But on the Democratic side, there is one outcome that I really don't want; I really don't want Edwards to win, or even come in second, if possible. And the race is looking very tight. If I woke up Friday morning and the blowdried pseudopopulist comes in better than third, I will hang my head in shame knowing that I didn't do my little electoral bit to stave it off. So, despite the drawn-out idiocy of the Democratic caucus process, I think that I may have to go, after all, just to try to prevent that outcome.
Whom to vote for? Obviously, it has to be either Clinton or Obama. It's not much of a choice; I don't care for either one, any more than I care for... Romney or Huckabee. But given the choice, I'm thinking of going for age and guile over youth and hope – so Clinton it is. Maybe. Until I change my mind again. Twenty-one hours to go!
I don't understand your antipathy to Edwards -- esp. given the relatively high issues-based rating you write about earlier (disclosure: Edwards supporter.) "Blow dried pseudopopulist" seems fair in the "blow dried" and "populist" departments, but not in the "pseudo" one, which I assume is the real problem. See here for a recent defense of his trial lawyering, and how it's part and parcel (and a good one) of where he stands on issues and where he's coming from as a person. Nothing "pseudo" about it, in my opinion.
That maybe leaves the notorious expensive hair cut, which was a misstep, I suppose, but hardly a huge, damning one. As I understand it, that's what the stylist -- a supporter who works in Hollywood -- charged regularly, and pretending otherwise might have been a campaign finance disclosure irregularity. Edwards probably puts this down to trial-lawyer leaving-no-stone-unturned-ism -- those guys are always fine-tuning their presentation, appearance, etc. That is, I think it's a deformation caused by his career, not some kind of monstrous vanity on his part.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew on January 3, 2008 12:09 PM
I understand your antipathy to Edwards.
I wish Thompson were polling better. He sounds like an adult and I like his hair.
Posted by: Jonathan on January 3, 2008 12:54 PM
That was supposed to be a defense? I can't imagine what a hit piece would look like, then. If that's part and parcel of where he stands on the issues, I would say our host's antipathy is well justified.
Let's see, Edwards shamelessly uses emotion in a legal proceeding, takes professional advantage of his own tragedy, and openly advocates looting (e.g., take money from somebody because I need it and they have it). Edward's defender lives in some corporate conspiracy land and has a deep misreading of the state of the American Street. I will also presume, since you pointed this out, that Edwards' support comes mostly from people so deranged that use the term "BushCo" non-ironically.
P.S. The haircut thing was talked about not because it was, of itself, significant, but because it was an archetypical symbol of a psuedopopulist, of someone who talks about "making the rich pay their fair share" while indulging himself in the glories of wealth. It symbolized how the "this child is our child" is just a pose, that Edwards is fine with spending huge chunks of change on trivialities when the money is spent on him.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy on January 3, 2008 12:58 PM
Thomas-
unfortunately, I don't have time to answer right now, as the caucuses are starting very shortly. I'll try to explain later.
Posted by: David Fleck on January 3, 2008 06:14 PM
Thomas - As an Edwards supporter, perhaps you would like to take up my offer, even though the time limit has passed.
As I noted yesterday, no one accepted the offer. Not one supporter of Clinton, Edwards, or Obama was willing to tell us what their candidate had accomplished.
I think that's because none of the three have significant accomplishments. But if I am wrong about Edwards, please let me know.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Thomas-
I'll break it down as you did. "Blowdried" is (mostly) just cheap snark on my part. While I find his personal vanity irritating, that in itself would not be a substantive mark against him.
My biggest problems with Edwards lie in the "populist" category. As with libertarian tendencies, I think a certain amount of populism is a good thing, but too much is, well, too much.
In my opinion, Edwards puts far too much emphasis on 'corporate greed' as a cause of our domestic pathologies, and as a result seems to think that beating up on 'corporations' and our trade partners is going to solve them. In truth, it beats the hell out of me how we can best respond to the upheavals caused by globalization, but I don't think what he's proposing will help – somebody needs to convince me that Edwards isn't Smoot-Hawley II.
"Pseudo" – I find his public persona oozes insincerity. If a man with Edward's style and mannerisms tried to sell me something, I would immediately suspect him of trying to cheat me. If he tried to convince me of something, I would immediately suspect him of lying to me.
I also have strong suspicions that Edwards' personal fortune was built on a pile of lies and ambulance chasing, upon which I do not look favorably.
I'll ignore his foreign policy proposals – they aren't what bother me about him in particular, relative to the rest of the Democratic field.
Posted by: David Fleck on January 6, 2008 10:02 AM