardic at 6:53 PM on July 17, 2007


From some political rumor site: Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services.”

Makeup? If you're a man and wearing makeup you're either metal, a mime, or a pederast. Hint: John Edwards is totally metal. Really people, don't take this shit from Mitt (who is neither metal nor mime if you get my drift).

Anyway, I really enjoyed watching the video of Mrs. Edwards and Ms. Coulter. However, I was particularly bothered to see how Ms. Coulter, with whose personality I am not very familiar, constructed her arguments and come-backs: "The wife of a Presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking?" That's the type of logic successfully I use on booze-thirsty belligerent drunks at 3am when I'm trying to clear out the bar to mop the floors. I'm sad to think that that type of argument is what compels one side's voting base.

But in the end, that video just looks like a media-constructed catfight with some smoke but no real fire. I hope the Edwards can focus on the business at hand instead of being distracted by this advertising-selling, Hardball dog and pony show.
posted by peeedro at 8:15 PM on July 17, 2007


Is the media harder on Democrats than Republicans? Absolutely. So you'd think they'd have learned a few things by now. Between the hair-cut and the blogger flap, it's clear that Edwards isn't running the smoothest of campaigns.
What haircut stories tell us about the press
He did confront and confess, and even today they're still running with it--even in wholly unrelated stories too.

Edwards is doing a road trip--interesting stuff

I think many are most threatened by Edwards (in the GOP and in the media)--and they're totally not by Hillary or Obama.
posted by amberglow at 8:53 PM on July 17, 2007


I hope the Edwards can focus on the business at hand instead of being distracted by this advertising-selling, Hardball dog and pony show.

So far they've been making lemonade out of all of it--even the haircut stuff. They joke about it, and use the attacks to raise money--it's smart.
posted by amberglow at 8:54 PM on July 17, 2007


Hypocrisy is the word. Edwards gets all preachy and emotive about “the poor” while clearly living the high life. He could do a ton more on a personal level if he actually gave a damn. After the last 7 years steeped in hypocrisy I find I can’t stomach him.
posted by efbrazil at 9:09 PM on July 17, 2007


Edwards gets all preachy and emotive about “the poor” while clearly living the high life.

If he gave away all his money, he wouldn't be able to afford to run for president.
posted by hermitosis at 9:18 PM on July 17, 2007


In terms of spouses, Elizabeth is openly, repeatedly and publicly pushing him (and their daughter is too)--Bill is not pushing Hillary to do anything in terms of our rights or any topic.

This to me has always been the single strangest aspect of American politics -- the "role" of the presidential spouse. A completely unelected, largely unnacountable person, it's the one thing that screams "monarchy" more than democracy. Do you want a presidential spouse "pushing" the Prez do do something, just because this time it happens to be the right thing? How about they just smile and wave, or run for some office of their own?
posted by dreamsign at 9:20 PM on July 17, 2007


If he gave away all his money, he wouldn't be able to afford to run for president.

Instead he's been strategically spending his money on million+ dollar renovations of his mansion. I keep looking for his appeal, but all I see in him is a sleazy personal injury
posted by efbrazil at 10:18 PM on July 17, 2007


lawyer.
posted by efbrazil at 10:18 PM on July 17, 2007


amberglow: Obama going on and on about his faith and sucking up to preachers doesn't help him either.

I'm a Green and don't have a dog in this fight... unless y'all nominate Kucinich or get Feingold to run I don't really care. But you do realize that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, a liberal denomination that has endorsed gay marriage, right?
posted by the_bone at 12:49 AM on July 18, 2007


amberglow:

Edwards at least says "I'm not there yet" when he talks about getting there--Hillary and Obama don't even do that.

Obama:

It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I might be seen on the wrong side of history.

Obama's not quite as "far" as Edwards, perhaps, but he's not too far behind, either.
posted by callmejay at 6:14 AM on July 18, 2007


I think that I would like the Edwards if I met them personally, but as a candidate, no dice.
posted by BigCreekBill at 6:38 AM on July 18, 2007


I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I might be seen on the wrong side of history.

The whole framing of that both absolves him of personal responsibility for his own prejudices and lack of action/movement, and does not indicate that he is willing to change them or grow beyond those prejudices. He only admits that he will be seen by the future as being prejudiced and wrong--not that he's on any journey to either enlightenment --or to ensuring the Constitution applies to all. Making it a religious issue as he does is explicitly a GOP and rightwing way of talking about it too. It's not about God or Jesus or religion at all, but about our laws, Constitution and rights.
posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on July 18, 2007


Found the broadcast that made me fall in love in the first place: Elizabeth Edwards on her husband, education, health care, in New Hampshire, 2003. At the time, it was the first time I'd heard anyone speaking to the specific issues.

In 2007: "You're not a successful public servant unless your actions meet the public's needs"

She's my president. Nobody else comes close.
posted by litfit at 9:57 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


in some ways, Elizabeth is like Hillary was in 91 and 92--a true partner to her husband and ready to tackle issues herself as well and speak out and forthrightly on things (Except she's far more natural and regular-seeming and on the ball than Hillary was)
posted by amberglow at 2:00 PM on July 18, 2007




Our proudly idiotic and bitchy media: ...
There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards. ...
... Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner. ...


He's not ashamed of any of this--none of them are.
posted by amberglow at 1:36 PM on July 19, 2007


*siiiiiiiiigh*

Idiocracy was such a good movie.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:35 PM on July 19, 2007


bardic: a guy who gets a 1,200 dollar haircut.

Whoa. The tab was $400. Let's not add to the noise machine's ability to make trivia sound grandiose.

And my point is that ALL the candidates are rich. I can't "relate to" anyone who makes millions of dollars a year, not their cars or their homes or their taste in quality cheese. That's my point about the hypocrisy of this. I'll bet you most of them pay several hundred dollars a week for personal grooming services, and more for dress consultants and the rest. If Edwards is a hypocrite for talking about poverty as an issue, then where is our poor candidate? Actually, it's . . . John Edwards, who at least *grew up* the way most working-class Americans grow up, and made his money by working his ass off, not inheriting it.

You want hypocrisy? It's Rudy Giuliani and the closeted and adulterous, prostitute-using, and pederastic Republican party lecturing us about "family values" every time we turn on TV. Why is that not a major story line on the news, when the fact that a rich man got an expensive haircut is a 24/7 meme?

Fuck that shit. Aren't we sick of letting "image" guide our politics to such an extent? Don't we remember "George W. Bush is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with" dripping from the lying lips of Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer? Or "John Kerry is an effete liberal" (with a purple heart, which we will mock)? Enough already with the image spin. Let us talk of substance, and insist that our media do the same.

Edwards has more substance than anyone else in this race. He's running as substantial a campaign as anyone, though I too wish he'd be as brave on gay marriage (and a few other issues) as he has been on race and poverty and his own take on the war. But I will take what he offers, any day, over the camera-crafted Potemkin candidacies of the majority of his opponents, dem and republican alike.
posted by spitbull at 6:44 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


And I mean, really, in what other sphere of activity would we care what someone pays for a haircut? If Derek Jeter spends $400 to have his head shaved, that wouldn't bother a single Yankees fan. I assume Donald Trump and Paris Hilton spend amounts on that order to maintain their TV masks and hairpieces. Does George W. Bush not spend his millions in wasteful and profligate ways, running hsi big dually Ford F350 around his ranch and chainsawing for the cameras? Hell, the "ranch" itself was bought a year before the 2000 presidential campaign as a *prop* to make him look "Texan." He's fucking afraid of horses. And I doubt he'd know a Holstein from and heifer. That "ranch" cost over a million dollars, all for show. And you have not heard that fact on the news, ever. Or I haven't, and I listen hard every time they do a live shot from Crawford in front of a barn, a bale of hay, and an old pitchfork. It's so monarchial as to be disgusting. But the reporters like to pretend they are on the president's working "ranch" and roughing it too, I guess. Or don't like admitting how fucking played they are.

Edwards should say this the next time anyone mentions the haircut to him. Enough of this shit.

Sorry to post twice in a row. I was steaming.
posted by spitbull at 6:52 AM on July 20, 2007


digby's on it too:
This Is Why We Revile Them

posted by amberglow at 7:13 AM on July 20, 2007


Thanks amberglow. Damn, can Digby write:
This is exactly this kind of thing that makes people like me laugh when I get lectured by professional journalists about "objectivity" and "ethics." At least I put my political biases up front. These phonies hide behind a veil of journalistic conventions so they can exercise their psychologically stunted desire to stick it to the BMOC, or the dork or whoever these catty little gossips want to skewer for their own pleasure that day. Please, please, no more hand-wringing sanctimony from reporters about the undisciplined, unethical blogosphere. Their glass houses are lying in shards all around their feet.
More at amberglow's link above. If you don't know Digby, you're missing some of the best writing in the blogosphere.
posted by spitbull at 7:43 AM on July 20, 2007


she rocks--completely.
posted by amberglow at 10:39 AM on July 20, 2007


... So far this week alone, there are nine Washington Post articles available in Lexis-Nexis that mention John Edwards. Four of the nine mention his haircuts. Three mention his haircuts or his wealth in either the first or second sentence. Another doesn't mention either until the fifth paragraph -- but then makes up for lost time with three paragraphs about "controversies" including the haircut, Edwards' big house, and his work at a hedge fund before finally focusing on the ostensible topic of the article: Edwards' poverty tour. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:27 PM on July 22, 2007




Ya know ... I have just been taking it as a given that the '08 ticket would be Hillary/Obama, but now with all the buzz about them not getting along very well -- now cited in credible sources, I'm beginning to think Hilary/Edwards is how it's shaping up.

Depressing.

.
posted by RavinDave at 8:30 AM on August 7, 2007




« Older "Yes, I've been jailed on six continents. All I...   |   bunt cake: a webcomic thing Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post