« Lost in Lost | Main | Two Faces of Libertarianism »

"A Clinton Who Hadn't Read the Books"

24 May 2007 12:24 pm

Sure, Bob Shrum's book is doubtless tendentious and self-serving, but Michael Crowley's excerpts only confirm my abiding distaste for John Edwards, and my abiding mystification at his appeal. I understand that he's made himself over as the standard-bearer for smart lefty ideas of the sort that haven't had many standard-bearers of late, and I suppose that if a Republican candidate went around calling himself the Sam's Club candidate and talking up policies I favor I'd be willing to overlook a lot . But even so, every time I hear him speak I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of smarm - and I don't care whether he told John Kerry about crawling up on the slab with his dead son and vowing to make a difference in the world once, twice, or fifty times; the fact that he would tell the story at all creeps me out. (Particularly since it's of a piece with this bit of repellent mummery.)

But then again, I was also somewhat put off by his decision to stay in the race in spite of his wife's cancer, and the American public decidedly disagrees with me on that score - so maybe my Edwards-hating just shows how out of touch I am. Also, I should note that everyone I've known who's worked on his campaigns says he's the nicest boss imaginable. So maybe it's just a sign of the weird power that Barack Obama exerts over impressionable minds that I can't fathom why any anti-Hillary liberal would opt for Edwards over him.

Update: Speaking of Obama's appeal ...

Comments (14)

Edwards is like Romney in this respect-- they each seem like transparent frauds to people in the opposite party (and some in their own party). But others in their own party want to give them the benefit of the doubt, since these partisans believe in the candidates' current positions.

I should add that I've heard the same thing from former Edwards employees-- they think he's absolutely wonderful.

"the fact that he would tell the story at all creeps me out"

Can I quote this the next time somebody mentions annointing in Crisco?

Romney is not, however, as far right as Edwards is left. My issue with Romney is that he's amateurish on foreign policy, but on other issues he's vacillating but ultimately pro-life and relatively free market, thus putting his positions pretty much in the Republican mainstream. Edwards, on the other hand, proffers a populist economic programme that I find extremely troubling and a foreign policy that seems to take its marching orders from whatever faction of the angry left seems to be holding sway at the moment; the flap over the "war on terror" is at best a mere semantic difference with a President he doesn't like and at worst an announcement that he intends to return to a Clinton-era treatment of it as a law enforcement problem. There's a sentiment, certainly one that I share, that Obama at least pretends to want to be a uniter, while Hillary is enough of a pragmatist that she'll govern with an eye toward a second term; Edwards thus becomes the dangerous one of the three.

Look at Sullivan's comparison to Regan. Obama doesn't use the "code" words that Regan used to appeal to the base. Because of this, liberals don't trust him because the language he uses is me calculated to send up a red flag in terms of economic policy, and bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake.

He has not made the deal to us that he really is one of us.

Liberals don't trust Obama? I know many prefer Edwards and many others dwell on Obama's relative lack of experience, but I don't think questions about trustworthiness or authenticity of beliefs are really holding back Obama's support.

MN Pundit, what makes you less enthusiastic about Obama is the very thing that makes him more appealing to the middle.

He seems to be the first prominent pol in a while who understands that not everyone who disagrees with him is corrupt or evil or stupid.

My guess is this attitude or air would be a great help if he got the nomination.

As a conservative, I share Andrew Sullivan's fear of Obama. I wouldn't compare him to Reagan on style or substance, but I do see in him the ability to transform America and move it to the left. Bill Clinton never came close to that.
Edwards doesn't scare me because I know he's just pretending to be a liberal to win the nomination. Shrum's book nails him. He might be the phoniest candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

Edwards is like Romney in this respect-- they each seem like transparent frauds to people in the opposite party (and some in their own party)

Sorta, but not really. Romney is a transparent flip-flopper. People are irritated with Edwards not because of any inconsistency in his record, but because they associate his personality characteristics--those of a trial lawyer--with dishonesty.

A slightly better comparison might be to Giuliani. I think he's dishonest not because of any inconsistency in his record, but because I find the law-and-order strongman role to be inherently dishonest. "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq." A transparent line like that is the best conservative parallel to something Edwards would say--and provokes the same kind of reaction in their opponents. Who do you hate more, greedy trial lawyers or attention whore prosecutors? Who irritates you more, Al Sharpton or Nancy Grace?

dfzvtl doqwskxb vdcjihwae oliqkdwy goqkzcvb mntlzbdw hpbvoz

buy cheap meds online viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy online pharmacy viagra

Never application card credit depot home war mechanic road casino on line sicuri jam live bet push deck black tailed jack flush heads call roulette!

Never application card credit depot home war mechanic road casino on line sicuri jam live bet push deck black tailed jack flush heads call roulette!