Charlie Pierce hits a home run on John Edwards

And Sylvester Stallone once wrote an Academy Award-winning movie.

 

That essay was phenomenal. Absolutely on fire.
And, while I admit I don't know much about Mike Huckabee, Pierce slayed him in my mind with three words "greasy Rotarian gasbag."

 

He's pure genius, and a really great guy, too.

Rare, that is.

 

As Frank Graham once said of WC Heinz:

"At his best he's better than any of us."

 

Dan, it goes both ways, but the GOP adage is more commonplace.

This is an very interesting topic I never thought about. I didn't realize the "macho" factor in presidential candidates is prevalent, particulary with Edwards. I am under the impression that America continues to value the "machoism" of a candidate, or the waning theory of it. When you think of Gore/Bush in 2000, what do you think of? Gore, the intellectual wonk who couldn't charm at dead tree and bore you with his analytical thoughts? Or Bush, the guy who was never the smart one in the family, but the "Texas" bravado is reminiscent of John Wayne? Gore, who was more Washingtonian and polished, or Bush, who most Americans at that time could vision jumping on a horse and riding off into the sunset after another day of knocking off the bad guys? What did it say? America would rather vote on style over substance.

Another analogy from 2000 was Bill Bradley. Bradley was a college and professional hoop star, with a brain. Princeton-educated, he rose up the ranks to become Senator. However, he was clobbered by Gore. Why? He was a thinking man who had ideas, but in this age of 30-second blurbs and short attention spans, he was more dull than Gore. Come to find out, Gore was just as smart, but he duller than Bush.

I didn't follow the candidates, but as Joe Voter, the best observation I can make was that no regular voter wanted someone who was "smarter" than them. Most did not want someone who was going to talk over their heads, spew out terms that are foreign and come up with complex shit. That's the perception I picked up on recent presidential elections. "Get someone who is at least on our level that we can understand."

I second that Edwards needs to find a way to combat that image, Dan, but he needs to do it versus Hill and Obama. If he knocks those two off, then he can go after Huckabee. It's comparable to blacks voters electing a crack-cocaine user (Marion White) over a gay man. A gay candidate could be 10x smarter and have ideas and plans, but to blacks, he's more of a threat than a washed-up cokehead.

Style over substance is easier on voters who are extremely lazy and are unwilling to put in the time to educate themselves on who is the best candidate in their minds. It's easier to bitch about Bush, but voters had their chances in 2004, and they sat on their asses. John Kerry was no John Kennedy in their collective minds.

 

That's what made Bill Clinton so effective as a candidate. He was an uber-wonk when it came to policy issues, but he didn't come off that way to the public. Gore came off as a member of the Pocket Protector Brigade, while Bush took the exact opposite approach.

 

I've said it after reading his SI stuff, and I'll say it again after that passage - I don't see the brilliance here.

 

I got bored by the article after the first 3 or 4 paragraphs. It didn't hook me whatsoever.

 

He's a big-name writer whose focus is attacking Republicans; of course he's an icon around here.

No doubt he's a talented writer, but he's often being judged more on what he is saying than the skill with which he says it.

 

Well, if he happens to be correct, why not judge him favorably?

 

You mean if you don't agree with what he's saying, you must be a "rube," as you so eloquently put it earlier in this thread.

 

Having not read the whole story, I have no idea if it deals with the true flaw in Edwards' campaign message, which is the hollowness of the "Two Americas" theme.

It's much easier to whine about the haircut issue.

Generally, the thi gs that stick to candidates in a negative way -- the elder Bush's "wimp" image, Gore's (alleged) exaggerations, Howard Dean's ... well, whatever that was, a yelp I guess ... and Edwards' vanity -- tend to coalesce around something we're uncomfortable with on a subconscious level at the start.

Which, incidentally, is why HRC is screwed.