John Edwards, private and public

Charlie Pierce has a good story on John Edwards in Esquire. I’ve never been a fan of Edwards’ public persona, but it’s always seemed that the private Edwards — the father of a son killed in an accident and the husband of a wife with incurable cancer — was more impressive. Pierce’s account confirms that.

I’d still like to see someone ask John Kerry about the truth of Bob Shrum’s poisonous allegation regarding Edwards’ willingness to exploit his son’s death. Typical of the political media, Shrum has been treated like a sage, appearing on “Meet the Press” and the like without anyone challenging him on it.

A better YouTube debate

May I make a confession? I completely forgot about last night’s Democratic debate, and thus missed the two-hour exercise in YouTube-fueled citizen participation.

But I can definitely see both sides regarding the one controversy the format engendered: CNN’s decision to handpick the questions rather than let the YouTube community vote on them. The chances of campaign workers’ monkeywrenching the results were high. On the other hand, if CNN is going to pick which questions it wants the candidates to be asked, it might as well let Anderson Cooper ask the questions.

David Bernstein of the Phoenix writes that CNN “pretty much created a TV show out of the free raw video materials, not entirely unlike an episode of America’s Funniest Home Videos.” He’s right.

So here’s an idea that might work. Let CNN pick six or seven (or 10) broad categories that it wants to put to the candidates. Let the YouTube community vote on the best question in each of those categories. Questions that mention any candidate by name can be thrown out. What do you think?

Over at YouTube today, you can watch the debate, question by question, and post your own video response.

Policing the fashion police

Guy Trebay’s story in the Sunday New York Times on how the presidential candidates dress was intended as a bit of Style-section fluff. It is, unfortunately, a mess, botched both by Trebay and his editors. Consider:

  • We are told that John McCain has been made sport of for wearing a “so-called ‘gay sweater,’ a V-neck worn over a T-shirt.” Well, maybe he has, but the accompanying photo shows McCain wearing a V-neck sweater over a shirt with a collar. How gay is that? Media Nation has no idea.
  • Trebay informs us of the dangers that lurk for candidates who take their wardrobe too seriously: “They risk becoming Al Gore in earth tones, … to cite a famously lampooned misstep the former presidential candidate undertook on the advice of Naomi Wolf, then his image consultant.” Well, now. If there’s a piece of campaign mythology that’s been debunked more thoroughly than that one, I’m not aware of it. Here’s the Daily Howler on the Gore-Wolf matter.
  • Just two sentences later, Trebay writes: “They risk John Kerry’s damaging decision to turn up on television tinted the tangerine hue of a Mystic Tan.” Uh, no. That was Gore, in the first debate in 2000. [Note: See correction, below.]
  • In a reference to Hillary Clinton, Trebay writes that “National Review contributor Myrna Blyth recently characterized [her] as Hairband Hillary, the first lady whose unsteady self-image led to frequent coiffure changes and endearing wardrobe missteps.” I could find absolutely no reference to “Hairband Hillary,” either on Google or LexisNexis. But I did find this, from Blyth’s blog: “Don’t forget that, when she was First Lady, Hillary used to change the way she did her hair every 20 minutes or so. A new look for every presidential crisis, major or minor. Remember the hair band, the flip, the long-gone shoulder-sweeping curls?”

Close enough? Maybe; Trebay didn’t actually put Hairband Hillary in quotation marks. And perhaps the phrase is out there somewhere, even though I couldn’t find it. But what are we to make of the cutline? “READ MY PANTSUIT Hillary Clinton eschews power suits. Railbirds note that she has also lost her trademark hairband.” Her “trademark hairband”? I’m pretty sure Clinton hasn’t worn a headband since the 1992 campaign.

Even froth is unsatisfying when it’s riddled with errors.

And, oh yeah, what’s with the “railbird” reference?

Correction: Oh, there’s nothing I like more than having to correct an item in which I make fun of others’ errors. But it has to be done. There was something about John Kerry’s orange tan during the 2004 campaign, and I had completely forgotten it. See this. Not that it’s any excuse, but the incident was not nearly as well-known as Al Gore’s orange appearance in 2000.

Update: You will not be surprised to learn that former Globe fiction writer Mike Barnicle thoroughly screwed up the “earth tones” thing while filling in on “Hardball” last week, and that he refused to be corrected by Wolf herself. The Daily Howler reports.

Delivering the goods on Romney

I have to agree with the Outraged Liberaltoday’s installment of the Globe’s Romney series, by Brian Mooney, really delivers the goods.

Here are a couple of highlights that the O.L. doesn’t mention. First, this ought to negate any lingering belief that Romney cut taxes in Massachusetts — or even held them steady:

Data compiled by The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, shows that during Romney’s four years as governor, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income.

Next, consider what William Monahan tells Mooney. Monahan is described as having had a “long personal and political relationship” with Romney, but the governor pushed him out as chairman of the state’s Civil Service Commission because he had bought property from organized-crime figure Jerry Angiulo 23 years earlier. Mooney writes:

That night, from his lake house in Wolfeboro, N.H., Romney called Monahan, who quoted him as saying: ”Bill, my stomach is turning…. My senior staff is unanimous that I have to ask for your resignation. I don’t want to do this, but I am outvoted.”

I don’t want to do this, but I am outvoted. Absolutely amazing.

According to the Herald, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is now on Romney’s case, too.

Lenore Romney and abortion rights

Part four of the Globe’s series on Mitt Romney flatly asserts that a family tragedy led his mother, Lenore Romney, to favor abortion rights in her 1970 run for the U.S. Senate. Neil Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert write about the stance Mitt Romney took in his own Senate run in 1994:

Although he always said he was personally opposed to abortion, Romney sought to reassure Massachusetts voters of his pro-choice bona fides by citing his mother’s example. Lenore had run for the Senate on an abortion-rights platform, a stance forged by the death of her son-in-law’s teenage sister from an illegal abortion.

”My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter,” Romney declared. ”And you will not see me wavering on that.”

Note how the sentence I’ve boldfaced is constructed — as a straight declaration of fact, with no attribution. Yet that statement has come under question in the past.

In June 2005, Globe columnist Eileen McNamara reported there was little evidence to suggest that Lenore Romney, who died in 1998, had spoken out in favor of abortion rights during her unsuccessful campaign.

In response to McNamara’s column, Romney released a statement that encompassed what his mother had said at the time. Among other things, Lenore Romney said: “I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant woman [sic].”

The Globe rightly observed, “It was not clear what specific positions Lenore Romney was advocating in the statement.” And, oh yeah, the reporter was Stephanie Ebbert.

Given that the Globe is asking us to wade through some 35,000 words on Romney this week, you’d think that it could remind us there’s some disagreement over how he characterized his mother’s beliefs — especially since that disagreement plays into the criticism that Romney will say anything to advance his ambitions.

All known facts

If your heart sank this morning when you encountered part one of the Globe’s seven-day, all-known-facts package on Mitt Romney, imagine how we felt at Media Nation Central. After all, you don’t have to read it. I do. And though today’s nearly-5,000-word entry, by Neil Swidey and Michael Paulson, is surprisingly sprightly, the purpose of such presidential profiles is strictly defense: by next Saturday, if the Globe has done its job, there won’t be a single Mitt tidbit for the national media to pick up on that the Globe didn’t have first.

Online, what’s notable is how far the Globe has come since its big John Kerry special of a few years ago. I can no longer find the Kerry stuff in order to make a direct comparison, but the Romney package strikes me as far richer, with a Web-only Paulson story on young Romney’s near-fatal car accident in France, where he was a Mormon missionary; an interactive Google map of France; a Michael Kranish piece on Romney’s draft deferral; a slew of photos and documents, even one of Romney’s report cards (PDF); and several videos, including this fairly creepy look at how Romney’s appearance has changed over the years. Given this cynical foolishness, I especially enjoyed a video of Romney speaking French.

Just remember: Packages like this are meant more to be admired than read. I’ll be reading. And if find anything startling, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Megadittos on Leibovich II

Jay Garrity, the Mitt Romney aide who New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich says pulled him over and claimed to have run his license plate, is now under investigation in both Massachusetts (for allegedly impersonating a state trooper) and New Hampshire (for the Leibovich incident). Nice people you have working for you, Mitt.