John Edwards banks on sincerity

Complicating Edwards' efforts to emerge as a tribune for the poor and the disadvantaged was his ill-advised consulting arrangement with a New York hedge fund, the Fortress Investment Group. Edwards insists he belatedly learned over the last few months through newspaper stories that Fortress had two subsidiaries involved in the subprime mortgage market.

The Des Moines Register last week ran a front-page story detailing the 107 Iowa families whose homes were foreclosed by these Fortress subsidiaries. When the original subprime stories began to emerge, Edwards severed all financial relationships with the Fortress mortgage funds and set up a small trust fund to compensate New Orleans residents who had lost their homes because of Fortress.

What lessons, I asked, did Edwards learn from involvement with Fortress? "I did what a responsible person would do," he replied, unwilling to admit error, even in retrospect. "I asked the questions on the front end." Edwards said in his defense that what he consistently heard from friends in the financial community about Fortress was: "These are good people. They're trustworthy. They're high quality. They have integrity."

As a highly successful medical malpractice trial lawyer before his 1998 election to the Senate, Edwards labors under the odd political burden of being too glib and convincing in his public appearances. There is indeed a level of practiced perfection to some of Edwards' appeals to political juries in the early primary states. When he uses the phrase "opportunity and hope," his hand always seems to rise magically as if the candidate were holding the torch of the Statue of Liberty. When he expresses his horror that millions are dying in Africa because they cannot afford $4 a day for AIDS drugs, Edwards invariably holds out four fingers.

But during a period when the Democrats are desperately searching for the magic elixir (or narrative or frame) for winning back the White House, it is odd that Edwards is belittled for his powers of in-person persuasion. While Edwards has put together a string of strong debate performances, he remains a more compelling candidate in person than he is on TV.

Elizabeth Edwards, who was campaigning in California this weekend, suggested in a phone interview that the accusations of insincerity against her husband were politically motivated. "Trying to make it [look] hypocritical and political is obviously a tactic to undermine his connection with the voters at that gut-honesty-trust level," she said. "So they make the case that if a wealthy man is talking about poverty, it has to be a political position. I don't think they made the same arguments about Bobby Kennedy ... or Franklin Roosevelt." In truth, the patrician FDR was reviled not as a hypocrite, but as a "traitor to his class."

Ever since he arrived in the Senate in 1999 as a seemingly forever-young-and-well-coifed politician on the upward trajectory toward stardom, Edwards has fostered a what's-his-hurry resentment. "He irks political professionals," says a close political and personal friend of both John and Elizabeth. "It's not so much that he didn't pay his dues. It's probably more that he doesn't pay them due deference."

Edwards' decision to accept federal matching funds accentuates these tensions with the political chattering class. (Almost all major candidates in both parties have turned down the public-financing provisions of the campaign laws because they did not want to accept limits on their total spending). Although Edwards spun his decision as motivated solely by a commitment to eliminating special-interest money from politics, the reality (confirmed by Edwards insiders) is that his campaign desperately needed the roughly $10 million in matching funds that it will receive from the federal treasury.

While Edwards -- now limited to a $50 million spending cap for the primaries -- will be significantly outspent by Obama and Clinton, the true political pain from these legal restrictions would be felt only if the former senator is the de facto Democratic nominee. His Republican counterpart (unless it is John McCain, who is expected to take matching funds) would be able to raise an unlimited amount of money until the Republican convention. But Edwards would be hamstrung by this $50 million ceiling until he formally accepted the nomination in Denver in late August.

Asked about this problem in the interview, Edwards argued, "I think it's classic Washington think ... It ignores the extraordinary free media that exists for a Democratic nominee for president." Deputy Edwards campaign manager Jonathan Prince also pointed out that in 2004 John Kerry did not face any fundraising limits, but still was upended by the Swift boat ads, which were nominally sponsored by an independent group.

But if Edwards boasts a tactical advantage in this race, even over Hillary Clinton, it is that he has run for president before. As the 2004 vice-presidential nominee put it, "I went through the 2003-2004 campaign -- particularly the general election -- surrounded by more consultants and experts than you could shake a stick at. And the person whose judgment I trust is mine. And I trust Elizabeth's too."

With three months to go before the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Edwards remains the most politically plausible alternative to Clinton and Obama. And his fate depends on voters like Jill Brewer believing what they see before them in places like a community center in New Hampshire -- a candidate who is going by his gut and who insists that ultimately what is inside his heart is what matters.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)