« Anyone for a bigger, badder 'Green' Diamond? | Main | Adjusting the focus on Edwards »
Tuesday, 07 August 2007
Why I see John Edwards as a big phony: Director's Cut
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
SEVERAL MONTHS ago, I observed on my blog that I think John
Edwards is a phony -- a make-believe Man of The People.
It’s not so much that he’s lying
when he says he wants to help One America -– the Deserving Poor, whom he wants
to vote for him -– get what it has coming to it from the Other America (that of
the Really Rich, to which he disarmingly admits he belongs).
He’s a pro at this, and at some point, pros can’t be liars. On
some level, they have to believe in themselves, whether it’s stepping to the
plate to beat the home run record or striding to the podium to drip pure,
sincere concern upon the people. Mr. Edwards has a sufficiently plausible
background story to convince himself that he is, deep-down, that dirt-poor,
mill-town child he invokes in his personal anecdotes. So he is persuaded, even if I am not.
Why am I not? Well, I
hadn’t ever planned to get into that; I’ve just devoted more attention to other
candidates of both parties. I kept hoping that maybe Mr. Edwards would just
drop out. But he’s still in it, or trying to be. As The State’s Aaron Sheinin wrote in a piece headlined “Edwards
staying positive,” the former senator is “betting he can come from behind again
in 2008, as he did in 2004.”
Sigh. So I guess I’d
better “put up” and explain why I called him, on Feb. 8 on my blog, “one of the
phoniest faux populists ever to get his name in the papers.” The
impression is mainly the result of three encounters:
Strike One: Sept. 16, 2003.
The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in
front of the Russell House. The stage was on the south side, with seating
before it in the street, and bleachers to both left and right. I stood on
higher ground on the north side with, as it would turn out, an unflattering
angle of view.
He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m. but it was at least 5 before
he showed; I can no longer cite the exact time. When his appearance was
imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I
found appealing and sincere. As either she or another introducer was speaking,
I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my
left (toward the east). None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.
His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another
show. Nothing wrong with that, thought I -– just a professional at work.
But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: In the last seconds
as his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a
thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed
the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best
friend. Then he stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the
crowd toward the stage -– a man of the
people, coming out from among the
people -– shaking hands with the humble,
grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.
It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was
taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work, both on-stage
and off. Not enough for you? OK.
Strike Two: Jan. 23, 2004.
Seeking our support in the primary contest he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The
State’s editorial board.
He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning the session by swinging
his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming,
“How do y’all like my boots?” He had
not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.
The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of
aw-shucking, much smiling, consistent shows of genuine concern, and warm
expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he
left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.
On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time.
Once again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike the screamer of
Web fame. I happened to ride down on the elevator with him afterward, along
with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan
(but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). After he took his
leave, I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer -–
treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as
any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.
“Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed.
Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative
assistant. What’s that, I asked? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen.
Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly
ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped
for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability,
all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs
who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement. He had no time for anyone
else.
At that moment, my impression acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic
dimensions.
Strike Three: Sept. 22,
2004. I decided to drop by a reception held for then-vice-presidential
nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press
credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the
high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the
stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.)
Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more
informative way to kill it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to
meet at such receptions.
It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no
one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable
downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the
candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this
one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this
particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he
had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security
detail, after the time that the MLK
event was to have started.
As reported in The State the next day, “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with
him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the
sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”
We were cool at the Cap City Club, drinking, schmoozing,
snacking, hardly taking notice. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do –- write checks for the Republicans?
But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John
Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of
stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 03:26 AM in Blogosphere, Character, Columns, Elections, Endorsement interviews, In case you wondered..., John Edwards, Midlands, The Nation, Working
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e39823aef18833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I see John Edwards as a big phony: Director's Cut:
» Three Strikes: from Pajamas Media
Brad Warthen, editorial page editor at South Carolina's The State newspaper, crosses paths with John Edwards, and gets an impression which "acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic dimensions." (Brad Warthen)... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2007 2:41:20 PM
» John Edwards, Phony from Liberal Values
... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2007 5:41:08 PM
Comments
Brad.
Considering that Sen. Edwards is a career trial attorney, and that his income, reputation, and ultimate success depends entirely on his ability to chameleon any given cause, it's no surprise that from time to time, true colors will shine through. While I'm not trying to make a partisan distinction, one thing about Ronald Reagan the world over knows to be true is that while he was indeed an actor, he was also heavily convicted in his free-market and good cheer principles. He never had to play the part, it just came naturally.
Posted by: Todd Rogers | Aug 7, 2007 7:22:08 AM
You are my new Hero. I take back all the scrurilous things I ever said about you. I humbley bow before you with my hat in my hand. You have put South Carolina on the Drudgreport not for some sexual misconduct of some school official or some idiotic exploit of an elected official and his bridge or but you have brought honest assessment of an ambulance chaser running for President of a country with lots and lots of ambulances.
Thanks.
Posted by: Ted Sbardella | Aug 7, 2007 7:55:26 AM
Oh, please. Why not go back to the four H's already - Haircut, House, Hedgefund, HarperCollins? At least these have some objective facts buried in them somewhere.
Truly, this is the poorest excuse for "journalism" I've ever seen. Anonymous conversations. Impressions. Phantom sources. Oh, yeah...and a glimpse at someone collecting his thoughts before making a major public appearance.
Gimme a break, already.
Posted by: Jen Q | Aug 7, 2007 8:03:29 AM
Brad,
You are right you impression is not likely to change, because you have 3 anecdotal/hear say examples to show how he is a "phony". After starting that he is not lying and that he believes he believes what he is saying, you cite examples that don't show he doesn't.
Like all stereotypes, you have set your frame, so from here forward you will discard that which doesn't fit your frame, and emphasize anything that does.
All of the items listed here have nothing to do with what he would do as a president. Whether his ideas and plans have merit, practicality, or are appropriate objectives.
Since you likely won't go see him talk next time he is around, how about if the next time you see him on a debate if you write about the color of his suit, or maybe which side his part is on. You can do all this as evidence that he would not be able to speak with other world leaders.
Posted by: cjkinsey | Aug 7, 2007 8:11:51 AM
What else should we expect from a guy who pretends to channel dead babies in order to win a jury trial?
What else would we expect from a man who would rather be president that be there for his children while their mommy dies of a terminal illness?
Posted by: BG | Aug 7, 2007 8:23:15 AM
Agreed. Now apply the same observation skills to Hillary Clinton and what do you observe?
Posted by: Paul Edinger | Aug 7, 2007 8:25:48 AM
A very good friend of mine was a pilot, and among a very impressive list of people he has piloted for are many top politicians and former presidents. He flew Edwards once on the campaign trail and was absolutely startled at how he... switched on and off with the opening and closing of the cabin door... he'd fly into tirades, berate his wife, telling her she'd be riding on the bus next time etc...staffers would cower...
I've been waiting for a story to appear along these lines because obviously that is something that cannot be hidden... the jeckyl/hyde... to be honest though... I did not expect to see it ever printed... congratulations on exposing a truth that tells people what they really need to know... truth that I believe is deliberately withheld by many so called respected journalist... Thank You...
Posted by: stephen mayo | Aug 7, 2007 8:37:07 AM
It is always refreshing to read personal observations/opinions from people who have at least met the parties in question.
It is my personal belief politics is peopled by actors, trained in the art of distortion while fastening the emotional dreams of voters to the tail of a balsa wood kite. It does not matter if it is an elephant or a jackass, they bray the same.
Thank you for using your personal knowledge to back up your stated opinion.
Posted by: Don Black | Aug 7, 2007 8:38:02 AM
Well done on exposing John Edwards for what he really is. A phony.
By the way, your article is linked on The Drudge Report! Expect a lot of traffic!
Posted by: veritas | Aug 7, 2007 8:38:38 AM
Brad:
Excellent piece. Very concrete and revealing of John Edwards real persona. I have a similar set of anecdotes about John Kerry and is treatment of staffers. The lack of genuineness is alarming, since it signals a willingness to manipulate without hesitation.
Posted by: Bernie | Aug 7, 2007 8:38:40 AM
Is that it, Mr. Warthen? Boy, from your swirling, blustery build-up, I thought for sure you were about unleash unto the world truly shocking revelations about Edwards running numbers behind the State Capitol or kicking the dogs of little children when the cameras aren't on him.
But an "impression" based on nothing more than three passing moments of the type any politician must surely engender at least a hundred times? I must say I'm a little disappointed to discover that's all you've got. I mean really: holding the fact that a politician begins to smile as she or he approaches the podium against them, and then holding it aloft as dispositive proof of some kind of "phoniness"? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Nary a mention of substantive policy to be found, not even the usual nod; I'd call that strike one. No acknowledgment of the necessary demands of campaigning; now you're staring down oh-and-two. Trumpeting your own incidental, anecdotal observations from years ago as if they were somehow definitive word in this election? Well, to my mind, that's strike three. Not to mention you flatly admit at the piece's beginning that all the while you've been "hoping that maybe Mr. Edwards would just drop out."
Now, your opinions are certainly that: your opinions. If you fancy yourself a modern-day Diogenes, just looking for a politician who is (a) always smiling, (b) always has time for everyone and (c) is always on time, well, sir, I wish you luck in your quest. But it does shock the conscience a little to realize that with all the power of your position (evidenced by the approving nod from the Drudge Report your hit piece has drawn), all you're trotting out are three "impressions" garnered Edwards' run four years ago.
Posted by: Disappointed | Aug 7, 2007 8:44:22 AM
Of course John Edwards is a phony. I've known about Mr. Edwards since I found out he made all those millions of dollars using "junk science" to bilk Hospitals, Doctors and Insurance companies in bogus claims about Cerebral Palsy being caused by their malpractice. It was a load of CRAP foisted on what must have been truly ignorant juries no doubt hand picked because they were ignorant and malleable to the ways of Mr. Edwards. That's the kind of guy he is and he isn't going to change. He still thinks he can play the nation's electorate just as he played those juries. I'm glad to see you're not ignorant enough to fall for his bovine fecal effluvia about being a man of the people. The only "people" he is interested in is himself.
Posted by: Harry | Aug 7, 2007 8:45:33 AM
Reminds me of the line, "When I'm not kissin' babies, I'm stealin' their lollypops."
Posted by: TSC | Aug 7, 2007 8:50:56 AM
Heartfelt THANK YOU for this excellent hunk of writing, and vital information the electorate badly needs to hear. Not that the other candidates are anything to write home about, but this election--let's at least know what we're voting for, rather than for who has worked the best con job.
And regarding his indifference to the little people:
“This is the final test of a gentleman: his respect for those who can be of no possible service to him.”
William Lyon Phelps 1865-1943
Posted by: Pat M | Aug 7, 2007 8:51:41 AM
First, I will start by saying that I am from New York but often read your editorials. They are always very thought provoking and substantive. Today, I'm sitting at my desk rather incensed about the weak manner in which you attempted to annihilate John Edwards by calling him a phony. He didn't talk to the customer service people in the paper's offices, he kept people waiting for an event, and after running from another event prior he turned from being lackluster and unhappy to smiling after being inroduced by his wife. RIDICULOUS! If you don't like John Edwards, and you wanted to resort to name calling based on that than you should just say so. This columnn is the poster child of grasping at straws and building a case out of matchsticks - something that less reputable journalists call cutting edge news. I expect far better from you and this paper, and if you don't have sense to be ashamed by this unnecessary and illegitimate bashing than I'll be ashamed for you.
Posted by: Colin Mincy | Aug 7, 2007 8:57:52 AM
If your "John-Edwards-is-a-big-phony" is the best you can do, referring to his demeanor on the campaign trail, God help you.
Let me respond to you in kind:
So's yer old man.
Posted by: Ken Roberts | Aug 7, 2007 8:59:02 AM
Interesting and insightful observations of human behavior. It is my sincere hope that your words are taken seriously and with careful consideration.
Sadly, I would wonder how many of our politicians would fail to pass this type of observation examination. I would suspect that the answer would encompass a lonely wasteland.
I applaud your courage in posting what must be likely to simply consume your time with deleting mountains of flaming dung. Unfortunately I doubt this will generate much useful discussion. Those in favor of the candidate will vehemently, virulently, and violently attack your observations, and those against will gleefully use this as fodder for their more radical constituency.
May more people around more campaigns have your level of observation, clarity, and courage.
Posted by: JML | Aug 7, 2007 9:04:29 AM
I'm not a Democrat. I don't think I could ever vote for one, and I never cared for Edwards, but this column pained me in a way I didn't think possible. Our country deserves better than this. Our country deserves to have politicians on both sides who are honorable -- even if we have sharp disagreements over their policies. Maybe Edwards really believes his policies will help the "The People". Maybe Edwards believes it is his policies that matter and not his personal behavior. And maybe in the end, he's right. Even still, America would be a worse place if the man behind those policies isn't worthy of them.
Posted by: Dean Cooper | Aug 7, 2007 9:05:25 AM
Wow...what a great article. I have to admit that I have long held the "Edwards is a phony" philosophy, and I have never witnessed the events that you have. I have merely picked up on his fake Southern Gentleman charm. I have known others like him.
Posted by: Julee | Aug 7, 2007 9:10:20 AM
Wow ... you should really think about how childish a hatchet job this is.
A tired speaker SMILED for his audience before he got on state.
A busy man did not introduce himself to a Customer Service Department while trying to process himself with a receptionist (would it not have been rude to ignore her busy work situation?)
A rich man wants other rich people to own up to the fact that ONLY they can fund the costs of the war and social services. (See the poor are poor ... they can not.)
A free press exposes people like you for what they are. That is a good thing.
Posted by: rjp3 | Aug 7, 2007 9:10:25 AM
Just curious, does the bowtie and three encounters with a candidate on the stomp make you qualified to judge Edwards' true nature?
I am not saying you are wrong. Just that you don't exactly seem to provide sufficient evidence to jump to a bold conclusion about a candidate's character.
This sort of thing might be expected from the general blogosphere, but it seems folks blogging for major newspaper sites should have a higher standard. If not, then what makes your site any more credible than the millions of John Q Computerinmyden sites?
Posted by: Geoffrey Sunsmith | Aug 7, 2007 9:18:11 AM
I think his claims about not accepting lobby money expose this man as a phony, too.
He's gotten more trial-lawyer lobby money than anyone since Bill Clinton. Give me a break!
A lot of these Dems play that same class-based, "it's not fair that some are rich" line of reasoning on voters.
At least Republicans ADMIT they're for business, commerce, free markets, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B | Aug 7, 2007 9:24:06 AM
Your comments re: John Edwards are spot on. I recall watching him at the Dem convention.
Just before he was to be introduced along with family from the gallery, a Fox or CNN camera caught the group. John appeared to be cueing his family as to how they should react with a rather flat face. Upon the intro, he popped around and lit up THE BIG Magic Smile. Will never forget it.
Posted by: Jim Portell | Aug 7, 2007 9:31:40 AM
A post like this could be written about any of the candidates.I think you put this one up to provoke anger,not thought.If you want "good faith" arguments,you need to be honest.This piece is phony and irrelevant,but you'll probably get 50+ comments.Disappointing.
Posted by: bill | Aug 7, 2007 9:39:30 AM
Ok, John Edwards is a phony. So what. He is so correct on the issues. If he applies his energy toward making people's lives better and ending the quagmire in Iraq then I can support him 100%. If the current occupant of the White House is genuine then frankly I'd prefer phony.
Speaking of the Iraq quagmire, it appears that the success of the "surge" is just as phony as John Edwards. From the Washington Post:
BAGHDAD (AP) — Four more U.S. soldiers were killed in roadside bombings in the Baghdad area, including three in a single strike, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 19 the number of troop deaths in the first week of August.
A British soldier also died from injuries sustained in a gunbattle Monday in the southern city of Basra, the British Ministry of Defense said. A total of 165 British armed forces personnel have died in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003.
The numbers signaled a resurgence in attacks after a drop in July. U.S. commanders have warned they expected militants to try to upstage a September report on military and economic progress in Iraq.
Posted by: bud | Aug 7, 2007 9:47:59 AM
