The Heavy Hand

The student who works for Edwards says on one hand that having his campaign headquarters outside of Washington means he's a candidate for the people; then, in almost the next breath, he says that where Edwards has his headquarters is not emblematic of anything.

Edwards didn't run for reelection here for several reasons: talking out of both sides of his mouth was one.

Sure, power is used to one's advantage and Hillary can play hard ball. My past points claimed she has to because of the position she is in now. The path she has traveled requires strong defenses and smallsteps forwards. She hasn't been a Senator for very long. Many suggest she talks but says nothing or doesn't have large ideas. I think that's in part her lowering the damage from staking out her anti-nutroot positions. Who are her Democratic enemies?Yes, she has learned a thing or two from Bush.

On another note Asians are not happy with the Hsu hunt. I think the GOP has ticked off every minority group at this point.

I used to own a home in Southern Village before moving to its fraternal twin, Meadowmont. The reporter in the piece missed the point of the Southern Village location. The Edwards headquarters is directly upstairs from a steakhouse with full bar. And an Asian restaurant with full bar. Across the square is an Italian restaurant and pizzeria with a full bar.

The same area also has a coffee shop/gelato stand, a natural foods store, a bookstore and a UPS store, all useful. Then there's the movie theater and the gym and the hairdresser.

An area about a square block in total which comes with ample free parking, coffee, pizza, Chinese and not one, not two, but three bars? That's a campaign headquarters. If only I could believe that Edwards would govern as well as he chooses campaign headquarters.

So do you thinks he/his campaign is inept or insincere?
Chris

It's discouraging to me that vehicles like youtube are being used to guerilla market ridiculous notions with tiny shreds of surface appeal but little real substance. (though i concede it's inevitable) I mean, come on, are we really supposed to factor in the locations of candidates' campaign HQ in making choices?

I happen to largely agree with Tully's typescasting that Edwards is something of an all hat no cattle phony. But even so, I'm a little worried when folks are invited to shape their opinions on candidates based on things like clothes, haircuts, cars driven, planes used, restaurants eaten at, and so on.

Not to mention the crafty addition of little virtually unverifiable stories that are shopped to drive home the typecasting. In Edwards case, I am thinking of a story I read somewhere about Edwards tryiong to win over another pol in a private moment with afake "I've never told anyone this story before but...." revelation. I don't recall the exact details, but it was pretty juicy, and if true, creepy and telling. But there was no way for an ordinary person to ascertain whether it was true or 100% fiction.

That's why I prefer to review candidates suggested policies, decide how serious I think they are, and then ask the most important question about each suggested policy:"could this actually get passed, and what would it look like after mediated into law.

I'd rather elect an insincere dink who moves the country a hair closer to what i think it should look like, than to elect someone who eats, dresses, drives and listens to the same music as me but would push the country in the way I think is wrong.

People love to think the personal day-to-day stuff is symbolic in an important way, but is it? First of all, it's a given that such stuff is being cherrypicked by partisans both fer and agin, so how much attention ought we to pay to stories claiming to illustrate that a candidate either does or doesn't love his wife, child, dog, god or country enough?

__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole