RIP, John Edwards' political ambitions, respectfully compiled by Rich Lowry at NRO:
When he hit other candidates for taking donations from Rupert Murdoch's media holdings, wasn't it inevitable that it would turn out he had taken $800,000 from Murdoch's HarperCollins for a coffee-table book?Or when he attacked subprime lenders for foreclosing on victims of Hurricane Katrina, he would have $16 million -- half of his net worth -- invested in Fortress while it was foreclosing on a couple dozen homes in New Orleans?
Most of us uphold ideals that we can't meet, but liberal populism shouldn't be such an impossible standard. The late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, a liberal populist to his core, never had such embarrassments. The former North Carolina senator is experiencing a kind of toxic shock from his synthetic political persona.
Read the rest at the above link. Lowry didn't even get around to mention the hiring/firing of radical feminist bloggers, or his shameless use of his wife as an unassailable attack dog, or the details of his biggest baloney lawsuits, etc. No doubt a bandwidth limit encroached . . .
In lieu of flowers, donations should be made to The Hair Club for Men®. The only remaining problem for the Edwards campaign is: "How do you bury an empty suit?"
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Commentary, Democrats, Edwards, Primaries
Tags: Democrat, Edwards, presidential campaign
Comments (9)
I've thought Edwards was a ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by John in CA | August 22, 2007 3:19 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
I've thought Edwards was a phony since 2003. What's amazing is that he's considered a top tier democratics candidate. Which means there must be quite a few people out there who don't see, or just ignore, his fakeness.
1. Posted by John in CA | August 22, 2007 3:19 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 03:19
2. Posted by COgirl | August 22, 2007 7:11 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Took the words right out of my mouth. A phony through and through. He's treating the presidential election as though it's an election for class president. Say anything, do anything.
As for Elizabeth, while I wish her well on the health front, she's being used and is using herself because of her illness. What can one say to criticize her, because after all, she has cancer? This is no different than Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. She's as snobby and hypocritical as her husband.
2. Posted by COgirl | August 22, 2007 7:11 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 19:11
3. Posted by Paul | August 22, 2007 8:31 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
>In lieu of flowers, donations should be made to The Hair Club for Men®.
roflmao
3. Posted by Paul | August 22, 2007 8:31 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 20:31
4. Posted by HughS | August 22, 2007 9:34 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I would comment that this sheds light on an amazingly large blind spot not only with the candidate but also with his organization. That's unusual for a successful trial lawyer, a profession in which one must prepare for debate very carefully. So I'm left to wonder just where and when Edwards struck it rich in the trial business. Was he an actual litigator, or was he an aggregator of plaintiffs (rainmaker) that handed off the trial work to more seasoned litigators with trial experience?
4. Posted by HughS | August 22, 2007 9:34 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 21:34
5. Posted by kim | August 22, 2007 10:10 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
I think he litigated. I also think he thought he could charm the electorate the same way he charmed twelve handpicked fools.
========================================
5. Posted by kim | August 22, 2007 10:10 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 22:10
6. Posted by Mitchell | August 22, 2007 10:17 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Synthetic politician. All show, no substance.
And an ass, to boot.
6. Posted by Mitchell | August 22, 2007 10:17 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 22:17
7. Posted by kim | August 22, 2007 10:57 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
In it for the wrong reasons.
===========================
7. Posted by kim | August 22, 2007 10:57 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 22:57
8. Posted by Jim Addison | August 22, 2007 11:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Edwards was a litigator. The advantage he had in that job was that juries don't get to research the background; they only see what is presented to them. His boyish charm was able to win a number of huge medical malpractice verdicts from juries comprised of poorly-educated rural laymen.
I suppose he got the idea people are pretty easy to bamboozle if you have good hair. That was reinforced by his winning a Senate seat. Even the average Democratic primary voter isn't quite so dumb as the juries he faced, though, it seems . . .
8. Posted by Jim Addison | August 22, 2007 11:22 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 22, 2007 23:22
9. Posted by langtry | August 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
COgirl:
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Elizabeth, but I don't believe her cancer diagnosis should shield her (or by extension, her husband) from genuine and legitimate criticism. By putting "Cancer Mom" out front and center, Edwards is using pity to shield himself from criticism. Unfortunately for the Edwardses, the public is starting to see through this and see Elizabeth for the b**ch that she is.9. Posted by langtry | August 23, 2007 9:05 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on August 23, 2007 09:05