“A dud of the Democratic Party,” wrote Michael Barone. “Edwards has long struck me as a phony through and through.” The Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop was even more direct: “As a trial lawyer, Edwards had ridden the frustrations of the poor to fabulous wealth. But one could never be sure that, as a politician, his populist spiel wasn't part of a plan for further self-enrichment. He seemed to love money too much.” Edwards’ affair -- a tragic and shameful thing, with a reprehensible overlay of hush money and public and private lies -- is being understood not as a sad transgression, but as proof. Proof of something much larger. Proof of what the press corps suspected all along: That Edwards' politics were not genuine. That he is a self-aggrandizing phony. It is, apparently, of a piece with his expensive haircut and garishly sprawling mansion. His "phoniness" and his "love" of money. How infidelity fits into the (confusing) claim that there’s something hypocritical, rather than admirable, about a rich politician attempting to raise taxes on himself and his class in order to better fund social services for the poor isn’t quite clear, but never mind that. There’s another truth on display here, one that has little to do with Rielle Hunter: The political establishment really, really hates John Edwards.Two years ago, I wrote a profile of Edwards for this magazine that focused on his populism. I interviewed Chuck Todd, then editor-in-chief of National Journal’s Hotline (Todd has since ascended to political director for MSNBC). Towards the end of the interview, Todd digressed into something that had been puzzling him about the establishment’s reaction to Edwards candidacy. “For some reason he’s pissed off half of DC,” said Todd. “I can’t tell you why, I don’t know. There’s no one rational reason, but there’s a not insignificant clique of elites in DC who are not Edwards fans, and who are borderline irrational about it.” IN PARTIAL DEFENSE OF JOHN -- AND ELIZABETH -- EDWARDS.
“A dud of the Democratic Party,” wrote Michael Barone. “Edwards has long struck me as a phony through and through.” The Providence Journal’s Froma Harrop was even more direct: “As a trial lawyer, Edwards had ridden the frustrations of the poor to fabulous wealth. But one could never be sure that, as a politician, his populist spiel wasn't part of a plan for further self-enrichment. He seemed to love money too much.” Edwards’ affair -- a tragic and shameful thing, with a reprehensible overlay of hush money and public and private lies -- is being understood not as a sad transgression, but as proof. Proof of something much larger. Proof of what the press corps suspected all along: That Edwards' politics were not genuine. That he is a self-aggrandizing phony. It is, apparently, of a piece with his expensive haircut and garishly sprawling mansion. His "phoniness" and his "love" of money. How infidelity fits into the (confusing) claim that there’s something hypocritical, rather than admirable, about a rich politician attempting to raise taxes on himself and his class in order to better fund social services for the poor isn’t quite clear, but never mind that. There’s another truth on display here, one that has little to do with Rielle Hunter: The political establishment really, really hates John Edwards.Two years ago, I wrote a profile of Edwards for this magazine that focused on his populism. I interviewed Chuck Todd, then editor-in-chief of National Journal’s Hotline (Todd has since ascended to political director for MSNBC). Towards the end of the interview, Todd digressed into something that had been puzzling him about the establishment’s reaction to Edwards candidacy. “For some reason he’s pissed off half of DC,” said Todd. “I can’t tell you why, I don’t know. There’s no one rational reason, but there’s a not insignificant clique of elites in DC who are not Edwards fans, and who are borderline irrational about it.” 
