Edwards' Big House

On Jason Zengerle's recommendation, I read Jay Cost's argument that John Edwards is an amateurish politician. It turns out to focus heavily on criticizing him for building such an enormous house. I know there's a pretty widespread sentiment that this huge house will be politically damaging, but that seems like a mistake to me.

The basic reality is that Edwards is a rich man, and there's no hiding that -- big house or small house. Edwards' giant house, however, is not just expensive -- it's tacky. Its tackiness, however, perfectly reflects Edwards' working class roots and his whole "son of a millworker" narrative. I would never in a million years build a house like that no matter how much money I had, but that's because I'm a snob and nobody would ever vote for me. Something like one of these multimillion dollar condos would have doomed Edwards, but 28,200 square feet in exurban North Carolina is solid.

Comments

1) That's not where Edwards's house is (right road but not so far west).

2) Lord I hope that isn't exurban. My identity as a rural American would be in doubt!

Posted by anon | June 25, 2007 3:14 PM

28,200 sq ft?!

When money isn't an object, people buy the house that reflects their egos and the best shoes they can afford.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 25, 2007 3:14 PM

The obvious counterargument is of course Bush's "ranch", which was built in 1999 as a sort of sound stage for the Bush campaign.

I think these sorts of endeavors are more than a bit silly, and I'd prefer politicians wouldn't do them, but on the flip side, image is everything. Obama correctly observes that to an extent, a politician is who the media says he or she is, so controlling the optics of his house seems like a relatively low-cost way for Edwards to manage appearances.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 25, 2007 3:15 PM

Romney is far richer than Edwards, and unlike Edwards, he was born into privilege, yet I have never seen any mention of his house(s).

Why haven't there any reports and pictures?

Posted by Rich | June 25, 2007 3:20 PM

"Its tackiness, however, perfectly reflects Edwards' working class roots and his whole "son of a millworker" narrative."

Okay, so working class = tacky. It's good to see such bald snobbery. I mean that.

It's a good post and gets to one of the reasons some elites have a problem with Edwards. It's not just that he's proposing programs that would help the working class, and lessen the power of the rich, it's also that he actually comes from the working class: son of a millworker, state schools, etc and possesses some of the traits that the refined classes look down upon. He wears his ambitiion and his money on his sleeve. He's a little gauche, in the eyes of sophisticates, and it's they, not the great unwashed, who find Edwards slick, especially compared to the perfectly pitched elegance of Obama.

Which is to say: Edwards would be great general election candidate. Most Americans like things that elites dislike: country music, McMansions, John Grishman, John Edwards.

Posted by david mizner | June 25, 2007 3:26 PM

Matt's analysis is not entirely off-base, but I think he's missing a couple of salient points.

(1) The exurban McMansion almost certainly hurts Edwards more than the Manhattan condo would, precisely because it's a phenomenon that rural Americans are intimately familiar with. Nearly everyone in Red State America knows some local boy who got rich and built a big, tacky new-money house with its own zip code. And everyone hates that guy. As far as Manhattan goes, most Americans are aware that it's an extraordinarily expensive place to live. Simply living in New York hurts a politician in a national election, but the astronomical price tag isn't going to make much of an impression beyond "I can't believe that condo costs so dang much." 28,000 square feet makes an impression.

(2) I personally like Edwards and would like to live in a hypothetical country where his health care plan gets more attention than his haircut. But we do, in fact, live in a country where 24/7 cable news outlets discuss Paris Hilton's prison chow. Cost's criticism rings unfortunately true to me. Every time this sort of thing pops up on the news I just want to kick Edwards in the shins, and demand that he explain why he learned absolutely nothing from the last two Presidential campaigns.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 25, 2007 3:34 PM

It would seem a very rich person probably made their money through various shrewd maneuvers, luck and lots of hard work. Barring lottery winners or those born into money those possessing vast wealth certainly had to know their limitations in some areas and consequently ask for help from time to time. Why the hell when they get around to building their dream mansion do they insist on erecting one of their own design, inside and out? Know your limitations, contract with some world class architects and interior designers! I've been in multi-million dollar homes that looked like a Graceland redux, right down to hideous velvet paintings on the wall. If you don't have any class buy some! Sheez!

Posted by steve duncan | June 25, 2007 3:38 PM

Edwards' "working class roots" are greatly exaggerated:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/

Posted by blah | June 25, 2007 4:07 PM

LaFollette, does "everybody hate that guy" or does everybody "agree that they would do the same thing if they had the same kind of money" ? Once we accept that, with few exceptions these days, rich people are running for office, couldn't one argue that the winning candidate is going to be the one that voters feel is rich in the way they themselves, the voters, would want to be rich?

I have a feeling that the reaction to paying an equal amount of money for a Manhattan co-op would be "I can't believe he paid that much money for something that doesn't even have a yard!"

Posted by Tyro | June 25, 2007 4:08 PM

Every time this sort of thing pops up on the news I just want to....demand that he explain why he learned absolutely nothing from the last two Presidential campaigns.

'Absolutely nothing'? Come on.

Nearly everyone in Red State America knows some local boy who got rich...[a]nd everyone hates that guy.

This isn't supportable. How familiar are you with the South? With exurban 'red state America'? Probably not very. People don't necessarily hate that guy. They certainly often want to BE that guy, and as MY says, would build the same kind of tacky gigantic house.

If Edwards had built a little house more like the one he grew up in, he would be attacked for that, too ('not authentic'). If he had shitty-looking hair he would be ridiculed for that ('not ready for primetime'). Here is a statement which is totally supportable - with tons of evidence: many regular Democrats are political morons who generally do their part to confirm and amplify reactionary memes. These people are scared of skilled politicians in their own parties. Support Edwards or don't, but enough with the hand-wringing, please. It's one of the things 'red state America' dislikes about liberals, and they're absolutely right to.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 25, 2007 4:11 PM

I think your comment about poor people who become rich and houses is exactly right. I look at my father, who grew up on a small village in India and has an intense (and to me, inexplicable) desire for opulent houses. Or consider NBA stars, or rappers.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 25, 2007 4:25 PM

"It's a good post and gets to one of the reasons some elites have a problem with Edwards. It's not just that he's proposing programs that would help the working class, and lessen the power of the rich, it's also that he actually comes from the working class: son of a millworker, state schools, etc and possesses some of the traits that the refined classes look down upon. He wears his ambitiion and his money on his sleeve. He's a little gauche, in the eyes of sophisticates, and it's they, not the great unwashed, who find Edwards slick"

Yup.

-----

Also worth noting that the Edwards' house helps mitigate the potential downbeat aspect of class warfare.

Dick Gephardt never had a shot at becoming President because his economic message couldn't accommodate the aspirational fetish of the American electorate.

But John Edwards can agitate for class struggle without that problem, due to his own success.

-----

Finally, worth noting that Edwards' red house serves some of the same political purposes as Fred Thompson's red truck.

Folks don't mind you getting rich, as long as they think you're enjoying it in a similar way to how they'd enjoy winning the lottery.

As long as Edwards isn't windsurfing, this is all good.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 4:25 PM

I am so sick and tired of his "son of a millworker" (SOMW) routine. It is true that his father started out as a millworker, but he soon moved up to a management position, a fact which Edwards finds it to his benefit to avoid mentioning. I am sure his management job did not pay mega-mega bucks and times were probably tough but at least he was able to provide for his family. I believe both his parents are still living and I find the "SOMW" reference to his dad very disrespectful. He should be proud of and play up the fact that due to his dad's "work ethics" his employers recognized his abilities by promoting him to Management where he continued to work until his retirement.

Posted by irwest | June 25, 2007 4:36 PM

Edwards wasn't poor, and doesn't come from the working class. He was middle class. His father, Wallace Edwwards, was in management far longer than he ever worked on the floor of the mill.

Posted by blah | June 25, 2007 4:37 PM

he learned absolutely nothing from the last two Presidential campaigns.

The key lesson to the last 2 Presidential campaigns is that, if the media decides to attack you on insubstantial issues, such as your recreational or sartorial choices, nothing you do can change that. Gore was attacked by MSNBC, the NYTimes, and WashPo for wearing a suit, not wearing a suit, and for wearing cowboy boots. Bush did all of those things, yet was never attacked. The lesson from that is not that Dems should fail to wear clothes. It's that Dems should expect to be attacked by the SCLM no matter what they do, and need to communicate over the heads of the media, directly to the voters.

As an architect, I'm bothered by Edwards' house. As a Democrat, I have no problem with it.

Posted by JRoth | June 25, 2007 4:41 PM

Um, blah may not get this - although Edwards' audiences certainly do - but the fact that his dad worked in a mill never excluded "middle class." The problem with America now is that the structures that gave the son of a high school graduate a middle class existence have evaporated.

Edwards seeks to fix this. People like blah think it's some sort of zinger.

Posted by JRoth | June 25, 2007 4:45 PM

"Edwards' "working class roots" are greatly exaggerated."

Funny how often that Ireland piece shows up; that's the second time I've seen it today.

It's silly to try to gauge the authenticity of someone's blue collarness. Here's what relevant, to the extent that these things are relevant: his father worked in a factory, they struggled to get by, Edwards was the first in his family to go to college, he made his own millions. Call him lower middle class if you must, the point is, he has a background different from your average top-tier presidential candidate. I don't care much about a pol's bio, but if the Big House is part of the story, then so is the crappy little he was born in. What's more American than a self-made millionaire? Has there ever been a self-made millionaire president?

And remember, he made his millions at the expense of corporations.

Posted by david mizner | June 25, 2007 4:47 PM

Edwards' campaign is *about* the possibility of moving from being poor or working class to being middle class, and the possibility of even moving beyond it. The point is that his parents were able to raise a family, partially pay for his state school education, etc. on a decidedly middle class income, which didn't fall just fall into their laps. Try doing that now in our 'Ownership Society'. It's possible, but much harder. The fact that they went from 'working class' to modest middle class is the POINT.

My parents started out poor and got into the middle class in the 60s, via a lot of hard work and intelligence, but also because of the GI bill and a well-regulated S&L system, among other things not in their direct control. That world is pretty well vanished now. What he is and where he came from is precisely the point of Edwards' campaign. Tired of hearing about it? Boo frickin' hoo.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 25, 2007 4:57 PM

I point it out because I think Edwards is a phony and has intentionally mislead people about his upbringing.

Posted by blah | June 25, 2007 5:06 PM

"How familiar are you with the South? With exurban 'red state America'? Probably not very."

I lived most of life in Indiana. My wife's family lives in the rural South. I'm familiar enough to know that the resentment felt by rural Americans toward the encroaching McMansion suburbs is palpable. "Everyone hates that guy" is hyperbole, of course, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone who has ever lived between the Hudson River and the Sierras would attempt to deny the power of that resentment. Wanting to BE that guy and resenting his extravagance are by no means exclusive emotions. Edwards' best aspect as a candidate is his potential to steer that resentment in a productive direction--toward a political program that reopens the gateway to the middle class. Building a McMansion sends entirely the wrong message.

But "many regular Democrats are political morons who generally do their part to confirm and amplify reactionary memes" is the sort of bullshit that many other regular Democrats like to say when they're busy blaming the media for the failure of their preferred candidates, instead of actually nominating strong candidates and expecting them to run a savvy campaign. I'm as angry as anyone about the fact that the media harps on frivolous details, but um, the media harps on frivolous details. The Republicans win elections in no small part because their consultants get the details right.

Sure, Clinton, Gore and Kerry were treated unfairly by the media. The next Democratic nominee will be, too. That makes it all the more important that our candidate understands how to stage manage his or her public persona. If you're the candidate who wants to reduce the gap between the two Americas, building yourself the next freaking Graceland isn't a bright idea.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 25, 2007 5:10 PM

"I lived most of life in Indiana."

Huh. I had no idea you were a Klan member, LFP.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 5:21 PM

.... building yourself the next freaking Graceland isn't a bright idea.

Graceland is tiny.

the media harps on frivolous details. The Republicans win elections in no small part because their consultants get the details right.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not quite right. Actually, GOP candidates don't get the actual details right a lot of the time. What they do better at is marketing. I didn't mean to be personal with my snide comment earlier, but my point was that many regular Democrats not only don't understand marketing, but don't trust a candidate who is anything other than terrible at it. John Kerry. Dukakis. Mondale. McGovern. etc. etc. Being competent at marketing and being a good candidate are not mutually exclusive either.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 25, 2007 5:29 PM

"Edwards' "working class roots" are greatly exaggerated"

Given that the standard political polling definition of "working class" is "hasn't completed a college degree", and given Edwards' parents, he ipso facto came from "working class roots".

-----

It may be interesting to look at some present and previous Democratic Presidential candidates over the past 25 years to see if both of their parents didn't have college degrees, thus fitting the standard political definition of "working class roots":

Not working class: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale.

Working class: John Edwards, Bill Clinton.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 5:35 PM

The short version of my comment above is:

Republicans govern in poetry and Democrats campaign in prose.

The former is disasterous for governance and the latter aids and abets the former.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 25, 2007 5:43 PM

Petey, I never got into the Klan. Those hoods were uncomfortable and tacky, plus I didn't really dig the whole hating blacks, Jews, and Catholics thing. I believe my grandmother attended an ice cream social sponsored by the Klan, back in the day, but since she always did like ice cream I'll give her a pass on that one.

Johnnybutter - "Being competent at marketing and being a good candidate are not mutually exclusive either."

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. My point is that when it comes to marketing, the fake cowboy candidate gets to own a fake ranch, but the "Two Americas" candidate should think twice before showing off his wealth ostentatiously. That strikes me as a fairly fundamental marketing error.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 25, 2007 5:57 PM

"Edwards' giant house, however, is not just expensive -- it's tacky."

It's really hard to overestimate this factor.

In 2004, Edwards ran for President with a $5m house that happened to be a stately Georgetown townhouse with a nice marble staircase, and no one talked about his house.

In 2008, Edwards ran for President with a $5m house that happened to be a huge, bright red Southern exurban ramble, and outrage about his house is expressed by "concerned" folks.

-----

"I would never in a million years build a house like that no matter how much money I had, but that's because I'm a snob and nobody would ever vote for me. Something like one of these multimillion dollar condos would have doomed Edwards, but 28,200 square feet in exurban North Carolina is solid."

My contempt for Matthew's taste in summer movie and my contempt for Matthew's political judgment oddly combine here to form a positive assessment of his reasoning.

Or in other words, as long as Matthew can appreciate Michael Bay movies, he won't be utterly clueless about American electoral politics.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 5:58 PM

"Petey, I never got into the Klan. Those hoods were uncomfortable and tacky"

Huh, again. I always thought membership was mandatory by Indiana state law.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 6:01 PM

Nah. The Indiana Klan had this bad habit of raping white women. That didn't go over too well with the locals.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 25, 2007 6:14 PM

Where does it say that wealthy people aren't allowed to fight for poverty and social initiatives? Isn't gaining in wealth the idea? At least John Edwards is trying to address poverty issues. Edwards' firm stance on poverty and inequality is exactly why I support his presidency campaign. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty. On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutrition, which is peanuts considering our $522 billion military budget this year. If people want to criticize something, they should criticize that.

Posted by ellec | June 25, 2007 6:22 PM

the fake cowboy candidate gets to own a fake ranch, but the "Two Americas" candidate should think twice before showing off his wealth ostentatiously.

Of course I know that's what you mean, but don't you see the problem? Bush is indeed a *fake* cowboy with a *fake* ranch and everybody knows it. If Edwards was ostentatiously modest, he would take crap for that too, including from 'concerned' Democrats.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 25, 2007 6:22 PM

Whew, that Stephenson guy was totally messed up.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 25, 2007 6:29 PM

What is even more astounding is that Stephenson got paroled - twice.

Posted by blah | June 25, 2007 6:34 PM

I think David Mizner nails it. It's all about social class. The beltway elite don't like gauche, "tacky" rich people, they like classy rich people like themselves. I think they had it out for Bill Clinton much in the same way - he was a hick who had pulled himself up from his bootstraps and become a phenomenally successful politician - i.e., "slick." They gave (give) him grief for being so easily impressed by those Hollywood phonies. Basically, "he came here and trashed the place, and it's not his place."

Posted by bobbo | June 25, 2007 7:09 PM

A few quick points of clarity about the home in question. The land alone accounts for $1.5m of the assessed price. The 28,000 sq. ft. is not the size of solely the main house. There are seven buildings on the property -- the main house has five bedrooms and is approx. 10,000 sq.feet.

If the Edwards had done a "teardown" (and built a new McMansion)in the Raleigh neighborhood where they used to live, then "tacky" might be appropriate. Am certain their former neighbors are thrilled they have moved to this property given the inconvenience of Secret Service efforts during the 2004 election.

Why don't we do a "Real Estate 101" on all the candidates? Would love to see the specs on the Rudy/Judy new construction love nest in the Hamptons.

Seriously, this price/size for the house itself is just not that big a deal in the Chapel Hill market.

Posted by ncnygirl | June 25, 2007 8:33 PM

Can someone help me find a photo of the house, which as ncnygirl points is not a "house" but a "compound," so maybe that will get some respect.

I see nothing wrong with having a big house and if Edwards is smart he'll simply say that Yes, he's worked hard and been successful and "What's it to ya?"

It's only snobby young folks who can't afford anything who would make a big deal about a rich guy having a big house. (And I reserve judgment on whether it's tacky until I see a photo.)

Posted by David Sucher | June 25, 2007 8:46 PM

Matt Yglesias: Concern Troll.

Posted by anon | June 25, 2007 8:54 PM

Of course the local NC rightwing screed publication has already covered this.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

Posted by ncnygirl | June 25, 2007 8:59 PM

One additional note about the property etc. The enclosed, heated pool is mainly for Elizabeth and her treatment complications from her original battle with breast cancer. The pool and its therapeutic possibilities are mentioned in her book.

Posted by ncnygirl | June 25, 2007 9:06 PM

So sometimes dry internet humor isn't as obvious as it might be.

Is Matt joking? Being sarcastic? Ironic?

What is tacky about the house?

Posted by anon | June 25, 2007 9:11 PM

I'm confused. Is the house itself tacky--and if so, why is it that way--or is the fact that it's so big tacky?

Posted by Brian | June 26, 2007 12:33 AM

Voters will only get as far as mansion = extravagant--possible hypocrite...the way this supposedly fits his narrative is too complicated to matter.
Bloomberg takes the subway to work in ny. He's way richer, but he's making an effort to come across as normal. Edwards' mansion demonstrates an extra effort to appear rich. My bloomberg example is good PR in the same way that your edwards example is bad PR.

Posted by Jonathan Talamini | June 26, 2007 1:07 AM

No, I don't think this is the bit that kills Edwards.

What will kill him is the whole giving-anti-poverty-speeches-to-college-kids-at-thirty-grand -a-pop thing. That will be a bit hard for most people to understand.

Posted by Thomas | June 26, 2007 1:07 AM

I'd vote for ya, Matt.

There is nothing Democrats can do to avoid being trashed by the media, and when the Reps do similar things they are hardly mentioned.

Posted by mq | June 26, 2007 2:16 AM

I think Edwards' phoney anti-poverty foundation will hurt him the most. But who knows? All these damning little anecdotes are certainly putting Mr. Edwards' credibility into question.

Posted by blah | June 26, 2007 2:34 AM

not having a college degree = working class ?

that's certainly a strange definition of the term

Posted by novakant | June 26, 2007 4:33 AM

Soooo - the discussion is about a house. Christ.

Posted by Wordsmith | June 26, 2007 7:31 AM

In any case, I think Edwards' support (such as it is) isn't coming mainly from the "working class" or poor of the Democratic party. Those people are all supporting Hillary because she is the establishment candidate and they like the Clinton "brand". Edwards gets more of his support from richer, more conservative voters, really despite whatever he might be saying about poverty, which leads me to believe that the vast majority of the electorate cares very little for policy or makes their choices in spite of it. But at this point, it's something of a courtesy to call Edwards a first tier candidate. I think he's about at first and a half.

Posted by JMS | June 26, 2007 8:41 AM

JMS, his media coverage might not be as high but he's been #2 in more than one poll.

More generally: I'm so glad that in this election cycle we're moving on to issues of substance, like how big a rich man's house ought to be.

Posted by Persia | June 26, 2007 9:43 AM

Putting aside the McMansion argument which I think is irrelevant, I think there is a lot of validity to the idea that Edwards is a bit of an amateurish politician. Let's face facts - the guy has won exactly one election in his entire poltiical career - beating Lauch Faircloth in 1998. Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and even Dennis Kucinich have won more elections. I have always thought it was a mistake that Edwards basically begged out of what would have been a tough but winnable 2004 re-election to run for President. He would have been much better off staying in the Senate sharpening both his political and policy skills.

I found him unimpressive as a VP candidate - he didn't have enough political strength to carry his home state and got chewed up and spit out by Dick Cheney in the VP debate.

Edwards just seems light to me in terms of political and policy experience. He is running against candidates who have spent large chunks of their careers working on public policy matters and in my mind he just doesn't standup well to the Clinton's and Richardson's of the world who have tons of experience and knowledge. Convincing people that you are ready to be your President is a lot harder than boning up for a case and convincing a jury to go your way.

The guy is clearly talented but I just sense he isn't ready. Like I said, he should have stayed in the Senate in 2004 - I think it would have made him a much stronger candidate

Posted by jmnyc | June 26, 2007 10:58 AM

"not having a college degree = working class? that's certainly a strange definition of the term"

Strange or not, that's the commonly accepted definition.

Posted by Petey | June 26, 2007 2:23 PM

This comment thread illustrates what Edwards' real problem is. It's not bad marketing. It's not bad policies. It's not inexperience. It's not 'what the Republicans will say' - it's not the GOP at all. And it's not prospective weakness in the general election. It's Democrats themselves, as usual. To quote Will Rogers: I don't belong to an organized [or very competent] political party......

Posted by jonnybutter | June 26, 2007 4:07 PM

Compare/contrast the above comment with a stab-in-the-back narrative. Discuss.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 26, 2007 4:39 PM

The man built himself an indoor basketball court. There is nothing more American than a rich guy building his own personal court so he can relive the glory days of his youth. I say this having dropped a bundle to install a roller hockey rink
in the bottom of the warehouse/loft I own.

Posted by hockeyfan | June 26, 2007 5:19 PM

I was not making a 'stab in the back' statement, LFP, because it's almost impossible to stab *yourself* in the back. My point is simply that our party is often rather feckless (politically speaking), to put it politely. Consider: when the GOP cracks under the weight of impossible contradictions (eg immigration), it's big news, whereas it's only news for Dems when we are actually unified about something (eg Social Security). I'm generalizing a lot, but the shoe fits. I'm a very liberal, and I hope pragmatic, Democrat. But I've seen our party do half of the GOP's political work for them for so long, that I am really exasperated. This is the moment - the rare opportunity - to turn the page on the Reagan Revolution, and I just wonder if some of our pres. candidates' supporters - particularly some of the younger ones - even realize that that's the goal here. (Cliche though it is, I think we have a bit of a Stockholm Syndrome thing going on.) I do think Edwards understands this: if you get an inch, you have to take a mile. That's a big reason I support him.

I'm sure that some of the snide comments in this thread are by Republicans or 'Independents', but I'm also sure that some of them are by partisans of other Dem candidates. I support Edwards, but you never see personally snide comments from me about Obama, nor even about HRC all that much, even though I think nominating her would be a real mistake. But partisans of other Dems are constantly tearing down Edwards, and on a personal level. It's curious that a candidate who is at once the most frankly progressive and most electable we've had in years gets that kind of treatment. Why do you think that is? Because Democrats are spooked. Without even realizing it, they have a very slavish attitude toward the GOP, and that absolutely tickles Rove pinker than he normally would be. Nominating Kerry was the perfect example of it; 'W-w-we're not afraid of you bully Republicans! He's a w-w-WAR HERO!'. I don't know about you, but I could almost hear Rove and Bush chuckling about that in '04. A bully knows when you're scared of them.

So, all I'm saying is: turn your big guns away from Dems. Support who you want to support. But make your decision and your arguments in good faith, and not hinge everything on what the GOP will do, what other people will say, etc. Make them respond to us. Who we nominate is a huge decision. Edwards' house or not-for-profit or hair-do are lame criteria.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 26, 2007 7:22 PM

(sorry, I hit send too fast)

..they are lame criteria that people use to justify their a priori dislike for Edwards (or support for someone else).

Also, full disclosure: I complained about HRC's voice in a comment once. Sorry, but I find it physically painful when she screeches. And I bet other voters might feel the same way. Her voice is certainly not the reason I don't support her for the nomination, however.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 26, 2007 7:42 PM

I couldn't agree more with jonnybutter and his comments re: Dems and their circular firing squad.

We demand that our candidates run a letter-perfect campaign, and if they get subjected to GOP attacks or negative media coverage - no matter how unfair - our response is always the same: "How could he be so stupid to even give them the opening!" It's so annoying.

Posted by Steve | June 26, 2007 7:48 PM

Actually, our candidates do give the GOP openings sometimes. You can't avoid all 'openings', for one thing, and for another, the GOP will create 'openings' where there are none; run a perfect campaign, and they will still find (create) them. You can't do anything about that. But you can do something about how you deal with that. And you can do something about Democrats themselves being so scared of 'openings' that they conjure them themselves. Not saying it's wrong to vet candidates, but there's a limit!

I am a big fan of Hilzoy, but her post (I'm afraid to put a link in here - go read it at Obsidian Wings) about Edwards' not-for-profits was a prime example of what I think is post-Reagan shying. In typical fashion, she provided a very clear (albeit a bit humorless) and very long explication of the legal issues involved, and then asked why no liberal bloggers were blogging about this - which seemed to be the real point she was trying to make, unfortunately (she was not definitavely critical of what Edwards substantively did). Then a few hours later she did a one line update to say that liberal bloggers were indeed blogging about it. Come on. I don't note this to bag on Hilzoy so much as to point out that when as fine and intelligent and educated (and pretty liberal by today's standards) a writer as she falls into this sort of rut, it's a tip off that there's something funny going on. A more intelligent, evolved Broderism. I read Hilzoy and Publius and other of the best centerist bloggers because they are honest and informative, and because they are performing essential work in building a new political consensus in this country. But even the great ones fetish centerism for its own sake sometimes.

Is this really the time to be 'non-partisan'? If it works rhetorically on some level - and I think it does - that's fine. But the answer in general ought to be ridiculously obvious - of COURSE not.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 26, 2007 9:14 PM

I am a supporter of Edwards because of his stance on the war and because he's been talking about poor people for a long time.

But I am disappointed about the house. I feel that we are like a nation of drunks, except that our choice of drink is consumerism, materialism. That huge house is conspicous consumption. Is he trying for drunk-in-chief? I'd hope for someone to lead us in the right direction, of moderating our rapid, rabid absortion of the world's resources. The picture of the house reminds me of a strip mine site.

With all that, unless Al Gore gets in the race I'm for Edwards. He still talks about most of the important issues.

Posted by Joe Anthony | July 8, 2007 12:43 PM