Is this Heresy?
My roommate has had a crush on John Edwards for a while. She even owns a “John Edwards is hot” t-shirt. I admit that he’s better looking than Rudy or McCain, but I’ve never been into the Metro/middle-aged Frat boy look.
Tonight, I walked into my apartment and saw the current Newsweek on the table in the entry. I stopped dead in my tracks.
Thought #1: Daniel Craig looks hot on the cover of Newsweek!
Thought #2: Wait. Why is Daniel Craig on the cover of Newsweek?
Thought #3: OMG! That’s John Edwards.
Thought #4: GFTS, you just thought that a liberal looked like a major hottie. Is this allowed? Do I have to surrender my Fred 08 membership card?
Thought #5: Ewww…
When did John Edwards become Daniel Craig?!?
Maybe he paid an extra $500 for the hair cut this week. Perhaps he loosened the Savile Row suit? Whatever he did, it looks good.
Thinking that I was going crazy for admiring the looks of a liberal/socialist, I asked my roommate if she had seen it.
GFTS: Umm…have you seen the cover of Newsweek?
DC Roomie: Oh yeah.
GFTS: John Edwards looks seriously good.
DC Roomie: When I saw it, I stopped and stared.
GFTS: He has a gritty Daniel Craig thing going on.
DC Roomie: (grinning cause she also likes Daniel Craig) Yep. I was just on the phone talking about how hot he looked.
GFTS: Is it the black and white photo? The suit? What is it?
DC Roomie: I’ve been telling you for a while that John Edwards is hot.
GFTS: Clive is still better looking, but I have to admit that he doesn’t look bad on the cover.
While sorting through the shock of finding a liberal attractive, I thought about the goals of this cover.
Pro: Takes the focus off Elizabeth. Makes you remember that he’s actually running for office. Not the other way around. (Actually, I would enjoy a Fox news show that paired Ann Coulter with Elizabeth Edwards. That would be entertaining.)
Con: Rather than take the time to read the article, I suddenly feel like watching Casino Royal or Layer Cake.
Cover stories are great, but unless there’s a Huckabee-like media blitz, they really don’t change opinions. The article doesn’t mention anything new. He’s repeating the same themes that his campaign developed in 2004. He lost then, and now he’s coming in third in Iowa. His stump speeches cover the same points as this article. There aren’t any provocative details or reason for Democrats to take a second look at Edwards. Perhaps that’s why Elizabeth is the dynamic figure in his campaign. She’s crazy and obnoxious (in my opinion), but she’s saying original thoughts that don’t reflect focus group approval. Themes work when you’re winning, but if you’re consistently pulling in low poll numbers, maybe you should try something new. Newsweek sums it up nicely:
At times, irritation shows through his usually sunny exterior. A powerful, engaging speaker before large crowds, he can become prickly and defensive in private when the conversation strays from his campaign themes.
Incidentally, the only reason I read the article was to see if there were any other good pictures of Edwards in the spread. Only stock photos from the campaign trail. For the record, no heterosexual male politician should ever assume the stance on page 30-31. It reminds me of that Peter Pan guy.
