August 9, 2008

Edwards, again

Posted by johnmcquaid under 2008 campaign, media | Tags: , , |
No Comments 

There’s not much more to say about John Edwards, except to note one fact that seems to have gotten lost in the past couple of days of media frenzy: voters have already evaluated Edwards’ suitability for the presidency twice, and for the vice presidency once. And they didn’t support him. They didn’t buy the carefully constructed - and false - Edwards narrative: son of a mill worker made good, decent family man overcoming personal tragedy, wife’s illness, et al. Part of Edwards’ failure was certainly his “constructedness” itself, the discordant blow-dried earnestness - as Eugene Robinson writes, “There is some sincerity and some snake oil in every politician, but John Edwards exudes both in almost freakish measure.”

So, a failed presidential candidate fooled around, then lied about it. Big deal. Politically, this ought to be mainly a matter between Edwards and those whom he betrayed: the people who supported him and what he tried to stand for. For the much larger group who never quite saw the point of putting “John Edwards” and “president” in the same sentence, this doesn’t change a thing.

 

July 27, 2008

The last Edwards love child post

Posted by johnmcquaid under 2008 campaign, media | Tags: , , , |
[6] Comments 

I don’t particularly want to write, or see or hear, anything else about the John Edwards love child mess and the media. But, just to respond to this (and this):

A blog by John McQuaid said that there’s no “physical evidence a la Bill Clinton.” Well, there’s a baby. Not a stained dress left to hang in the closest for a few months but a real cooing, smiling little baby who I assume looks adorable on camera and probably has nice hair. That lil’ tyke is stuffed full of DNA, too. Cute little DNA.

Well, yes. But unless the Obama campaign is going to hire Ken Starr to vet Edwards for the VP slot, or the National Enquirer - or, presumably, the New York Times, if this goes mainstream - is going to infiltrate the Hunter residence, scoop up some baby dribble and ship it off to a DNA lab, this is not “evidence” and won’t be unless someone directly involved decides to go public. Which they’d be crazy to do, especially given that the baby in question is a person, not “evidence,” who will be better off not reading blog archives 13 years hence in which s/he is compared to semen.

The supposed newsworthiness of this story hangs on Edwards’s role as a potential vice presidential or cabinet official. But by that measure, there are about 200 prominent Democrats who fall in the same, vague, unofficial, speculative category. And let’s face it, Obama was never going to choose Edwards for VP, so that rationale is specious on its face. So I don’t understand the cries for Edwards’ head, except as anger/spite. Which, again, makes this gossip news, not news news.

 

July 24, 2008

John Edwards love child, yawn

Posted by johnmcquaid under 2008 campaign, media | Tags: , , , |
[4] Comments 

Will the mainstream media cover the John Edwards love child scandal put out there by the National Enquirer? Is it exhibiting a double standard by giving blanket coverage to Larry Craig’s bathroom antics, and ignoring Edwards’s bathroom bunkering?

Oh, please. Edwards is a politician, which automatically puts him in the public eye. But, frankly, this is a tenuous pretext at best for covering his personal foibles right now. He is a private citizen. He is not running for president. He doesn’t hold office, as Craig did - still does! He didn’t cop to committing a crime, then absurdly try to weasel out of it as Craig did.

It sure looks like Edwards is a hypocrite who misrepresented himself by showcasing his wife and kids so prominently in the campaign. But his campaign was unsuccessful. Voters didn’t buy his arguments or his life story as reasons to elect him. In short, nobody cares about this now, except as celebrity gossip. And that’s how it’s going to play when the media picks it up, as it probably will.

The better question is, should the media have gone after this story more aggressively back during the campaign? Sounds like the answer is yes. It’s not clear, though, that this would have made a difference: with everybody denying it, and no eyewitness evidence a la Gary Hart, or physical evidence a la Bill Clinton, it’s very hard to sift the credible story from the hearsay in a situation like this.

An even better question: hasn’t the National Enquirer heard of video cameras? This is the era of TMZ, man. When we hear Edwards came down the hotel stairs at 2:30 a.m. and fled to the bathroom when he saw the NE reporters, we now expect to see it. This is one reason TMZ is fascinating - it is frivolous and stupid and is further degrading our culture, no doubt. But unlike, say, the National Enquirer, the reporting - based on legwork, video, documents - is consistently accurate.