George Will on John Edwards
The conservative icon takes a look at the Edwards 2008 bid here; he’s not impressed, it’s fair to say:
When Democrats wonder what red states Hillary Clinton could turn blue in 2008, the wondering does not help Edwards, whose presence on the 2004 ticket did not sway his own state: In 2000 Bush beat Gore-Lieberman in North Carolina 56-43. In 2004 Bush beat Kerry-Edwards here 56-44. And Democrats know that Gore might now be in his second term if he had carried his home state.
Edwards says that one lesson of 2004 is that presidential elections “are not issue-driven”; rather, they are character-driven and voters see issues as reflections of character. The issues “show people who you are.” Perhaps.
But the idea that the candidate’s persona is primary and that issues are secondary is a mistake made by some Democrats who yearn for another John Kennedy. He was a talented but quite traditional politician whom many Democrats wrongly remember as proving that charisma trumps substantive politics. Edwards, who has been called Kennedyesque, has a stake in that yearning.
I found Edwards to be even less impressive than Kerry, who was an astonishingly poor candidate (though a decent debater). Edwards was absolutely unconvincing in his debates, he was petulant on Election Night, and he gave the same stump speech in town after town. He seems a decent enough person, but the presidency is clearly beyond him. I have not done a Candidate Profile on Edwards yet (and I haven’t done any in quite some time), but off the top of my head, here are his odds to take the Democratic nomination: 11-1…
anyone who takes Will’s word on Edwards… is just as disillusioned as Will himself, who thinks poverty is a result of moral deficiencies. What an idiot.
Ah, the typical liberal argument — or, moreover, non-argument: don’t debate the point; attack the analyst on a different and irrelevant point, and, of course, resort to name calling.
And what was the point? The analyst does bear a look: why should one give credence to the words of one who cannot see some transparent social realities (tell the 28 million working poor who work full time and still live in poverty that it is their bad work ethic that is keeping them in a position where they have to work 2 or more jobs) ? As for Edwards, I don’t know about you, but I find him very impressive. You didn’t state any particulars in your commentary there that I could’ve refuted, so the best I can do is give my opinion.
Yes, the name calling was uncalled for, however, Will’s condescending tone would drive any reasonable person a little off their normal mannerisms.
First, Will doesn’t quote anything at length from Edwards that might substantiate his claim that Edwards hasn’t done his homework on poverty. If you visit the unc homepage and the section on Edwards’ poverty center you’ll see links to view the summits that took place over there, which were led by Edwards… and then you can judge for yourself.
Second, Will implies that Edwards is somehow suggesting that a President’s personality is more important than his brain. There is no evidence to support this. Edwards is stating the mere truth: people tend to vote based more on character rather than the issues. That is where the “Who do you want to have a beer with?” question comes in. This doesn’t mean that this is the right criteria for casting your vote for a candidate, but fortunately or unfortunately, this is what happens. For a majority of Americans, it does boil down to the candidate’s personality. And, Edwards is smart to have realized that.
And, notice how in the last couple of paragraphs, Will moves rapidly from “character” to “persona” to “charisma” as if they were the same thing. Also, character and substance are not mutually exclusive; and Will provides no quote or other evidence to prove that Edwards might think so.
I know this: George Will or any other columnist wouldn’t be spending time writing about Edwards if they didn’t think he matters. The reason he is doing so so far removed from the primaries shows that he realizes that Edwards knows the trick to politics.
Jacob, a couple of things: one, I don’t think Edwards is an impressive campaigner, but I don’t doubt his sincerity in his poverty crusade – nor, I think, does Will. I think the point he was trying to make is that Edwards has an old mindset on how to solve the problem…
Mark: I believe you must have seen him on the stump and at a rally to know how impressive he is as a campaigner or not. Regardless, that is your judgment and you are entitled to it.
As for edwards’ views on poverty, you might want to check them out first before taking Will’s characterization of them(who thinks that the new paradigm of poverty is caused by bad hygiene: enough said). For your convenience, you can gain some insight into his worldview of poverty at the following links:
Speech after katrina
Fact sheet for proposals