bloopers

Glenn Reynolds posted something guaranteed to catch my attention.

THERE ARE TWO AMERICAS: One with good PR skills, and one with a talent for self-destruction.

The link leads to a discussion of the apparent unraveling of John Edwards’s campaign theme, in light of a series of embarrassing revelations (of the oppo-research kind).

 Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America. But the former North Carolina senator’s populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis.

S.F. Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci cites three bloopers that create the impression (for Marinucci, at least) that Edwards’s campaign is imploding. Quoting Democratic strategist Garry South, Marinucci continues:

[South said] “[T]here’s always a danger when you’re running for public office that a pattern of behavior starts to emerge. And it might be utterly unfair to draw conclusions when things add up to a pattern — but that’s what people do, and that’s what the media does.”

 South goes on to give examples of “unwanted perceptions for politicians”:

He said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is an example of a politician whose public image was eroded by a series of headlines on his dating habits, including an admitted affair with a colleague’s wife, which paint a picture of a personal life in disarray.

Former Vice President Al Gore regularly was the subject of stories suggesting he was an exaggerator and often fudged facts; the theme became so prevalent that opponents accused him of boasting that he “invented the Internet” — a statement he never made.

And although President Bush’s polls have suffered with his handling of the Iraq war — it was the litany of missteps on everything from Hurricane Katrina to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ involvement in the firing of prosecutors that cemented an image of an administration that was incompetent, South said.

 I’ve got a few things to say about this.

First, Marinucci, twice in a single article, commits what Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus have defined—loosely and ironically—as the “three’s-a-trend” school  infraction [of journalism's misguided "rules"]. (She cited three Edwards “bloopers” and South cited three examples of campaigns unraveled by unwanted perceptions.

Second, Garry South was an adviser to Joe Lieberman in election 2004, so no doubt he’s looking at the blooper theory from a point of view known only to him.

Finally: what a load of unadulterated bullshit. Yes, PR is very important. If Edwards’s campaign sinks, it won’t be because of the petty morsels uncovered by oppo research. It will be because he’s not a good enough candidate to compete in the 2008 field.