Emetically Edwards

Why in the world would the Washington Post participate in the rehabilitation of John Edwards? From “Hope From A Humbler Perch,” with the sub-hed, “Post-Scandal, John Edwards Finds a Quieter Purpose”:

[As] he spends his days in his family’s mansion on the outskirts of Chapel Hill, N.C., Edwards can’t help but fret about how Washington and the country are getting on in his absence. He worries about the concessions that may be made on health-care reform, which he was promoting more aggressively than anyone on the presidential campaign trail. He worries about who will speak out for the country’s neediest at a time when most attention is focused on the suddenly imperiled middle class.

Gah. All this on the section front of Style, with a glamor shot of Edwards, and with Edwards setting the terms the Post’s coverage.

In agreeing to his first extended interview since confirming the affair, Edwards refused to talk about Hunter, the baby’s paternity, his wife’s memoir or the campaign investigation. But he spoke expansively over the phone for 90 minutes about his tumultuous decade in politics, which began when, after the death of his teenaged son in a car accident, he left behind a career as a trial lawyer to run for the U.S. Senate in 1998.

Right. In agreeing to his first extended interview, Edwards refused to talk about the news or things that would make him look bad, and the Post readily agreed.

Obviously you can see why Edwards would welcome this positive coverage. His rehabilitation comes just in time for a surprise speaking appearance at the American Association for Justice’s annual convention in San Francisco! Maybe that’s the real reason the trial lawyers moved the convention from Southern California.

UPDATE (9 a.m.): Mickey Kaus declares the article, “John Edwards Father’s Day Special!” And asks, “Who was the editor who decided to call this piece ‘Hope from a Humbler Perch’ instead of, say, ‘In Defeat, Edwards Left String of Broken Promises’?

We wonder if Edwards isn’t angling for a piece of this litigation business, “Groups Say ‘New’ Carmakers Should Pay for Past Injuries.”

Leave a Reply