Ah... I am back in the cold weather of Washington DC fresh from the sunny warmth of Christmas spent in South Beach Florida. On Christmas day, I was in a bikini in 84 degree bright sunshine on the beach at 14th and Ocean Drive. This year we decided to travel for Christmas with my parents, in lieu of gifts. Four days of sun and beach and warmth and food and company. It was definitely the way to spend Christmas in my book. As with all things, much of our conversation among our committed Democratic foursome turned to talk of politics and, specifically, talk about the early run-up to the 2008 Presidential election.
Edwards was a big part of the conversation, both the good and the bad. Do me the honor of following me over the fold for some analysis of the "new and improved (?)" John Edwards.
My mother in particular is a fan of Barack Obama - I can literally feel her jumping on the Obama train. We also talked about Hilary Clinton. My comment was that I felt John Edwards was a real spoiler and dark horse in the race. He's been working the key primary states these last two years since the 2004 election and he's been courting labor, refining his message, and doing particular activities to back that message up. My mother gravitates toward Obama today because of his message of hope - I pointed out that Edwards has been pushing that message since 2003. My parents supported Edwards over Kerry in the South Carolina primary in 2004. Yet both were disappointed at his tone during the actual campaign once he assumed his role as VP candidate. Their primary complaint? That he became Mary Sunshine, Cheerleader to Kerry, and lost his own identity.
Well, I think that's changed.
I want to state up-front that I really like John Edwards. I think he's a gifted orator with that rare ability to literally captivate a crowd with a speech. He's magnetic - and he's smart. I read his book and glimpsed the kind of person who has put his skills to use for those he feels have been wronged, abused by Corporations and by the system, forgotten and left behind. The fact that he also made himself wealthy in the process is the beside the point with me - the man is entitled to work hard, apply his natural talents, and be compensated for it as far as I'm concerned. What attracted me to him was his combination of a level of caring about the "common man" that seemed very genuine to me - on top of that, he seemed utterly unencumbered by any nastiness or pique that seemed to characterize other candidates.
Recently, however, I've seen three separate interviews that caused me to raise an eyebrow. The first was during the Hardball College Tour on December 12th. The second was during an interview he gave this morning on CNN's American Morning. The third was shortly thereafter during his official Presidential announcement broadcast from the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. I'll get into the specifics below - but it has left me wondering: is this the "new" John Edwards and, if so, is that a good thing?
Let me turn first to the Hardball interview. Matthews spent a full hour with Edwards on the campus of UNC Chapel Hill, asking questions of Edwards and allowing the audience to do the same. Many of the questions were substantive. There was much about Iraq policy, Iran, things of that nature. I was pleased, because one of Edwards' biggest liabilities (perceived or otherwise) is his lack of foreign policy credentials. He continues to refine his message about Iraq and the greater Middle East, offering increasingly substantive replies to specific questions about strategies and tactics to address the deplorable problems the Bush adminsitration has created. But then came this section (transcript here):
Look, you were mentioning in the first block about the president and the fact that he‘s had a hard time, he‘s gotten stuck in Iraq. And a lot of people believe—I‘m one of them—that he didn‘t prepare himself for the office well enough, he didn‘t have an instinct for foreign affairs, even a curiosity.
So I‘m going to be a little tough with you right now. OK? You ready?
J. EDWARDS: You mean, unlike usual?
MATTHEWS: When the president was running, George W. Bush, he didn‘t have any foreign affairs background and a Boston reporter named Mandy Heller (ph) asked him to name the head of government of four countries. And they were somewhat obscure countries: South Korea, Chechnya, Pakistan—I forget the other one. And he only got one right.
And that‘s what I got right at the time, too because I was—I mean, guessing that the head of South Korea‘s name is Lee is probably a pretty good bet, which is like Smith in England, you know.
So I‘m going to ask you some easy ones, I think. But they may be hard. And if you want to pass on them, you can do that.
Who‘s the prime minister of Canada?
J. EDWARDS: The prime minister of Canada is Harper, I believe.
MATTHEWS: Very good.
Who‘s the president of Mexico?
J. EDWARDS: He‘s the new president, he‘s Calderon.
MATTHEWS: Great. Great. And who is the...
J. EDWARDS: This is not—this is ridiculous. But go ahead.
MATTHEWS: No, no, no. It‘s not ridiculous. Who‘s the president of South Africa?
J. EDWARDS: I don‘t know the answer to that.
MATTHEWS: OK.
For the record, Matthews asked him a LOT of really difficult questions and Edwards really got the vast majority of them and did so confidently. The emphasis I added above to Edwards' comments particularly struck me. Had you been watching, you would have seen the annoyance on his face when he indicated that he thought it was ridiculous.
Now keep that as a placeholder in your head and let me move to today's interview on CNN's American Morning (transcript here):
O'BRIEN: You know, you talk about two Americas, it's a populist message, but you're a real rich guy. Take a look -- we have some pictures of your house you're building right near Chapel Hill, a $3 million mansion.
That image, when you juxtapose that against an effort to work with the poor -- look at it, it's a big house -- is that -- is that image a hard thing to get around for you as you try to make this appeal that you're a man of the people, of the poor people?
EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I'm glad you like my house.
A bit of context: This morning's interview, while substantially shorter (a few minutes as compared to an hour), was also content-rich. There were foreign policy questions and questions about economic policy. Edwards did a wonderful job with all of that. The part I excerpted above, however, caught my attention yet again because Edwards was visibly annoyed when he said what I've bolded. It wasn't affable. At all.
Now to my last thing, his formal announcement speech made only hours ago. I'm having to transcribe this from a video clip available on CBS.com as no printed transcript is yet available, and I'm only including the introductory part:
EDWARDS: "...It's great to see a problem and understand it - it's more important to actually take action and do something about it.
And I think that that's why I'm in New Orleans. To show what's possible when we as Americans - instead of staying home and complaining about somebody else not doing what they're supposed to, we actually take responsibility. And we take action."
There was much more of his speech but I don't have the official transcript just yet. What bothered me most was the passage above that I bolded. It puts the onus on Americans more than it does on government, imo, and has an underpinning of accusing Americans of being perpetual, slack-jawed whiners.
All right. Now I'm sure many of you are thinking "Geez RenaRF - lighten up." And you may be right. But since his Hardball interview on December 12th and following with a variety of other interviews Edwards has given, I have seen an increasing amount of small short-tempered moments. The "quiz" about world leaders may have been trite and ridiculous - but it was an hour-long interview show and he could have handled the whole thing better. Let people decide it's ridiculous - don't get snitty and declare it ridiculous. We certainly didn't think it was ridiculous when George W. Bush couldn't answer the world leaders quiz - to us, it underscored the fact that man was not experienced enough to hold the office of President (and we were right, weren't we). That alone moves the "quiz" from ridiculous to relevant.
The question about his wealth was another one - frankly, he is gifted enough to respond to that question without becoming annoyed and to further solidify his Presidential credentials in so doing. The annoyance was distracting and, I'm sorry to say, came off as somewhat petty.
Finally, I'm really disturbed by his announcement speech. Accusing Americans of being couch-potato complainers is not a wise strategy in my view. Don't get me wrong - it may in fact be true - but just as we were all offended at being labelled "Un-American" for opposing the war in Iraq, being likewise labelled as lazy complainers is probably not a good thing.
Before you flame me, let me say this: I think John Edwards has the goods. I'm unconcerned with his lack of foreign policy credentials - he is articulating ideas and solutions which will help bridge that perception gap. And, if you couple him with the right VP to address any perceived weaknesses, the issue can be worked. I think his message of hope, his off-cycle coalition building, and his experience in the heat and fire of a Presidential campaign (unlike Obama) are all enormous pluses as well. So why the edgey, slightly petty tone? I worry that this will undo him before he fully gets off the ground. I'm not ready to fully support him, but I'd like to see him have a chance at broad-based support and fear this new "tone" will impact the average American as it has impacted me - it's a turn-off.
He's doing a lot of outreach to the Netroots and I appreciate that. So I hope that if he or his staff manages to see commentary like this, he'll make the necessary tweaks to remove the negative edge that has crept into his speeches and answers of late. Lighten up, Senator Edwards - there are many degrees between Mary Sunshine and Sidney Sourpuss. You don't have to swing from one extreme to combat the perception of the other.
Just my $.02, but what do I know?