As noted in this post from late 2004, a decent case can be made that former Democratic vice-presidential candidate was the difference in costing John Kerry the close 2004 Presidential election, particularly after his Benny Hinn imitation on the campaign trail.
But now as Edwards postures toward a run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008, he provided us an exhibition of hypocrisy that is brazen even by Washington, D.C. standards. On the same day that Edwards was bashing Wal-Mart on a conference call with labor leaders, an Edwards “aide” was requesting that the local Wal-Mart bump the former senator to the front of the line to get a Playstation 3 for his son. Reason’s Jeff Taylor wryly observes:
The alternative to a Democratic presidential campaign marked by a downward spiral of Pythonseque depravation one-upsmanship might actually address issues like the federal entitlement explosion or comprehensive income tax reform, two areas where Republicans have failed miserably to advance any coherent solution. Should Edwards or Hillary Clinton or someone find away to talk about these things without class-warfare cant, they’ll have a head start on the general election.
In any event, maybe the best thing for Wal-Mart to do is stop chortling and go ahead and give John Edwards a PS3 and a couple games. Throw in a flat-panel too. Maybe that way he’ll reacquaint himself with American prosperity and abundance and be a better candidate for the experience.
Is Hillary Clinton even going to have any competition for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination?
November 21 roundup
Today at AEI: Panel (and webcast) on Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court argument on carbon dioxide regulation. [AEI] Paulson to Economic Club of New York: “Legal reform is crucial to the long-term competitiveness of our…
Dear Tom,
I love the blog, and really enjoy continuing to read it, but I must raise a quibble.
First, I still take John Edwards seriously, supported him in his campaign last time, and continue to support him.
Second, didn’t the article say that Edwards said he didn’t try to buy the machine, and didn’t ask anyone to do it for him?
I really do like reading what you have here. Keep up the great work!
—Adam
Adam, thanks for the kind words.
Now, with regard to the Edwards affair, how believable is it that an aide to Edwards would, on their own, call Wal-Mart and throw Edwards’ weight around without Edwards’ consent?
And even if you accept that an aide might do the foregoing on his or her own, why is an aide to Edwards campaign arranging for Xmas presents for the Edwards’ kids in the first place?
Similarly, if you clear Edwards with regard to those two legitimate questions, what does it say about Edwards’ bashing of Wal-Mart that one of his aides is shopping there for a PS3?
Finally, even if you get past those questions, why on earth is Edwards bashing Wal-Mart rather than addressing at least a dozen far more important issues to the welfare of the underclass who Edwards suggests he wants to protect (such as health care finance reform, just to name one)?
Adam, as they say in Texas, Edwards is all hat, no cattle.
Tom,
Always happy to pay a well-deserved compliment!
As far as which issues John Edwards is talking about, I’m pretty sure that the Walmart bashing is on behalf of the health care, and the article mentions that as one of his objections.
I think Sen. Edwards gives a pretty sophisticated critique of the situation in this country that is pushing a lot of the population below what we would consider an acceptable standard of living.
I’ve known a lot of people who work for political campaigns and end up getting in trouble for doing ‘impolitic’ things. Many are not capable of description on such a reputable blog 🙂
Do you think Lee Scott buys all his kids’ presents himself? I don’t know anything about it, but would it surprise you if someone at the office does it for him?
As far as the effectiveness of the critique if a campaign volunteer is still shopping there, alls I can say is, “Oh well….”
Have a happy Thanksgiving,
—Adam
Adam, my problem with Edwards’ critique of Wal-Mart is that the company provides jobs for communities, which is the best means by which people can improve their economic lot. To criticize the company for paying “too low” wages or “inadequate” benefits misses the point. Does Edwards really believe that the communities would be better off with governmental regulations requiring higher wages and benefits, but fewer jobs? Doesn’t Edwards realize that Wal-Mart has many times the number of job applicants than it has jobs in the areas in which it opens a store?
That an Edwards rep would attempt to use Edwards’ status to muscle in on a product that Wal-Mart efficiently markets is noteworthy only because it reflects Edwards’ hyprocrisy. Edwards is really criticizing Wal-Mart so that he can curry favor with unions. That he is willing to do so at the expense of the truth about the problem that he is addressing exposes why he should not be a serious candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
I DO after tonight! Wow, what a debate. Shines a whole new light on things, and I think Edwards should be Obama’s Secretary of the Interior!
2008ElectionResults.pdf