BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Sunday, May 26, 2013

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement

January 10, 2010

John and Elizabeth Edwards: Psycho Mutants, or Just Political Run-of-the-Mill?


Ego Monster John Edwards NYM.jpg

Saint Elizabeth Edwards NYM.jpg

If people inside the Beltway knew the Edwards’s were phonies, and if the media and Washington’s political elite were running interference for Edwards upon, and well after the disclosure of his self-annihilating affair, the bottom line is not that John and Elizabeth are monsters. It’s that there is really no one to trust out there to slice through the “three bags full,” ten-layers of spin between the public and the steady stream of shallow, craven personalities infesting the political scene.

As I tweeted yesterday, I’ve got a problem with the comic book-style illustrations in New York Magazine’s adaptation from “Game Change,” John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s new book. If you haven’t read it by now, it will singe your fingers and steam clean your eyeballs in its likely justified, if thoroughly soap opera-style demolition of (Ego Monster) John and (Saint) Elizabeth Edwards.

Now that the couple has been exposed, however, instead of dismissing them as one-offs and demented, one-dimensional cartoon aberrations, why doesn’t NY Mag show them to us in full 3-D so we can actually look back and see how these neurotic power-trippers actually had us fooled in the first place?

John-Edwards-Jack-Bus.jpg John Jack Edwards.jpg
Elizabeth Ema Edwards 1.jpg Elizabeth Ema Edwards 2.jpg

Back in August of ‘07, I was critical of a NYT article regarding presidential candidates and how much they should or shouldn’t be dragging their kids around on the campaign trail. Specifically (because, like so many other progressives, I was taken in by the Edwards “two Americas” message), I was harping on the reporter for focusing on tensions in the Edwards family.
In hindsight, though, knowing what we apparently know now about John as well as the supposedly equally egomaniacal Elizabeth, it’s especially interesting taking another look at the NYT video piece shot on the Edwards bus. When you watch, for example, notice:

>There is no chemistry between the couple at all. He has his shoulder positioned so he effectively turns his back towards her. Also notice how robotically fawning she is toward John, as well as how attuned she remains to the reporter.

>Check out the obvious tension between Edwards and his son, Jack, especially in his warning at the table and and how he takes Jake’s wrist.

>Look how Edwards is peeved when the media pays more attention to his kids on a trampoline than to him.

>Watch how Elizabeth, in a sugary way, plays off Emma Claire as an annoyance while John gives Jack a little heave ho.

>Most telling — near chilling, actually — is John’s strained insistence that he needs his kids physically connected to him, stating how their absence is not only not good for them but, as he states emphatically three times, not good for him.

> Finally, watch how he chastises Jack in an only half-joking voice about getting too friendly with the press, saying in front of the reporter, “They’re not your friends” … with Jack, getting the last word, disagreeing with him.

The critical lesson here, however, is to avoid vilifying or pathologizing John and Elizabeth Edwards, then walking away. The point and the opportunity, instead (although lost on NY Mag), is to appreciate how much personality framing, propagated by the handlers and perpetuated by the media, makes it near impossible to see the true nature of flawed political actors across the board.

(illustrations: Nathan Fox for NY Magazine)

  • James

    Mark Halperin does not have a shred of credibility. And his source is, apparently the slimeball Mark Penn. I don’t know the Edwards’ at all, but I am loath to take Halperin at his word for anything at all. And I’m surprised that you have swallowed this story whole, and accepted the dubious framing of the video. Shame on you.

  • Norm

    Edwards did knock up this weird woman and then continue with his campaign. He not only betrayed his wife he, if he had gotten the Democratic nomination or VP position, would have been soon exposed as the adulterous hypocrite he is and the Republicans would be running things now.
    Not that I think the democrats are doing a great job, but they are slightly better than the republicans. Halperin is a republican gunslinger and all around rightwing jerk. Why he gets more respect than, say, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin is a mystery to me.

  • Karen H.

    I was wondering if this will be the first installment. Next up? Maybe McCain then Clinton. That ought to make for some interesting cartooning. It would say something if they only cartoon the Edwardses…..from the reviews on the book, it’s got some pretty sensational claims. As for Halperin’s credibility….he’s a hack and always has been, but Reid has already apologized for the remarks attributed to him in the book.
    For my part, I found the flattening of Elizabeth Edwards (and Hunter, for that matter) via cartoon objectionable, even though I don’t like either Edwards at this point.

  • tardigrade

    After reading the story- I did not SEE Elizabeth as the harpy monster the author crowned her. I saw a frustrated woman without power because of her philandering husband. JUST TRY living a normal life with a spouse bent on screwing everything that walks. The ego monster – yeah… typical. My grandfather used to say, when the little head speaks, the big one sleeps.

  • http://www.the40yearplan.com/ ken krayeske

    I thought the comics were the best part of the story, which read as too gossipy for the gravity and historical nature of the material it covered. A presidential candidate had a love child and we all failed to notice until after the first round of primaries?
    The caricatures illustrated the depravity of the situation, and it’s funny that you say you want them drawn in 3-D, because the cartoonist, Nathan Fox, sells 3-d glasses on his website for 25 cents. http://foxnathan.com/

  • Lenny

    IMHO, the illustrations were actually pretty indicative of the story that was being told in the text- that is where the complaint should be. It’s basically is a self-serving, bitter campaign staffer bitch-session given the imprimatur of a book and anonymous sources used to paint a narrative that fits into the authors narrow conventional wisdom.

  • http://www.eshop4watches.com woman

    It’s nearly every woman’s dream to wear precious