Was John Edwards Serious about Poverty or Rielle Hunter?

For many of us on the left side of the progressive wing of the democratic party, it was refreshing as hell to watch John Edwards pick up the gauntlet for “class” issues back in ’07. Edwards was the first mainstream candidate in a long time to speak the “C” word, that is, about class and poverty in America. Not since 1968 and ’72 had a serious candidate for president spoken on behalf of and for poor people in America. The Two America’s theme was spot on; it took Michael Harrington’s “the Other America” classic and made it relevant for the 21st century.

Now, I’m reading that Edwards may merely have been under the influence of Rielle Hunter, a Werner Ehrhard new age groupie helping this ’04 Veep wannabe to re-invent himself, and perhaps, disturbingly, also find his real self.

That’s what her webisodes were all about, getting America to learn about the real John Edwards, as if for the past several years, we had been seeing a fake john edwards (and perhaps we were), and also, it seems, the webisodes had a therapeutic effect on the candidate himself,  even helping him at 50+ years to find himself.

That’s my biggest disappointment regarding the Edwards affair. I don’t care who he shtups. none of my business. What is my business however, is the political and philosophical grounding for John Edwards’ political resurgence as a progressive lefty, someone who indeed successfully shifted the primary campaign leftward, and is probably responsible for Hillary Clinton herself morphing into a economic populist during the latter stages of the primary battle.  This guy had the potential to influence the debate in a positive direction for the next decade.

Here’s my question:   Was Edwards under the influence of careful reflection, reading and observation of the american condition, or, was this self admitted narcissist on a middle age joy-ride into eastern philosophy and idealism.

During the primary campaign I thought Edwards had been influenced by the former; with this week’s revelations, it appears i was wrong.

Case and point.  If Edwards were seriously committed to his political agenda, he would have been on air talking about his new poverty reduction movement called Half in Ten,” cutting poverty by 50 in ten years, rather than talking about his own narcissism and hubris.  “Half in ten” has just been launched and yet, there is almost nothing about it in the press.  Yes, this is a tricky moment for Edwards. Perhaps he should have postponed Half in Ten’s launch.  It is also the press’ fault. they would prefer to cover Edwards’ love life than a serious and vexing policy field.  

The point is, were Edwards the real deal, his anti poverty campaign and not his love child would be getting his attention. 

Perhaps Edwards’ anti-poverty efforts were more  about advancing his political career all along. just another cynical poll.   Given the influence Rielle Hunter apparently has had over Edwards, it appears as if “Half in Ten” is more a Werner Erhardt’s flaky 1980’s rip off, than any attempt to alter the political condition for millions of impoverished Americans.  Makes me question my own support for this guy.

This disappoints me most.


3 responses to “Was John Edwards Serious about Poverty or Rielle Hunter?

  1. Andrew Young the admitted father of the John Edwards story: The arrests for worthless checks, DWI, burglary, criminal mischief, the federal tax lien


  2. It was never about Edwards winning, it was about Hillary losing. Read on….

    John Edwards’ sex fling is news because Obama knew it to be true and still wanted him on the VP list. This is how government figures get blackmailed…of course, Edwards is already paying about $15000 in blackmail (via an associate) to keep Rielle from telling the truth to the world…you see, John is not the story, it’s about Elizabeth…Elizabeth Edwards was supposed to speak at the DNC in Denver…money was paid to suppress the scandal until after the convention…but, obviously, the National Enquirer paid better. Also, if Elizabeth knew in 2006, then why would Elizabeth subject the Democratic Party to such a risk by letting her fornicating husband run for the nomination…simple, Elizabeth did it to draw votes away from Hillary…how Elizabeth stole Hillary’s nomination is the real story.

  3. I agree with Jerry, that the real story is how Hillary got cheated. Having a conservative philosophy, I am not an Edwards, Clinton or Obama fan. But stealing is still stealing and I really feel sorry for Hillary (I never thought I would say that). She was robbed plain and simple and that was wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s