« 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/t/trackback/337487/20635002

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

The author sounds kind of phony. It could be that Edwards has been traveling and campaigning a great deal and that would account for a tired look and I'm certain many candidates have to turn on their energy once they take the stage.
Sounds like another Republican hit piece.

Posted by: Dave | Aug 7, 2007 9:53:25 AM

OK, it's clear you don't like John Edwards. It's clear you never liked John Edwards, even before you concluded he's a "phony".

The only actual observed facts in your column are that Edwards was late to an event, he turned on his charm in front of crowds, and as a Southern candidate he played up his Southerness. And you cite a report (from your own paper) that Edwards was late for another event at MLK Jr. Park. The writing in that story is so clearly biased against Edwards and the Democrats that it's hard to separate the facts from the editorializing - there are negative characterizations like "The restless crowd was not amused" but no quotes from that same crowd to back it up. As a journalist, you must know this is pretty weak stuff.

I know this is an opinion column, but where is the proof that John Edwards is any more "phony" that Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani, Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush?

We have to elect a President next year, and this offhand, ill-considered pettiness doesn't help.

Posted by: fishbrake | Aug 7, 2007 10:00:00 AM

John Edwards may be a man trying to reclaim his soul. On the other hand, he may be out to sell it. Either way, the man is out of sync with his message. Given his being able to retreat to a mansion located on acres and acres of land posted with "No Trespassing" signs, John Edwards' campaign slogan may as well be: "Wealth is my profession; the poor are just a hobby."

Given the animosity between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and the likelihood of Hillary Clinton being the next President of the United States, it is quite likely that John Edwards will serve as a regional balance on the Democratic ticket. Otherwise, he will become a quickly forgotten footnote in political history.

Posted by: threebells | Aug 7, 2007 10:00:55 AM

These are all rather silly points. He's a politician. Show me one who can't turn on a beaming smile and at enthused and I'll show you a loser...otherwise known as John Kerry. Bush is as fake as they come. He even fakes his accent.

Basically, you seem like someone out to get him, finding easy potshots. I haven't "picked a horse" yet, but I know your opinion won't be part of my decision as this was childish.

Posted by: nycwahoodem | Aug 7, 2007 10:15:32 AM

If you are going to base your vote for president on personality and concern for the little people, I would suggest you also check out Ms. Hillary. Volumes have been written about her scorn for members of the Secret Service, how staff members in the White House during the Clinton administration learned never to look Her Highness in the eye because it angered her. How, when provoked, she can curse worse than most military men, then portrays herself as a pious Christian. And, of course, how she stood by her man through thick and thin and orchestrated the destruction of all those "trailer trash" bimbos who fell under the spell of her Bill. However, if you dared to publish an article critical of Ms. Hillary like this one of Mr. Edwards, you'd better watch your back, and your cat, and perhaps increase your life insurance.

Posted by: Laura Hornbeck | Aug 7, 2007 10:17:57 AM

This is an impressive article. Truly remarkable reporting.

Let's see, you based your "considered" editorial opinion on:

(1) seeing a tired politician put on his game face.
(2) unsourced rumor
(3) yet another unsourced rumor

Hey congratulations! You could work at the Washington Post!!! Throw in a little unattributed anonymous allegations of sex or murder and you got yourself a New York Times-quality article.

So why are you writing for a backwater little rag in a backwater little city?


Posted by: DrFrankLives | Aug 7, 2007 10:21:44 AM

Ah, censoring comments, I see....

Posted by: DrFrankLives | Aug 7, 2007 10:25:44 AM

Very good article. I agree with your assumption of what Mr Edwards truly is. I only hope many others feel the same.

Posted by: Doug Parker | Aug 7, 2007 10:38:11 AM

You nailed it. I have been saying this for a long time. He did nothing for this state and continues to do nothing for this state. What surprises me is that you still have a job. The STATE is owned by the same company, The McClatchy Company, that owns the 2 most liberal rags in this state, the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh N&O

Posted by: ricklail | Aug 7, 2007 10:46:03 AM

You're right. Edwards is a phony. I've met all the candidates during the past few months in NH, and he's the least personable of the bunch. I've met Edwards at 2 events: a small house party and a speech to about 250 people. I wanted to like him. I tried so hard to like him. But I came away both times disappointed. He appeared tired and detached, and acted like NH was the last place he wanted to be.

In NH we are blessed with the opportunity to meet all the candidates up close and personal. In past primaries, I have seen underdog candidates come from nowhere to win or greatly excede expectations because they got out and won voters over one by one at small events. Edwards is following the script by appearing everywhere, but he's not connecting with anyone. He's going through the motions and it shows. He's going nowhere in NH.

By the way, the second tier candidate who appears to be winning over those voters one by one is Richardson. Unlike how he projects on TV, in person he's funny and very personable. Everyone who meets him comes away liking him. Look for him to move past Edwards into the top tier of three as the primary nears.

Obama is also very personable and likeable on the campaign trail. Clinton is also very good in person.

Posted by: james | Aug 7, 2007 10:51:22 AM

The key to understanding how much importance to place on Brad's hatchet job on John Edwards is his evaluation of Howard Dean:

Once again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike the screamer of Web fame.

You would expect the editorial page editor to understand the pitfalls of politics and media. You would expect him to have more discernment than the average Fox News yahoo. Brad's judgment of Dean, not on the candidate's considered policies or statements, but by one moment chosen by the national for non-stop ridicule makes his evaluations of any candidate virtually useless.

It's a shame that this newspaper can't find a editorial editor with more insight than-- gasp-- politicians are professional showmen and show-women.

I suppose that Brad would defend his board's endorsement of the current President because he's authentically a petulant, brush chopping dry-drunk. Brad continues supporting failed Bush's policies without a peep about Bush's so publicly apparent personal failings-- at the cost of 3600 American lives, billions of tax dollars and the continued assault on constitutional government.

Naturally, he believes that those who oppose Bush's policies base their opposition on personal dislike. Why? Well, apparently because that's the way Brad makes his judgments.

Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Aug 7, 2007 10:58:05 AM

If I come give your copy clerk a lollipop will you endorse me?

Posted by: DrFrankLives | Aug 7, 2007 10:59:20 AM

This piece is laughable. Edwards is a phony because he looked tired before an event and then put on a smile before the crowd? So, what you're saying is that we're all phonies. Imagine any person being tired before they go to work, don't we all straighten up before we enter the office, even if we're having a bad day? Sheesh, I wouldn't want to be in your line of fire, I don't think anyone would pass your ridiculous, nonsensical tests. Do you really get paid for this?

Posted by: Ms. Lane | Aug 7, 2007 11:08:05 AM

So why are you writing for a backwater little rag in a backwater little city?* DrFrankLives

Hey! Stay in NC John and stop screwing up Brad about the Blackwater Group. He still thinks Blackwater is a lake just outside of Columbia that was use for practicing phony bombing runs in WW2.

Brad! When can I expect a story about the Clemson football staff and what a bunch of phonies they are when it comes to winning in politics?

Posted by: Connie Mack Jr | Aug 7, 2007 11:08:35 AM

Oh, honestly, Brad.

So Edwards is NOT a "man of the people" because he makes an effort to smile when he meets crowds and sometimes runs late? I've got news for you -- most of the real people in this country, the kinds of people Edwards devotes his time to, aren't always smiling, aren't always buttering up your paper's administrative staff, and aren't always on time.

And where's our comparison? Try out Dick Cheney -- yeah, he's ALWAYS smiling and kind. John McCain? The one who told a virtually unprintable joke at a Republican fundraiser about Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and Janet Reno. Yup, pretty much just one of us. And Bush? No, he's not phony at all. After all, he's got a real ranch in Texas? Oh, except that he purchased that ranch in 1999, while running for President, to use it as a prop.

Posted by: Br | Aug 7, 2007 11:09:53 AM

BTW, I assume that we'll be in for future columns on
(1) how Giuliani is a phony for claiming 9/11 cred when his decision to put the police command post in the WTC was a crucial error;
(2) how Romney is a fake for changing his abortion position in time for the GOP primaries; and
(3) how Fred Thompson, a millionare lobbyist, pretended to be a pick-up driving country boy to win election.

Wait, I guess those points aren't picayune or irrelevant enough for your spot light.

Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Aug 7, 2007 11:10:24 AM

I've known of the guano behind Mr. Edwards grinning, glad-handing ways for years now, and I don't believe he's the only such person residing in his Chapel Hill mansion. When Mrs. Edwards was whining profusely a few weeks back about the mean-spiritedness of Ann Coulter in particular and political campaigns (save theirs, of course) in general, I noticed she conveniently failed to mention her husband's oft-uttered, unfunny crack, about how if he'd been elected VP in 2004, he would have accidentally shot Vice President Cheney. Edwards is as smarmy as they come and is the type of guy who gives phony politicians and posturing trial lawyers bad names. The Swami predicts it's about over for him; I hope he's right.

Posted by: Howard | Aug 7, 2007 11:10:32 AM

Wow! A big city editor finds out that candidates are "phony." What a discovery! How do you do it? As anyone with a speck of experience and the least little bit of "smarts" knows, they (all public people) have a public persona. What a naive idiot you must be.

Posted by: David | Aug 7, 2007 11:23:17 AM

I have to agree with those saying that the first incident is irrelevant, but I think the other two are telling. The fact that he ignored the newspaper staffers entirely while portraying himself as a man of the people doesn't sit well with me at all. Going for an jog while keeping his own supporters waiting in the heat for hours is inexcusable for anyone.

Posted by: Wally Altman | Aug 7, 2007 11:25:33 AM

“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…”

You nailed it with the Bill Clinton comparison, although, when considering the overall theme of phoniness, I’m more reminded of the occasion when Clinton was laughing and yucking it up with his entourage while walking to the graveside service of one of his deceased Cabinet members, then suddenly put on his ‘somber face’ when he noticed a camera was on him.

Posted by: Steve | Aug 7, 2007 11:25:40 AM

This level of writing is about on par with something you would see from a tabloid newspaper in the supermarket.

I can't believe any publication that actually has publishability standards would print or post this.

How long did this take to write? 5 minutes? If you expect your writing to be taken seriously, you should write seriously.

Posted by: Josh Medeiros | Aug 7, 2007 11:28:26 AM

Good job, Brad. You pinned the guile on John Boy with sharp tacks. Gutsy thing to do to a South Carolina native, but I think you caught him square betwixt the eyes with a dead-on shot from the fourth America.

Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 7, 2007 11:30:58 AM

Like my beloved, recently deceased father, I pride myself on my ability to "read people." As you so clearly point out, however, it was Edwards' ACTIONS and OMISSIONS, not just your impression of the man, that turned you off. I've never cared for Edwards or his "two Americas" rhetoric. Your article just confirmed it for me. He's a used car salesman (sorry to the used car salesmen out there) with a ridiculously expensive haircut.

Posted by: the louisvillian | Aug 7, 2007 11:34:42 AM

Confirms a nagging suspicion I had when Edwards launched his campaign in New Orleans. Out there digging and passing materials in a starched long sleeve shirt. Just too picture perfect. I wonder how long he really helped after the cameras stopped rolling, or if he has been back to help. Edwards is not that untypical of anyone else running for office. A really sad commentary on the shallowness of what we will fall for.

Posted by: Rick W | Aug 7, 2007 11:35:30 AM

I do not know if Edwards is a phony. And I certainly don't think your article makes him out to be one. But the most incriminating piece of evidence with which he could be chastised as a phony may be his vote on the bankruptcy bill. He voted for a bill that helped the credit card companies at the expense of Americans that needed as much protection as the law could provide.

Posted by: Rak S | Aug 7, 2007 11:48:43 AM

Mr. Warthen,

Thank you for your piece on the "real" John Edwards. It helps the general public to know the facts about a candidate… not just what is seen on television and what he says he supports.

The true character of a man is his character when not in the public eye (or behind closed doors, if you will).

The observations of you and your staff are very revealing. I was wondering if you've recently seen him and his behavior outside the public eye? or when he will approach The State for an endorsement?

Posted by: Jeffrey L | Aug 7, 2007 11:53:00 AM

Edwards, Rudy, Clinton, Mitt, it does not matter. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protestors, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (before Stark County District library bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Posted by: Mike F | Aug 7, 2007 11:57:44 AM

My goodness -- could you actually take a look at the policies the guy has proposed? He's proposing a health care plan that guarantees universal coverage, he's got a bunch of antipoverty initiatives that he picked up while learning from academic sociologists, and he's got a more developed plan for dealing with global poverty than anybody else in the race. These are the things on which we evaluate candidates, not minor quirks of how they act before public appearances.

We look to people like you for policy analysis, and you're giving us interpretive dance criticism. If you'd like to go back to doing serious news and reporting on Edwards' policy proposals, here's a link to his issues page:

http://johnedwards.com/issues/

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Aug 7, 2007 12:05:02 PM

A polititian is a phoney? No, say it ain't so. Really?

For those complaining about the lack of facts, just remember the many articles run in the Times about Republicans. All smoke, mirrors and wrong headedness.

Posted by: jeff in kabul | Aug 7, 2007 12:06:38 PM

Hey Brad - Newt Gingrich agrees with John Edwards - Bush's WOT is 'phony.'

http://tinyurl.com/2nc66l

Posted by: annefrank | Aug 7, 2007 12:12:57 PM

Most of the post on this thread are absolutly dumb.

"John Edwards the Phony"? - No he is not. You have one belabored post trying by personal impression to smear him.
Did you like him to begin with? I doubt it?

Do you have an agenda? - Yea, I would say so.

Does your opinion have any effect or convince anyone new to join you? - I doubt it, as most of those who laud you, imply that was already their belief.

Are there hundreds of people that have been to JRE events across this country that tell completely different accounts of him, his realness, and sincerity? - Yes, there are many many many - to your one.

Would I believe many or one? - I'd have to say I would believe the many. Let's see here your one - to hundreds and my own also (2 times I have seen him in person).

Sorry you feel that way - I would just have to say, you are so totally incorrect!

Posted by: dk2 | Aug 7, 2007 12:15:40 PM

I am impressed with your ability to sling mud where there is none to be slung but not particularly impressed with your perception, ability to judge people or your ability to voice your opposition appropriately. Furthermore, I think you have a moral obligation to state upfront that you are doing a conservative hit job and be honest. I do understand though that integrity and honesty are not flagship values of the Republican conservatives but you may try being an exception rather than the rule.

Senator Edwards has long been known as a man of integrity who works for the rights of the little guy. However, since the greed ridden Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W Bush I know you understand that they are going to put a little change in your pockets or you wouldn't be still supporting their wreckless values. How can a supporter of such crooks call an honest man names and deride him. It's obvious. The crooks put more money in your pocket and like Judas you are willing to selling your soul for a little gold.

John Edwards is working for the poor poverty ridden people in South Carolina and across the nation that you and your kind never wanted to see get out of bondage in the first place. You are obselete and never should have existed in the first place. You are simply trying to keep the poor dumb and uneducated just like you have tried to keep women for many years.

Posted by: M A | Aug 7, 2007 12:15:56 PM

Well, Satan get thee behind me! An editorial writer who has seen John Edwards three times knows all there is to know about him! Damn a mule, I'll sleep well tonight!

By the way, what grade are you in, third or fourth?

Posted by: Nan Bozarth | Aug 7, 2007 12:19:10 PM

Last month you said policy shouldn't be about personalities. I guess you weren't being sincere when you said that, huh?

Posted by: kc | Aug 7, 2007 12:20:53 PM

Brad, like Fox News and rightwingers, attacks John Edwards persona - not his plans and solutions.
Why does Brad hate the MAJORITY of The State's readers and subscribers - the working poor and middle class- who would benefit from John Edwards proposals?
Why???

Posted by: Richard | Aug 7, 2007 12:20:58 PM

I live near the Edwards in North Carolina. For every nasty little tale presented in this column, I have heard dozens that paint a very different picture. The John Edwards I know, and have personally observed many times, is a good and caring man who never forgets where he came from.

This man has a brilliant mind. I have observed that sometimes he will "go into his own thoughts" for a few minutes. Perhaps some might interpret this to mean he is not paying attention to them. That is not the case. (I lost him for a minute once, in the middle of a conversation. I had said something that set his mind racing. Then he was back, and told me what he had been thinking about! )

I am used to hearing negative John Edwards garbage from people with an agenda. People I know and trust tell a very different story. The difference is, I think, they have no agenda.

I will tell you one thing for absolute certainty. John Edwards does not "berate his wife". I am surprised lightning did not strike the person who posted that lie.

Support any candidate you wish. But do it because of their policies. Not because of lies and second hand negative interpretations.

Posted by: Betty Hooker | Aug 7, 2007 12:25:08 PM

I appreciate the article for two reasons. The first, revealing a rarely reported part of Edwards' persona, just as McCain's anger rarely made it to the mainstream during the last election cycle.
Second, the implication that no Republican presidential candidate apparently need bother asking for the opportunity to discuss their qualifications for office with The State's editorial staff in the hope of obtaining an endorsement by South Carolina's largest newspaper.

Posted by: lembaar | Aug 7, 2007 12:34:13 PM

Neil the ethical werewolf is one of the few who get this right. Brad's musings, even if substantially true, are irrelevant. John Edwards has a wide range of long-standing policy positions that will make this a far better country. Brad could have just as easily reflected on Edward's devotion to his wife as she fights cancer. Or he could find a story about one of Edward's low-income clients who won a substantial settlement over a big corporation that had committed a great injustice. No, Brad chooses to play the Swiftboating game. He should be proud that he's now featured in the Drudge Report. Now there's a publication of real journalistic integrity. I see a Pulitzer in Brad's future, not.

Posted by: bud | Aug 7, 2007 12:36:37 PM

Brad Warthen's piece is one of the poorest excuses for "journalism" I've seen.

Pure speculation, with no facts. It's obvious that Mr. Warthen's vague impressions are colored by his disdain and lack of professional unbias.

What an embarrassment to this newspaper and Mr. Warthen.

Posted by: Amy Goodale | Aug 7, 2007 12:37:47 PM

Well, you've shown your dumb A** for the week. The level of stupidity allowed in newspapers these days never ceases to amaze me. You must be bucking for a fast track job to the big liar in the sky 'Fox' news.

My mother always told me 'When you have nothing to say, just keep your mouth shut and don't say anything.' I see your mother wasn't so diligent in your upbringing. Fat Daddy's like you have existed over the generations and you haven't gotten any smarter with time.

John Edwards is a kind, decent, well-educated and successful man. Now, I see why you despise him so much. He shows you up for what you are.

Posted by: American Voter | Aug 7, 2007 12:38:35 PM

Just remember we have a President now that got elected because many people thought they could sit down and have a beer with him...do we force our candidates to put on a veneer? Would we vote for a effete, intellectual, snob that really truly wanted to do the best for his country over a folksy "aw! shucks!" type that fronted for a cabal? Look at your description of Howard Dean, where were those descriptions when he was running? Instead all we heard for a full week and a half was the "yell".

Posted by: esgabel | Aug 7, 2007 12:41:37 PM

I agree with Brad Warthen's opinion, and appreciate him for having the guts to repeat what many of my Democratic friends have also stated. I am a Republican. I can tolerate Hillary or Obama and none of the Republican choices excite me. But if Edwards is on the Democratic ticket I will work very hard to see that he never gets to see the inside of the Oval office except as a guest. He is one of the most disingenuous politicians I have ever seen in my lifetime. He eerily reminds me of the Manchurian Candidate. His image is so crafted and fake it is visible to most. The fake smile, suntan and image cannot buy him a seat at the White House, not even with his bankroll. Most politicians have flaws, but they are real people with real ideas. Edwards is a male version of a Barbie doll. I think we can do better as a country, but John Edwards is a big step back for Democrats and all of America. If he is the Democratic nominee or even on the ticket watch and see if the hypocrisy does not continue to rise. Move On may love John Edwards, but it is an ill fated relationship.

Posted by: JC | Aug 7, 2007 12:54:54 PM

Brad: How arrogant of you to presume readers are interested in your slanted observations and heresay rather than something of real substance.

Americans are not as dumb as you think. We want to hear about the issues and candidates' policies and plans, not your Jerry Springer style "insights."

Please stop insulting us with this nonsense, Brad.

Posted by: Richard Johnson | Aug 7, 2007 12:56:46 PM

Brad: What took you so long to figure this out? Most of us knew about Edwards 4 years ago. And the more people get to know Obama, the more they realize that he is an elitist snob.
Who would have thought Hillary would turn out to be the Democratic "man-of-the-people"?

Posted by: Jeff Gower | Aug 7, 2007 1:05:03 PM

Enjoyed the column on why he's a phony. Could you also do one on Edwards' policies? How will his proposed tax hikes affect middle class people like me? Does he support abortion, particularly late term? Does he want us to surrender in Iraq? Will he ever let Al Queda take control in Iraq if the U.S. leaves?

Posted by: Peter | Aug 7, 2007 1:10:16 PM

Seemingly trivial observances over time form the lasting impression.

You gave Edwards more string that I do. Frankly, I listen to the guy, check my gut, and then see where he falls on my BS meter.

He pegs the red zone every time.

I'm waiting for wife, Elizabeth, to introduce himself as being born a poor, black child!

Posted by: ken | Aug 7, 2007 1:25:36 PM

I'm thankful for dk2 and annefrank's posts above ~ thankful because they have taken the time to write thoughtful and intelligent replies to an obvious political hit compiled here by Brad Warthen ~ "Editorial Page Editor."

Mr. Warthen is either auditioning for a job with the Republican Party's Anti-John Edwards Media Spin Jocks or he's already working for them. Either way, his characterizations of John Edwards are gossipy and truly vile.

Please remove that title after your name, Mr. Warthen. You are a discredit to the journalism profession.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 1:25:47 PM

Any reason why you blog about this now as oppoosed to more than 4 years ago, and prior to the last election, when all of the cited examples occured?

Posted by: susie | Aug 7, 2007 1:31:40 PM

Wow! And I thought "Texas" Republicans were scary. I'll have to send them over here to play with all of you in the mud.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 1:36:23 PM

Brad,

You sound like those people who make rash judgments about every celebrity they meet based on a six-second interaction: "I met DiNiro in the foyer of a restaurant in New York and he didn't talk to me, so the guy must be a jerk." Shocker: sometimes you might meet a candidate who is exhausted, and not so friendly. Or perhaps one preoccupied with his wife's latest round of chemotherapy. Or: Who knows? The "snippets" you provide aren't insightful because you can't possibly know what's going on in Edwards' head. I feel sorry for your dates! They're probably doomed before the first course! How about a meaningful discussion of a candidate's policies? Or even: a column on how the contrivance of the modern political campaign forces candidates to act unnaturally, and makes it harder for the public to understand them. Nah. Too much thinking required. Keep on writing about how you judge candidates by the elevator ride....I'm sure if the rest of the republic adopts the 'elevator ride' test, we'll all be much better off.

Posted by: Dave | Aug 7, 2007 1:37:39 PM

You make an excellent point, Dave. I can't imagine what it must be like to have a "date" with Brad Warthen, Editorial Page Editor.

Seriously, I think Brad Warthen needs to get out more. He doesn't understand much.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 1:51:31 PM

Right On!! Biggest phony this side of the Mason Dixon line! I live in NC..I hear stories about him all the time that echo this article..My favorite(and it AIN'T heresay) is the mobile home park across the road from his palace..The media stopped by and asked every single resident(and they are the poor John wants to help so badly) had John been by to see if they needed anything or to offer any assistance..OF COURSE the answer was no...no...no..no..not ONE of the residents had met or seen John Edwards. Very cold and flat UNLESS he is preening for the cameras or getting endorsements/money.....

Posted by: Debbie | Aug 7, 2007 1:57:16 PM

Basically, you are calling the American People phonies; because they want someone who looks like Edwards, Edwards needs to make time to jog to keep up the appearance that people want.

If we, as Americans, want someone who is truly representative of ourselves, where is the fat, balding, non-exercising candidate who shows his true, unsmiling self in public. Oh yeah, that would be Dick Cheney. Our female representative would be Helen Thomas, not Hillary Clinton.

Of course Edwards is a phony - so is every other candidate who smiles on command and recites the same stump speech over and over and over and over again. Why aren't you calling Hillary a phony for pretending she is involved in a close and loving monogamous relationship with Bill Clinton and pretending that she likes the Yankees? Who was the unphony candidate last time around - Dean???? Between phony egomaniac and crazy egomaniac, I'll take phony every time.

I don't want my candidate to really like me (I'm not Sally Field) - I want my candidate to work hard to pursue the agenda that he/she is putting forward. Phoniness in politics should be judged on whether the canditate's political actions match his/her political speeches.

Posted by: Harry Fenton | Aug 7, 2007 1:57:49 PM

What's the difference between a catfish and a trial lawyer? One is a slimy bottom-feeder, and the other one is a fish.

Posted by: Davee | Aug 7, 2007 2:02:18 PM

Kudos to you for publicizing Edwards' two faces. He is such a phony - who could believe his schmaltz? Now, if you'll just "out" the Devil incarnate Hillary, The State would be a permanent Drudge fixture. Talk about a phony - she's frightening.

Posted by: Real Politics | Aug 7, 2007 2:03:55 PM

I've read about the exact same tendencies with Hillary. What you point out in regards to Edwards's sincerity is bolstered by the fact that he constantly trumpets the need to put 'American workers first....always'and talks about reducing outsourcing. Then he goes to speak in Silicone Valley and agrees with Hillary and McCain in wanting to EXPAND the H1B 'temp' visa program which is currently being abused on a massive scale by corporations and is savaging the American middle class. But Edwards is for the American worker. Sure he is.
This was the first time I've read you as I am out here in Ohio. It won't be the last.
Thanks for telling it like it is.
Folks might want to Google 'Job Destruction Newsletter' for more info on what speeches and campaign stops the Edwards campaign has chosen to post (and not post) on their web site. Incredible hypocrites.

Posted by: Gerry | Aug 7, 2007 2:10:30 PM

I realized what an incredible narcissist Edwards is when he decided to proceed with this campaign when his wife was given a death sentence earlier this year. Yes, she has distant metastasis of breast cancer and will likely not be alive in five years, almost certainly not in ten years.

Go home and spend quality time with your wife, Mr. Edwards.

Posted by: Tom | Aug 7, 2007 2:17:18 PM

Of course he is a phony, every bit as much as Bill Clinton, Hillary, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Can you point to a genuine liberal? I don't think so, at least not one who is in the public's eye.
All a Republican candidate has to do is be genuinely conservative and he will win in a landslide.

Posted by: Don Pratt | Aug 7, 2007 2:19:22 PM

Hey, guys, this "Edwards is a narcissist" "meme" is such old hat. The Republicans in Texas have been spewing the same stuff for a long time.

Sorry, Brad, but this blog is old hat, old cattle. But this "is" your Republican Party in the 21st century. I guess some people just like old, worn out stuff.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 2:32:59 PM

Tell me you are just here on a sabatical. You are a total embarassment to the entire region. Get on the bus and go! You're mother should have been more responsible and used birth control.

John Edwards will make a fine president. After all we lived through one two bit actor who had alzheimers, one kiss my hips grunt and one brain fried drug addict. How bad could he be?

Posted by: Bugsy | Aug 7, 2007 2:41:08 PM

Fred Thompson has cancer!
HE SHOULD NOT RUN FOR PREZ!


Posted by: Richard | Aug 7, 2007 2:56:51 PM

I agree Tom. Seems Brad's blog hasn't been getting much attention lately - so he found a way to get it.

Posted by: Richard | Aug 7, 2007 2:58:06 PM

Tom,

You mean we're learning more about Brad than about John Edwards? Interesting. Is Brad becoming a celebrity??

I really prefer "professional journalists."

I don't think I like Brad. We learn more about a person from their writings than we ever learn about them from a "chance" encounter.

Somebody needs to tell that to "Brad."

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 3:00:21 PM

Rightwingers find this a "hunk of journalism." And why wouldn't they? After being duped by Fox News for so many years.

Posted by: William | Aug 7, 2007 3:01:54 PM

I frankly expected more than the types of personal observations detailed here, because IMHO it's clear to anybody who is halfway paying attention that Edwards is a lightweight who thinks his courtroom skills play to audiences larger than twelve at a time.

Posted by: L.N. Smithee | Aug 7, 2007 3:06:46 PM

Congratulations, Brad. You've brought the blog to life. Nice to see it have some zing.

Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 7, 2007 3:12:13 PM

Why I see Brad Warthen as a Big Whiny Baby

To the Editor:

On Aug. 7, Brad Warthen published an "editorial" (actually an opinion column, as editorials are not usually signed) called "Why I see John Edwards as a Big Phony".

I have to admit I don't read your paper very often, as I don't live in South Carolina, but I wondered from this one exposure to Mr. Warthen's work: how much experience does he have following political campaigns? He claims 30 years or more in the column, but then offers observations that suggest this may not quite be so.

Mr. Warthen proceeds to illuminate three "strikes" Sen. Edwards has committed that cause him (Warthen) to think Edwards a "big phony", which may be summed up as: he was late, he was late, he was tired, and he was late.

And the most recent of these "strikes" against Edwards occurred nearly three years ago.

If I may observe: in 20 years of political activism, and a number of years before that of observing the beasts, it has been the rarest of occurrences for a pol to arrive at a campaign event on time. It's simply expected that he or she will be at least a little late, and a pleasant surprise when they're not. It's not a personal affront to you, Mr. Warthen.

As for Edwards' performance when "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," if Mr. Warthen finds that offensive or "phony", I suggest he do a little campaigning of his own, and see if he can keep the megawatt personality and smile on constantly. It IS indeed a thing of art, and has nothing to do with being phony, at least not in most cases. It's simply what one has to do, a required job skill, and one not only can but MUST turn it on and off like a light switch in order to have anything left at the end of what may be the 27th long day in a row for many candidates. Or in the case of this extremely long, drawn-out campaign, the 127th day.

If Mr. Warthen has problems with Sen. Edwards, that is his right as an American, and he should offer substantive policy reasons why he disagrees with Edwards' positions. But the examples he offers of what makes Edwards a "phony" do not convince me. I haven't yet decided whether I'll vote for Elizabeth's husband or not, but if anything, Mr. Warthen's whining about matters that are as inconsequential to Edwards' ability to govern the nation as the "$400 haircut" only moved me a step closer to giving him that vote.

Get serious, Mr. Warthen. This was just a silly column.

Rich Miles

Posted by: Rich Miles | Aug 7, 2007 3:16:08 PM

Funny, how it has taken John Edwards to bring this blog back to life as several have observed, here.

If JRE can do it for Brad, you all must know that doing it for our country will be entirely possible. Thanks, Brad!

You're a great American.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 3:20:58 PM

Funny, how it has taken John Edwards to bring this blog back to life as several have observed, here.

If JRE can do it for Brad, you all must know that doing it for our country will be entirely possible. Thanks, Brad!

You're a great American.

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 3:21:05 PM

Tom Robinson has probably made the most important point of all here. Of course the whole 'Dean Scream' thing was a media manufactured non-story. Same thing with Al Gore's inventing the internet or John Kerry's "hyped" military service or flip-flopping. Brad's little trip down memory lane may be the newest addition to this sorry spectacle of Dem bashing. Drudge has now picked this up. Next thing we'll see Rush, Sean and Bill O'Reilly pick up on it. Then we'll have the "mainstream" media do a story. Perhaps someone will even find some juicy video to confirm the whole thing. Soon it will take on a life of it's own. Before you know it John Edwards will be on the defensive and bam, down goes another good democrat. Then someone, somewhere they will do something similar about Obama. Then the big prize, Hillary.

As disgusting as the whole thing is you have to admire the GOP partisans. They are masters at somehow making the dems look bad. Never mind that their own candidates consist of:
(1) a cross-dressing, cousin marrying, philandering, twice-divorced, flip-flopping idiot.
(2) a flip-flopping neocon wannabe from Massachusetts.
(3) an actor with few credentials and fewer known policy positions.
(4) an aging, senile, temper tantrum thowing war monger who has so little pride he supports a man (Bush) who falsely savaged his good family name.

Yet, the neocons will find a way to turn the tables. We're seeing a trial run here with Edwards. This is merely a warmup to the bigger smear campaigns to come.

Posted by: bud | Aug 7, 2007 3:21:06 PM

Hey, Bud!

Edwards has their number. WE THE PEOPLE all do!

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 3:27:24 PM

Unbelievable vitriol here directed against Brad. Unbelievable levels of naivete about politics also.

Yes, a glimpse into someone's real character is very important. You can listen to all the pretty stump speeches you want. You can admire the candidates courageous verbal bluster against injustice, poverty, global warming, and apple-pie haters. You can read all the lovely position papers. They are just words.

But who the candidate is, determines what you will get. Bush and Clinton both talked a great game, then didn't accomplish much, either because they had no skills in governing or they were willing to roll over for special interests, it doesn't matter much which. They were self-serving climbers who passed themselves off as Don Quixote champions of the little guy, right up til the time they got the job and it turned tough.

Keep electing these snake oil salesmen if you like, but I can't see getting angry if someone like Brad merely points out they don't trust the salesman, for good reason.

Posted by: Pat M | Aug 7, 2007 3:27:46 PM

Link on Drudge Report = guaranteed conservative wingnuts writing comments on your blog.

Posted by: Devin | Aug 7, 2007 3:29:28 PM

You sound like a neocon to me. I would imagine that you voted for Bush/Cheney and will vote for Fred the actor or Rudy the crook.

Posted by: Floyd W | Aug 7, 2007 3:34:21 PM

Some people will be fooled by this kind of column. There are still some who are conditioned to believe, "if you read it in the news it must be true."

John Edwards believes that most Americans are not so easy to fool. He has the courage to speak our for changes that will shake up a lot of important people. He believes that most people are smart enough to see through false stories, like this one.

I have met him twice. I noticed that he spent as much time talking to the people who worked for the caterers as he did or our congressman, who was at the same event. I got the impression that he is friendly and that he likes most people.

I am going to vote for John Edwards.

Posted by: Ellen Beale | Aug 7, 2007 3:39:58 PM

Why would the Drudge Report link here? Oh, those birds of a feather...

Posted by: Susan in Texas | Aug 7, 2007 3:43:25 PM

WOW! I checked back and see the neocon wingnuts are out early tonight.

This isn't an editorial folks, it's crap.

Oh, and to that guy "Tom" who said Edwards should be home with his wife fighting her cancer... did it ever occur to you that his wife, Elizabeth, is doing exactly what she wants to be doing? Not all the "lil women" want to be home with a case of the vapors, Tom. Some, like Elizabeth Edwards, have a brain and use it.

Posted by: Nan Bozarth | Aug 7, 2007 3:46:25 PM

Fine work,
After cobbling together a few anecdotes, we have a clear and persuasive example of a phony. What the country needs is a genuine guy to lead us through these stormy times. A man that grew up the son of patrician parents in Connecticut, that attended prep school, then Yale where he was a cheerleader. After a stint as a fighter pilot, this hugely successful Harvard grad went on to build several successful companies and never took a cent from the public coffers to build a new baseball stadium. No, that would be against his "free-market" principals. And after this regular guy had been in the South for a few years, this laid back corn pone got himself an accent, was born again, started wearing cowboy hats and ran for governor. And when he decided to run for president, he got himself a ranch to serve as a back-drop to his campaign. Nothing says average guy like clearing a little brush.

Take a gander around the GOP: Reagan was no cowboy; W is not a Texan and certainly not a fighter pilot; Fred Thompson is a study in faux redneck, and Giuliani is no tough guy. Man alive, Felix Macacawitz, who moved to Dixie when he was in college, was the only man in Virginia that wore cowboy boots and you loved him.

Maybe Edwards has grown conceited and pompous. I’m hardly surprised. But the guy was born in SC the son of mill worker; went to Clemson for a year to play football; (much to his disgrace) and became a wealthy man by his own efforts. You may not like lawyers, and with good reason, but he won all his cases in front of a jury. So why don’t you overgrown frat boys save us the indignation and run down to the recruiters office on 378 and join the Marines. It’s the only fitting recourse for so many tough guys, Brad included.

Posted by: Pat Hendrix | Aug 7, 2007 3:47:48 PM

The pilot's friend comments above, plus the main article bring a QUESTION?? All the flurry around Edward's wife wanting to go on the campaign trail despite being ill in a way that drains energy and makes campaigning difficult, WAS SHE FORCED TO DO THAT? DID HE BERATE HER INTO DOING THAT? IS SHE SO WELL TRAINED THAT SHE WOULD PUT ON HER TRAINED SMILE AND QUE THE EDWARDS LINE EVEN THOUGH SHE WOULD RATHER BE IN A HOSPITAL BED OR AT HOME RESTING? I wonder.

Posted by: Ronnie | Aug 7, 2007 3:51:20 PM

Oh my! Someone in politics is a big phony! And someone at a newspaper knows it! Oh, my friends, the gig is up.

Posted by: Worthy Evans | Aug 7, 2007 3:56:55 PM

I have spoken with folks at Chapel Hill (his alma mater) who will heartily agree with you. He runs some poverty think tank there, yet he will hardly show up enough to sign paychecks. He INSISTS on getting whatever he wants, whenever he wants it at the Fine Arts Center on campus whenever he attends an event there. Rules are for the little people after all.

His wife spouts seriously demeaning hyperbole about the poor fellow who lives across the street from his mansion. Never introduced themselved, never so much as waved as they cruise in and out of their gate. Yet, his place is in the same place, and looks just like it did, when they bought the property across the street for their mansion. I guess he's part of that "other" America.

He is a complete and total phony, and you sir, are an excellent judge of character.

Posted by: Tim Tessier | Aug 7, 2007 4:02:55 PM

Brad

I enjoyed these comments; more to the point, I resonated with them. Two reasons:

1. I used to live and work in Columbia, and for a while I was with Channel 10 and WCAY; I was also speechwriter for two SC Governors, John West and Jim Edwards, and did campaign work for several state and Federal candidates during my stay in the state.

2. In 2004, I was an Edwards delegate to the Nevada Democratic Party convention (having run media and strategy for Clinton/Gore Nevada '92 some years earlier).

In my latter role, I saw Senator Edwards in action, and came to regret my advocacy for him as delegate to our state convention (we were, in 2004, a caucus state). He was every bit as phony as you observed, and I felt offensively so - for all the reasons you observed.

Thanks for your clarity of thought.

Ned

Posted by: Ned | Aug 7, 2007 4:07:03 PM

At last,someone who sees reality in the raw.
Congratulations!Now how about the rest of the democrat snake oil candidates????

Posted by: JLTobeySr | Aug 7, 2007 4:42:40 PM

I would like to commend Brad Warthen for his commentary on John Edwards. I have known Edwards to be a liar since the first time he ran for national office. He used his liars to turn ignorant juries and build a fortune off the backs of the labor of others. I have read all the blogs on this post and have made a significant assessment. Judging from the number who have rushed to Edwards' defense and railed out at Warthen I am now convinced that the verbal barrages against Warthen come mainly from certain demented faculty members at the University of South Carolina, almost all of them latter-day Marxist-Leninists, and the students whose shriveled brains they have corrupted. I still say Edwards stinks and he isn't going anywhere.

Posted by: Carl Langley | Aug 7, 2007 4:45:21 PM

Well, I've had just the opposite experience with Senator Edwards. I've had reason to be in his presence and in close proximity. He is always kind to anyone there. I once saw a woman hecleing him and I was amazed at how well he behaved. I'm certain I would not have gone out of my way to be nice to her after the event the way he did. I have probably had the occasion to observe this way 35-40 times and it is always the same. He and Elizabeth are both absolutely charming. If they weren't I would be telling you just the opposite because I have nothing to gain.

Posted by: Edwards supporter | Aug 7, 2007 4:47:23 PM

I saw the same thing while watching Edwards on TV. He didn't know the camera was on him, and he looked like old stoneface. In fact, he looked a bit like he was angry and speaking harshly. Then he saw the camera, wiped his hair with his hand, and lit up the phony smile. What a fake! On a macro scale, the same thing pertains: he's a millionaire ambulance chaser for crying out loud! What fool person thinks he "cares" about you or me?

Posted by: Alex Scammel | Aug 7, 2007 4:49:24 PM

How'm I doing with the rebuttals? :) I'm typing them in as fast as I can. :) I can't think of any defense other than to attack the writer of the article for being a poor journalist. :) Vote for me! :)

Posted by: John Edwards | Aug 7, 2007 4:55:56 PM

Thanks for the insight into Mr. 'I'll say anything' Edwards. He's clearly the classical definition of a conniver.

Posted by: Craig | Aug 7, 2007 4:57:39 PM

Having witnessed the rise of Senator Edwards up close here in North Carolina, it comes as no surprise that he is viewed as a fake. If you've ever seen the video of Edwards primping and fussing with his hair before a television interview, you've seen the real John Edwards. He's still young, but I suspect this campaign will be his last political hurrah. The downside for us here in North Carolina is John's toothy mug will once again be plastered on the cover of every telephone book in the state. Even ambulance chasers have to make a living.

Posted by: Doug Roberson | Aug 7, 2007 5:05:49 PM

Certainly seems to fit in with what Bob Shrum says in his new book, "No Excuses," about how Edwards told John Kerry about a bizarre incident involving his dead son and him, and said that he had never told anyone else about the incident -- except that he had told Kerry the exact same story a year earlier, and had said that he had never told anyone else about the incident. Look it up.

Posted by: cdr lawrence | Aug 7, 2007 5:06:30 PM

As a Republican, I see the hypocricy of John Edwards every time he speaks of 2 Americas. I, like Edwards, grew up in a low income household. I, like Edwards, busted my ass through school, in sports, and into college...where the price of admission was less because I was poor. It's called taking advantage of every opportunity along the way. Today, I encourage inner city kids to follow my footsteps and they too can prosper and thrive in America. I encourage them to not view America as belongig to the have's and have not's, but to embrace the competitiveness that's made America great and invest in yourself. Only through that investment in yourself can you be successful and then turn around and help others behind you who need some help now and then. "Charity starts at home" said my dad, and that means you turn around and help your little sisters and brothers get what you got because it's your responsibility.
If Edwards wants poor and underpriveleged families to thrive, he needs them to embrace the attitude and approach he took; not by providing entitlements and charity without any expectation of performance for that charity.
If he would 'walk the talk' a little more, I think people would take him more seriously.

Posted by: ER_Minn | Aug 7, 2007 5:22:12 PM

Brad, I've never seriously considered voting for John Edwards for anything. But anyone who draws such a splenetic reaction from Carl Langley can't be all bad.

Posted by: Steve Gordy | Aug 7, 2007 5:47:52 PM

Well Brad! It looks like you have bought all of the neo-con wack-job republicans from Greensboro, North Carolina to bash our South Carolina John Boy. Now see what you have started and do you have a lawyer?


Bubba and Doc G, Now get your Rudy G. marriages back to Greensboro and stop hanging out at John Locke Hair Saloons in your political neo-con spare time.

More on the essential emptiness of John Edwards

Firsthand observations about Edwards from previous campaign events by a member of The State's (Columbia SC) editorial board.

Noteworthy:

" Then I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my left. 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 — just a professional at work.
But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: 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."

Posted by Bubba at 9:21 AM

Labels: Dems/Lefties/"Progressives", Election 08, The continued Trials and Tribulations of John Edwards

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I lived in Columbia for three years during my residency training. The State is (was?) a liberal paper. It was exceedingly unusual for the editorial pages of that paper to express scorn toward a Democrat. This is particularly remarkable given the fact that Edwards was born in the state of SC.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:54:00 PM
Anonymous said...

That comment was mine.

Joe Guarino

Posted by: Connie Mack Jr | Aug 7, 2007 6:00:32 PM

Although I'm no fan of Mr. Edwards, I think this editorial certainly exemplifies what's wrong with political reporting today. The elevation of personality over substance has led us to the current sad state of political discourse. I'm sorry to see The State engaging in it to such a high degree. I agree with one of the earlier posters that three brief, isolated events does not give you a complete picture into someone's soul.

I'm not looking for a drinking buddy or neighbor in my next president. I'd rather have a rude, inconsiderate genius promoting smart policies for president than a genial, ineffective fool. Anyone who runs for the job has to have an ego the size of an aircraft carrier and some degree of phoniness. It sounds like Edwards' problem is that he's not quite phony enough.

Posted by: