This morning USA Today, the Muzak of the media, cites John Edwards, the elevator-music candidate, as the Democrat who “probably did himself the most good” in last night’s debate.
If so, the Party and the country are in trouble, and Edwards embodies it all. After more than six years of grievous damage by an Administration fronted by a Republican empty suit, it would be insanity to be taken in by a Democratic equivalent.
After amassing $30 million as a negligence lawyer, Edwards used the money and manipulative skills from that career to win a Senate seat in 1998, highlighted by his 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
Retiring from the Senate to run on John Kerry’s ticket in 2004 (a choice Kerry later regretted), Edwards has devoted himself to running for President ever since, taking time out only to earn half a million dollars plus campaign contributions by fronting for an investment group that victimizes poor mortgage holders and then trying to weasel out of it by (a) pleading ignorance and (b) claiming he was only trying to educate himself about financial markets.
Edwards’ smarmy sincerity can be measured by his use of operatically repudiating the 2002 vote both as proof of his honesty and a club against opponents for not matching his revival-meeting enthusiasm in following suit.
In recent months, he has translated that kind of opportunism into profiting from anti-war anger by badgering Senate Democrats to commit political suicide by sending back funding bills that Bush would keep vetoing and using as evidence that they are endangering the troops.
Last night, several of them pointed that out but Edwards’ sound-bite cheap shots are hard to counter with rational arguments.
John Edwards has spent as much time running for president as he did in his entire career of public service. Compared to Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Obama, he is a political amateur and a ruthless, slippery one at that. (None of the others voluntarily mentioned their spouses last night, as Edwards did to remind voters of his wife’s illness.)
American voters next year will be serving as a jury to decide the future of our children and grandchildren. It would be tragic to let ourselves be conned into a bad choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Is there a good choice? I don't see one (except Russ Feingold and he isn't running).
I don't think Edwards is less honest than Clinton or Obama. All three are willing to say anything they can plausibly get away with.
I do agree that Edwards is the least experienced. But Clinton is the most obliged to corporate interests; and Obama is the most afraid to do anything bold.
I dislike Clinton the most, because of the corporate sponsors; but any of the three will be good enough. This is America. We can't have anyone really good for president.
Thank you for that opinion and I agree whole heartedly.
Of course Edwards is just one turd in a bowlful (includes all present and all known future candidates of all parties in the bowl).
Post a Comment