Suitably Flip

John E'wards Transmutes Into Healing Evangelist

Not that it's a very long trip for a trial lawyer...

I'm loathe even to comment on this loathesome turn, as the underlying situation is so sad and deeply personal.  Still, this is a bit too unsavory to let pass.

John Hawkins points out this WaPo Sleuth post, which seems quizzically to laud the E'wards campaign for its fundraising shrewdness, where it seems more appropriate to condemn them for disquieting levels of opportunism.

When you visit the John Edwards for President Web site, you're invited to send a sympathy note to the Edwardses. And tens of thousands of well wishers have done so since that heart-wrenching news conference two weeks ago at which Elizabeth Edwards courageously discussed her incurable cancer.

What those well wishers get in return -- e-mail messages soliciting contributions to Edwards's campaign.

Visitors to the Edwards site who choose to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" are first taken to a heartfelt letter from the candidate that was written the day after he learned that his wife's cancer had returned. Edwards thanks readers for their "prayers and wishes," vows that he and Elizabeth will "keep a positive attitude always look for the silver lining" and declares that "our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly."

Anyone who then chooses to send a note of sympathy to the Edwardses -- and, thus, provide his or her e-mail address -- automatically becomes part of the Edwards campaign's online e-mail database, a list that is crucial to any campaign's ability to raise vast amounts of money over the Internet.

As an erstwhile candidate, I can understand Mr. E'wards' temptation.  E-mail addresses of constituents (and especially of prospective contributors) are campaign ambrosia.  Direct communication with these groups is paramount, but stamps and minutes are expensive.  E-mail is very nearly free.

And this isn't to suggest candidates ought to shy away from any issue, whether it's a personal tragedy (as with E'wards) or a national tragedy (as with Giuliani), if it bears substantively on his or her campaign, or if the discussion of such things is simply part and parcel of having a complete and forthright [I hate to use Clinton's simperingly folksy word here, but] conversation with one's prospective constituents.

But when this candidate employs his wife's health specifically to bait unwitting, web-bound well-wishers in order to fold them into his fundraising contact database, he's not only capitalizing on family hardship; he's exploiting in a very calculated way the sympathies of those who would wish Elizabeth well.

Even for a trial lawyer, that's more than a little untoward.

Comments

John E'wards Transmutes Into Healing Evangelist

Not that it's a very long trip for a trial lawyer...

I'm loathe even to comment on this loathesome turn, as the underlying situation is so sad and deeply personal.  Still, this is a bit too unsavory to let pass.

John Hawkins points out this WaPo Sleuth post, which seems quizzically to laud the E'wards campaign for its fundraising shrewdness, where it seems more appropriate to condemn them for disquieting levels of opportunism.

When you visit the John Edwards for President Web site, you're invited to send a sympathy note to the Edwardses. And tens of thousands of well wishers have done so since that heart-wrenching news conference two weeks ago at which Elizabeth Edwards courageously discussed her incurable cancer.

What those well wishers get in return -- e-mail messages soliciting contributions to Edwards's campaign.

Visitors to the Edwards site who choose to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" are first taken to a heartfelt letter from the candidate that was written the day after he learned that his wife's cancer had returned. Edwards thanks readers for their "prayers and wishes," vows that he and Elizabeth will "keep a positive attitude always look for the silver lining" and declares that "our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly."

Anyone who then chooses to send a note of sympathy to the Edwardses -- and, thus, provide his or her e-mail address -- automatically becomes part of the Edwards campaign's online e-mail database, a list that is crucial to any campaign's ability to raise vast amounts of money over the Internet.

As an erstwhile candidate, I can understand Mr. E'wards' temptation.  E-mail addresses of constituents (and especially of prospective contributors) are campaign ambrosia.  Direct communication with these groups is paramount, but stamps and minutes are expensive.  E-mail is very nearly free.

And this isn't to suggest candidates ought to shy away from any issue, whether it's a personal tragedy (as with E'wards) or a national tragedy (as with Giuliani), if it bears substantively on his or her campaign, or if the discussion of such things is simply part and parcel of having a complete and forthright [I hate to use Clinton's simperingly folksy word here, but] conversation with one's prospective constituents.

But when this candidate employs his wife's health specifically to bait unwitting, web-bound well-wishers in order to fold them into his fundraising contact database, he's not only capitalizing on family hardship; he's exploiting in a very calculated way the sympathies of those who would wish Elizabeth well.

Even for a trial lawyer, that's more than a little untoward.