Charlie Pierce hits a home run on John Edwards

It would embarrass him to know it, but I decided to become a writer and decided that I wanted to be a writer for Esquire because of Charlie Pierce. I don't know what to tell those of you who don't see what all the fuss is about; the man's smart as hell, and he writes perfect sentences. That's a hell of a combination.

I disagree, however, with Charlie here. I think John Edwards is a fake, and he's surrounded by the worst collection of political greaseballs I've ever encountered. They lie through their teeth when they smile at you.

Heady, all I can really say about my experience with Edwards is, that's the first time in my ten years as a writer -- at a newspaper and at the magazine -- that I failed to come back with the story.

Mike Sager and Charlie succeeded, though, so maybe it comes down to me.

But no exaggeration, I thought hard about quitting writing afterward and doing something else with my life. I was that angry.

 

I don't know of Jones's problems, but I've had some recent dealings with the Edwards campaign and they can all suck my balls.
Unhelpful, hard to work with, unable to accomodate the simplest of things.
I was promised that they would e-mail me a sked - they never did and Colleen Murray still hasn't called me back.
On the upside if any of ya'll want to know what I look like, I'm in the background of one of the Edwards's photos.

 

Just kinda curious if you could tell us more about this. It sounds like an interesting tale. Why didn't you come back with a story? What did they do (or not do) to you/ with you / for you / whatever, that had you so angry? What about them makes them WORSE than what other candidates have?

 

You're talking about a presidential campaign as though it's the Portland Trailblazers.

This is exactly the problem with the political media. They will go to any length to ruin a candidate simply because they don't like him. This is the same group that in 2000 and 2004 lapped up Bush's bullshit because he called them by name.

 

Your buffoonery knows no end, Ragu. Edwards has talked about poverty since he got into politics. It has been the linchpin of nearly every political speech he's ever made. And last I checked, poverty isn't exactly an issue that gets people into the voting booth -- at least, not quite like gays getting married, right?

Trying to pin the hypocrite label on John Edwards because he's rich and can enjoy certain luxuries of his lifestyle is a tired, tired, tired trick. If you want to talk about hypocricy based on something that matters -- like taking payoffs from lobbyists to produce legislation that hurts Americans -- let's go, buddy boy.

 

Great headline in The Onion this week:

"John Edwards vows to do away with all bad things by 2011."

Oh, and Democrats will always, always get attacked for being wealthy, because it's an easy and smart way to try to undermine some of their core messages. Of course, no one without money can get elected, so it becomes a catch-22. Who are they going to run? Some Berkeley pamphlet pusher/hemp jewelry peddler, so as to "keep it real"?

Of course, the Democrats use the hypocrite card, as well, particularly when it comes to religion and "family values."

It's just politics.

 

Having had occasion to deal with Edwards' campaign, I can only echo Jay and Jones -- his staffers were douchebags and the candidate himself left me flat.

By all rights I should like the words the guy says, but I don't believe a word of it...

 

Guy writes story or makes movie about a section of a city. Nails it. Critics say he should have focused on another part of the city, and they begin describing in detail the neighborhoods he didn't mention. They can't really pick apart his analysis of the section of the city he chose to illuminate, so they make it about what the story should have been instead of what it is.

Have seen it for decades, and it never fails to entertain me.

 

Yes -- if you buy the tough-guy image that these poseurs project, while also buying the wuss-bag image that they project upon people who have actually served their country (Murtha, Kerry, Cleland, McCain), then you ARE a rube. Doesn't mean that I like Edwards or agree with everything Pierce writes, but in this instance, he's clearly right. Rove sold the country a bill of goods, and the nation got what it deserved: a bunch of actors in cowboy hats. Sort of like "The Three Amigos," but without the Hollywood ending.