Edwards is so deep in his own hypocrisy that he cannot imagine why a lot of people genuinely think he's a scumbag:
For the sake of argument, I'll concede that the truth of a message does not depend on the behavior of the one who delivers it. Yet that does nothing to change the fact that most of his critics were completely on target with Edwards, since most of his critics attacked his image as a family man and someone genuinely concerned for the poor. The very fact that someone who is so obsessed with the state of the working class is living so high on the hog is inherently problematic. It's not just him holding an opinion and enjoying the American dream, it's a matter of why there is such a disconnect between his professed principles, his actions, and the means by which he can join them (financially, at the very least!)
The reason that Edwards lost in the Democratic primary is that it's hard enough for someone who is openly hard to the left to win the Presidency. It's downright impossible when the candidate is a man who behaves and rants like a cross between Huey Long and Jimmy Swaggert. His message about caring and helping the poor was no more credible for those reasons than an anti-racism conference run by David Duke.
In 2007, Edwards said he had gone to work at Fortress because his family needed the income, despite holdings then estimated at $30 million. But in the interview, he said he was no longer fixated on finding lucrative work. "When I'm on my deathbed, I don't think I'll be thinking, did I work enough or earn enough money," he said. He plans to return to El Salvador next month. "Whether I'm digging a ditch or hammering a nail, I don't have any pride in this anymore, I just want to help," he said. "If I can help the most by working quietly, that's what I'll do. If as time goes by I can be more helpful with a public role, that's what I will do. "
He realizes that his trangressions had only bolstered his longtime skeptics, but said that any cynicism about his motives on fighting poverty was "complete foolishness." "There's a reason why it's been many years since a politician made this issue central to him -- and, I might add, I didn't get elected," he said. "There aren't many votes in helping poor people. "
Most of all, he wants his most ardent supporters to believe that the message that drove his campaigns was solid, despite all later revelations about the candidate himself.
"It was real, 100 percent real," he said. "I want them to be proud of what I stood for, and of what the campaign stood for. The stands were honest and sincere and idealistic. They were what America needed then and needs now."
For the sake of argument, I'll concede that the truth of a message does not depend on the behavior of the one who delivers it. Yet that does nothing to change the fact that most of his critics were completely on target with Edwards, since most of his critics attacked his image as a family man and someone genuinely concerned for the poor. The very fact that someone who is so obsessed with the state of the working class is living so high on the hog is inherently problematic. It's not just him holding an opinion and enjoying the American dream, it's a matter of why there is such a disconnect between his professed principles, his actions, and the means by which he can join them (financially, at the very least!)
The reason that Edwards lost in the Democratic primary is that it's hard enough for someone who is openly hard to the left to win the Presidency. It's downright impossible when the candidate is a man who behaves and rants like a cross between Huey Long and Jimmy Swaggert. His message about caring and helping the poor was no more credible for those reasons than an anti-racism conference run by David Duke.
Leave a comment