Patterico's Pontifications

John Edwards for president? NO!

With the campaign getting underway, I’ve been thinking about doing blogs of the major candidates of both parties. Since, I need to do some more homework on several of the candidates, I thought I would start off one by one.

In the interest of full disclosure, I belong to no party. I am an independent (small case “i”). Being of the conservative persuasion, I have always voted Republican, and I will almost certainly do so in 2008 since the Democrats have gone so far to the left that I consider them dangerous for America. So don’t be surprised when I slam the Democratic candidates. Anyway, speaking of slamming, I will start off with John Edwards.

Edwards, as he is fond of telling everyone, grew up as the son of a simple millworker. He was fortunate enough to be able to go to college and get his law degree, in spite of his humble beginnings (a testament to the greatness of America, one of the few places in the world where poor people can rise to the top through traditional and legal means).

Edwards went on to become one of North Carolina’s most successful trial lawyers, specializing in personal injury cases, suing doctors and hospitals for malfeasance and collecting huge settlements. Thus, he became fabulously wealthy. Some have criticized his trial tactics of using questionable science to convince juries of his cases.

From law, Edwards went on to politics, becoming a US Senator in 1998 before suddenly emerging as John Kerry’s VP running mate in 2004. This after an unsucessful primary campaign for the presidential nomination. During the campaign, Edwards’ theme was “two Americas” (one being the America of fat cat George Bush and his cronies, the other America consisting of “po folks” like him, I guess). The irony of one of the richest men in North Carolina complaining about Republican “fat cats” was not lost on most Americans.

Losing the election and out of his Senate job, Edwards returned to North Carolina to lick his wounds and prepare for the next go-around. Now he is back, repositioned to the far left of the Democratic presidential candidates and again showing his hypocritical nature. To be sure, he is hardly considered the favorite, running behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In addition, he has suffered some embarassing bumps in the road.

First there was the issue of 2 far-left bloggers he had hired to work his websites. Turns out, both of these ladies had a paper trail of harsh and profane comments about Christians. When a public furor followed, Edwards made more moves than OJ Simpson in his pre-murderer days, first disowning the statements, then dancing back and forth between firing the gals or giving them another chance. Seems the Move-On.org crowd protested against any firings. Anyway, after weeks passed, the ladies resigned, then went out writing a flurry of articles slamming the right-wing conspiracy and the Bushies for the loss of their jobs. Edwards, meanwhile, showed the public that he had questionable leadership and decision-making skills.

Then his wife Elizabeth announced that she had unfortunately suffered a relapse of cancer. Edwards’ decision to continue the campaign rather than drop out met with stern disapproval from certain quarters, who saw blind ambition, while others defended the decision as courageous.

Then came the $400 haircut (billed to the Edwards campaign no less). Once again, conservative pundits had a field day pointing out the hypocrisy of the man they had already been referring to as “the Breck Girl”. Of course, “Po Folks” Johnny hastened to make it right by “correcting the billing error”.

Finally, just a few days ago, he told interviewers that, if elected, he would deal with Islamic terrorism by doing the following:

Reorganize the military ( ala Carter and Clinton?)
Meet with his leading generals !?!? (That would be revolutionary.)
Create a “Marshall Corps” of 10,000 volunteers, who would go to the Middle East and work to eliminate poverty and provide clean drinking water.

Maybe Edwards will go on to win the Democratic nomination- with the Dems, nothing would surprise me. But in a general election, I think he will have a hard time convincing Americans that he is anything more than an ambitious, hypocritical lightweight, who doesn’t have what it takes to face America’s enemies.

posted in fousesquawk

fouse, gary c (4cbe38) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:09 pm

Lauren: Is he dumb?

No, of course not Lauren. He’s what the democrats call “Presidential Material”

Edwards problem is Gore is already working on saving the planet—what’s left?

Rovin (7f64b8) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:49 pm

Out of the mouths of babes…

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 7/6/2007 @ 6:49 pm

“some have criticized his trial tactics of using questionable science to convince juries of his cases.”

some don’t understand the function of plaintiff’s counsel.

assistant devil's advocate (0cf75f) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:04 pm

He’s not dumb, per se, he’s “dumbed down and tarted up.”

Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:20 pm

some don’t understand the function of plaintiff’s counsel.

And others, such as John Edwards, have no understanding of ethical obligations…

H2U (338ff2) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:25 pm

Fun’s fun. but I really wonder how much I might spend on stupid stuff if I had a net worth of $100 million or so. I doubt I’d be flying coach much, and my minions would pay bills I’d never see.

Of course, I’d probably spend less time lecturing the middle-class about how they need to pay more taxes to support the poor.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:44 pm

Well, I can see why Mr Edwards spent all that money on his hairdresser. In every presidential election since 1988, the Democrats have had the candidate with better hair. Mr Edwards lost the 2004 nomination to a guy with Big Hair, but he’s way ahead of all of his Democratic competitors this time around. He’s behind Senatrix Clinton and Senator Obama, but they both have mediocre hair, so the opening is there for him — but only if he keeps ahead of them follicly. Is $1,250 too big an investment for such a challenge, and the potential rewards of finishing first?

Dana (1f0f07) — 7/6/2007 @ 7:56 pm

John Edwards should listen to Lauren.

DRJ (31d948) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:21 pm

okay h2u, can you identify any breaches of ethics committed by john edwards in his law practice?

assistant devil's advocate (72615d) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:30 pm

One secret to wealth is OPM-Other Peoples’ Money. A multi-millionaire, John Edwards has this down pat. Of course, that’s what any Democrat tends to do anyway, with my tax dollars.

ManlyDad (d62cf6) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:42 pm

Kevin, we still don’t know if Edwards used campaign dollars for his $1250 haircut, as he had for his $400 ones. If he were just wasting his own fortune you’re right that this wouldn’t be much of a story. But if I were someone who’d donated $100 to his campaign I’d be pretty pissed off right about now, thinking all I’d paid for was a few minutes of blowdrying.

Nels Nelson (680124) — 7/6/2007 @ 8:43 pm

Its clear that Edwards is spending money on his only significant qualification for office – his hair.

Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/6/2007 @ 9:32 pm

To me it seems that how much a candidate spends for a haircut is exactly the kind of thing I’d like to base my vote on. Is a $1250 haircut better than a $400 haircut and is a $400 haircut better than the ones I get downtown for a whole lot less. It seems that we’re going to be stuck with rich candidates for President so I’d really like to know how stupidly they’re going to spend my money.

Buzzy (9d4680) — 7/6/2007 @ 11:19 pm

With Edwards being recently blasted by Kerry’s people for being a weak running mate, and with Obama inevitably able to generate more hype and energize the base as the first black on a major party’s ticket, and with Edwards destined for obscurity by 2012 unless he wins the nomination, vanity appears to be the only plausible explanation for his campaign.

LagunaDave (69e495) — 7/7/2007 @ 1:04 am

“Sigh. Didn’t newspapers used to conduct these kinds of investigations on things that mattered?”

alphie (015011) — 7/7/2007 @ 3:53 am

I don’t see the cost alone as a form of stupidity for a man with $100 million, or a form of hypocrisy for Edwards based on his economic populism; he hasn’t declared that “property is theft.”

However, and I know Edwards isn’t Al Gore, but shouldn’t it trouble most Democrats from a greenhouse gas standpoint, that his hairdresser is flying across the country to service him?

Further, isn’t it likely that the hairdresser has other clients with canceled appointments who must be inconvenienced by these jaunts of up to two days? If so, then it would appear that Edwards and his hairdresser think his hair is more important than the keeping of the hairdresser’s prior commitments. That would show irresponsibility on the hairdresser’s part; and for Edwards, whether he has thought about it or not, it would show a pretty high level of narcissism and egocentrism for an adult, especially one expecting to be taken seriously as an advocate for the common man.

(Perhaps a newspaper or even one of us should get on this, by calling the hairdresser to inquire about booking an appointment at some point in the future, and merely asking whether his appointments may be canceled by such jaunts.)

DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 7/7/2007 @ 4:11 am

I believe the proper descriptive is “More money than brains.”

Stephen Macklin (68591a) — 7/7/2007 @ 5:23 am

Hopefully you got that on tape. Might come in handy in a few years when she begins to expect the iphone, ipod, etc.!

voiceofreason63 (ba5a24) — 7/7/2007 @ 5:53 am

Didn’t John Kerry spend $1,000 for a haircut? Inflation and the need to one-better your opponents, after all.

I can’t see spending $1,250 on a hair cut. I would spend $1,210 dollars on transportation to see my buddy Silvo in Philly, spend $25 on a hair cut, $10 for a tip (since I’m now rich), and $15 dollars for coffee and a snack for both of us at La Colombe.

I agree with Alphie’s thought, but I’m not sure how much they really did in the past, either.

ada- I think I understand your point, but some of us (doctors, engineers, scientists; ideally prosecutors, politicians, policy theorists, and journalists) work in ways that primarily seeks to find and promote an understanding of what is factual, and true, not finding ways to obscure things to promote doubt, whether warranted or not. How does one defend a person who you think is guilty of a monstrous crime with the goal to have an acquittal, not simply a fair presentation of facts and reasonable and fitting sentence?

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/7/2007 @ 6:07 am

John Edward is very wise. He knows his only asset is his hair.

Alta Bob (618ae9) — 7/7/2007 @ 6:07 am

#16 “Sigh. Didn’t newspapers used to conduct these kinds of investigations on things that mattered?” Comment by alphie — 7/7/2007 @ 3:53 am
This is truly news of the ‘man bites dog’ variety. $1,250 haircuts don’t happen to anybody, unless they are vain, ultrarich, and out-of-touch. This small incident says a ton about Edwards’ values; what do you think he will do when it comes to spending your tax money?

TimesDisliker (a8230e) — 7/7/2007 @ 7:02 am

TimesDisliker, I don’t think this says anything about Edwards values – just the shallowness of the man and his campaign. Not to mention a severe lack of judgment.

Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/7/2007 @ 7:34 am

Edward’s isn’t dumb, he just lives in that other America he keeps reminding America is divided into. Don’t you wish he would like to see thew rest of us live? Don’t you wish a;; the Dhimmiecrats did?

Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 7/7/2007 @ 8:49 am

okay h2u, can you identify any breaches of ethics committed by john edwards in his law practice?

How about claiming to channel the spirit of a dead person during a trial?
John Edwards is a Shady Dude

While delivering his summary to the jury, Edwards said, “I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence…[Jennifer’s] inside me and she’s talking to you.”

The Judge even called him out on it.

Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being “excessive” and that it appeared “to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice,” adding that in his opinion “the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.”

If that isn’t ethically dubious, I know not what is.

H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:24 am

“some of us (doctors, engineers, scientists; ideally prosecutors, politicians, policy theorists, and journalists) work in ways that primarily seek to promote an understanding of what is factual, and true, not finding ways to obscure things to promote doubt, whether warranted or not.”

i’m with you on doctors, engineers, scientists, prosecutors and journalists. i chuckled at “politicians” (does this include the democratic politicians so frequently denounced for their lack of integrity in this space?) and as to policy theorists, well, every lobbyist is a policy theorist. is promotion of warranted doubt a bad thing? i do it all the time. you defend somebody you think is guilty in accordance with the rules: he’s allowed to get up there and tell his story if he insists, no matter how unlikely it may be, just so long as he hasn’t told you a different story beforehand: you’re not allowed to go forward with what you positively know to be perjury.

dwpittelli, your solicitude for the other clients of the hairdresser made me guffaw. you **are** aware that the haircut market is an unusually free market, that customers are free to change cutters, that there is no shortage of cutters, and that for $1250 i’ll not only cut the hair on your head, i’ll apply an electric sander to your back, butt and pubes? i get my hair cut at a j.c. penney salon, with a $3 tip to the nice young lady who does it, it’s an even $20, and i can solemnly assure you that regarding potential inconveniences to other customers on account of my appointments, i don’t give a flying fuck at the moon.

patterico, today’s paper says that fred thompson lobbied for abortion rights and went on record at the start of his 1994 senate campaign to the effect that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, before he flip-flopped, and that he is now denying that he ever did this work, and alleging that his staff may have incorrectly filled out his position questionnaire. isn’t this a meatier subject to blog about than a rich guy getting an expensive haircut?

assistant devil's advocate (442500) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:51 am

Well, since I already have a post about it, why are you asking that question?

Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:54 am

Although I don’t touch on the questionnaire aspect, specifically.

Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:54 am

h2u, there isn’t anything dubious, shady or unethical about that at all. whether channelling dead people in closing argument is a good idea or not, i take no position. the judge did **not** call him out on it, to the extent the judge attacked anything, it was the jury’s judgment in making an award the judge thought to be excessive. this happens all the time, and it does not reflect on the advocate. try complaining about this to the bar of your state sometime. objectively, edwards did a good job in that case, the jury’s findings on liability were sustained by the judge, leaving only damages to retry, most plaintiffs’ counsel recognize that as a positive increment of progress. your comments reflect a fundamental misapprehension of the role of plaintiff’s counsel.

assistant devil's advocate (442500) — 7/7/2007 @ 10:59 am

i asked the question because i wasn’t paying close attention to your front page, sorry about that.

assistant devil's advocate (442500) — 7/7/2007 @ 11:02 am

assistant devil’s advocate

Would you please take the time and respond with proper capitalization, punctuation and perhaps even the occasional carriage return? It is very difficult to ascertain your position when your writing is nearly incomprehensible.

As for your belief that I’ve a fundamental misapprehension of the role of plaintiff’s counsel, I must firmly disagree. I understand the role perfectly — but that doesn’t excuse ethically dubious behavior that most certainly has an effect on jurors.

Paranormal beliefs expressed by legal counsel should never be tolerated in a courtroom. One cannot stop a witness from saying stupid, unprovable things, but we should certainly expect legal representatives to refrain from such nonsense.

That you don’t see the problem with Edwards’ actions speaks volumes.

H2U (338ff2) — 7/7/2007 @ 12:41 pm

ada-

Thank you for your comments. Let me clarify, “ideally prosecutors, politicians, policy theorists, and journalists” was intended to mean that individuals in all of those occupations ideally (IMHO) should be seeking truth, but the reality is sometimes in doubt (more doubtful for journalists than DA’s, for example).

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/7/2007 @ 3:14 pm

Lauren: Is he dumb?
No, but he thinks the rest of us are.

Another Drew (758608) — 7/7/2007 @ 4:24 pm

isnt this just like a liberal demacrat this is just like BILL CLINTON keeping air traffic waiting at that airport for his big haircut

krazy kagu (d0aa80) — 7/8/2007 @ 11:54 am

“assistant devil’s advocate

Would you please take the time and respond with proper capitalization, punctuation and perhaps even the occasional carriage return? It is very difficult to ascertain your position when your writing is nearly incomprehensible.”

– H2U

Gimme a break. If you can’t figure out ada’s “position” from that post, well… your time would be better spent elsewhere (like the “Hooked on Phonics” website).

If you want incomprehensible, see comment #34.

Leviticus (feff7c) — 7/8/2007 @ 8:16 pm

So in ten years ask your sweet daughter why any idiot woman would spent $200 for a pair of jeans.

She’ll be singing a different tune then, bucko.

And she’ll be singing it accompanied by your plastic.

Daughters are sane until the estrogen poisoning starts. Then you lose them for a good ten years.

Been there, done that.

Big Bill (63b638) — 7/9/2007 @ 10:01 am

7/6/2007

A Conversation with My Seven-Year-Old Daughter Lauren About John Edwards’s $1250 Haircut

36 Responses to “A Conversation with My Seven-Year-Old Daughter Lauren About John Edwards’s $1250 Haircut”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out