Edwards Cashes In On Wifes Cancer

[red states rule]

Pretty Boy at his best


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q[/ame]
John Edwards' death by bangs
Published March 21, 2007


"Il n'y a pas de grand homme pour son valet-de-chambre."

(No man is a hero to his valet.)

-- Mme. A.M. Bigot de Cornuel

At least he's still got good hair.

Otherwise, it may be over for John Edwards, thanks to a resurrected video of him primping, too lovingly, his hair.

The video, set to the song "I Feel Pretty," has been airing on television, posted on YouTube and circulating on the Internet the past few days with potentially devastating effect for the man unflatteringly referred to as the "Breck Girl." It also illustrates the enormous power of YouTube in politics forevermore.

For a while, it seemed Edwards might shake the Breck brand. Recently, while responding to Ann Coulter's remark referring to him with a word we're not allowed to use, Edwards sported a studiously short-cropped, un-boyish do. His face was so frozen in gravitas that Dick Cheney sent him a bottle of champagne and a joy buzzer.

Now, thanks to the omnipresent and unforgiving YouTube -- and the incessant linkage of Web sites -- John Edwards isn't just associated with hair. He is hair.

He's also a stand-in for Narcissus, mesmerized by his own beauty reflected in the small mirror he holds up to appraise himself. I feel pretty, oh so pretty. I feel pretty and witty and . . .oh, never mind.

Anyone who has had a photograph taken or appeared on camera understands that primping precedes picture. We've all done it. Combed the hair, worn the makeup, considered the surgery.

But not all of us are running for president of the United States. Didn't Edwards know they were filming? Didn't the doo-wop dude of the Blogosphere know that the Internet crouches in wait for anyone who dares pretend to the throne?

The captured moment shows Edwards not just fixing his hair, but taking it very, very seriously. After he sweeps his bangs aside for about the tenth time -- and after the makeup artist has finished muting his shine -- Edwards takes the small powder compact from her for a final review.

Another brush of the bangs. Another. Another. He is not just interested in how he looks. He is riveted, his laser gaze so intense, you wonder: What's he looking for?

Many times lately, I've defended Edwards in private conversations, saying it's not his fault he's so cute. He was born that way. It's not his fault he looks young for his age. Lucky people do. It's not his fault that he's rich. At least it's not un-American, even if his populist "Two Americas" message rings a little faux as he builds a 28,000-square-foot monument to Ego. I mean, a house.

But vanity: Whose fault is that? Vanity belongs to one and only one -- the Self. How absorbed does a self need to be to miss the fact that a camera -- that motor-driven, soul-snatching valet to man's vanity -- is watching?

Americans are pretty forgiving of most sins. Gluttony, lust, greed. We forgive them because we're all guilty by degrees. But vanity is of another order, especially -- and perhaps unfairly -- when it comes to men.

Women get a pass for indulging their vanity, mostly because men appreciate the effort and applaud the result.

But we want men to be unaware of their attractiveness. Fairly or not, vanity is deemed unmanly.

Don't look at me. I didn't write the rules. But I do know them. Women don't trust men who spend more time in the bathroom than they do. And men don't trust men who primp.

The YouTube phenomenon has changed forever the nature and tenor of politics. What used to be inadmissible in a civil society is now forever on display. Fair play is obsolete and privacy is a memory. Whether YouTube is the ruin or salvation of democracy remains to be seen, but it's unlikely Edwards will be able to survive the tyranny of his bangs.

Or his lips. The video that couldn't get any worse got worse. At the end of the two-minute segment, Edwards licks his lips several times, moistening them, no doubt, so that he can speak freely. But the effect is disastrously reptilian. When you're running for president, evoking the image of a snake -- that quintessential merchant of vanities and biblical trickster of mortals -- is not helpful.

Symbolically, Edwards has suffered more than a bad hair day.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at [email protected].
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker21107mar21,0,3735813.column

 

[jillian]

I've been railing against her for years, yet they won't listen to me. LOL.

Seriously, I can't stand the woman, never have liked her, never read one of her books, when her face appears on the television screen I change the channel. For that matter, I don't like the neocons either. Those bastards need to start their own party. Or not, I may register with a different party this year (though I would hate to lose my ability to vote in the primary). Libertarian, maybe Independent. Is there a Republitarian party?

LOL! Fair enough. Personally, I think extremists of all kinds are dangerous. I have no patience for any of them on either side of the aisle.

Maybe there should be a party called the "normals", for normal people.

I agree about voting in the primary, though. I'd hate to lose that vote, too.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Say what you want about Ann

Thanks to the libs having a fucking stroke over what she says - she is making MORE money, doing more personal appearances, and making more speechs

Keep up they pity parties about what you libs call "hate speech"

Extremist rhetoric fuels Ann Coulter, she has positioned the left into a lose-lose situation, something that's not all that difficult to do.

But it's different for Elizabeth Edwards. When she does it, it will always hurt, she lacks the charisma and glibness of her husband, who's going absolutely nowhere in his political career in any case.

I feel pree-tee. I feel pree-tee and pre-tee and BRIIIIIIIIITe!

By the way, I think John nailed his response to the youtube video. He kept mentioning how he wanted to keep the internet unregulated and bringing it back to that point every time the interviewer asked any question.

But his wife is another matter. There was one of those massive Democrat debates earlier today, she was outside with Chrissy Matthews while he was cheerleading for the college kids pre-debate. Matthews asked her what he must have thought was an easy question: "Why is Bush favouring the Cho shooting victims over those of Hurricane Katrina?".

Her answer?:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbnH0cYHOcY[/ame]

Makes her sound like the du poster that she is.

 

[red states rule]

At least Prety Boy and his wife continue to provide great comedy material

 

[red states rule]

NRO Blog: Chris Matthews Wasn't Playing 'Hardball' With Mrs. Edwards Before Debate
Posted by Tim Graham on April 27, 2007 - 06:09.
Over at The Hillary Spot on NRO, a great spot for keeping up with the presidential campaign, Jim Geraghty found that Chris Matthews wasn't exactly playing "Hardball" before the Democratic debate. But he did imply that Bush was a little racist because he was faster to arrive on the scene at Virginia Tech than in New Orleans after Katrina. (Question to Chris: Do you think no blacks were gunned down at Virginia Tech?) Geraghty thought Matthews sounded like a DNC press aide:

Chris Matthews' first question to Elizabeth Edwards on Hardball: "What's the difference between having a Democratic President and a Republican President?"

Then, Matthews turns to the crowd of largely African-American college students behind him: "Do you folks think Hurricane Katrina was handled well?" The crowd's reaction at the University is exactly as you would expect: "NOOOOOO!!!"

"Did you notice that President Bush went to Virginia Tech almost immediately?" "YEAAHHH."

"Did you notice that President Bush didn't go to New Orleans for a while?" "YEAAAHH!"

Matthews' question to Mrs. Edwards: "Why?" Unsurprisingly she says she has no idea why.

That's "hardball"? The DNC couldn't have scripted that any better.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12352