Politics Fray welcomes a surprise visitor.

First came the on-air confrontation with right-wing pundette Ann Coulter. Now Elizabeth Edwards personally responds in Politics Fray to John Dickerson's article alleging that a new Edwards campaign spot capitalizes upon family tragedies for political gain. (Earlier this morning, Slate verified the authenticity of this post with the Edwards campaign.)

John Dickerson needs to read my husband's book, Four Trials. In it, he will read the stories of four families uprooted by tragedy or accident who leaned, in their worst moments, on John Edwards. He was but a young man when he represented a former salesman, E.G. Sawyer, who, because a doctor prescribed an excessive amount of a pharmaceutical, was confined to a sliver of life in squalor. Without John's strength, intelligence and voice, he would have died that same way. Dickerson would not have to have read Four Trials to know the story of Valerie, whom John represented after a pump connected to a kiddie pool drain with a faulty cover sucked most of her intestines from her little body. And there are hundreds of E.G.s and Valeries over a twenty year career, hundreds of stories too hard to hear and certainly too hard to tell. But John heard them, and told them, and lived beside these families until their lives were righted. He is doing a broader version of the same work today. His Road to One America tour was high-lighting what he has seen as he has worked on poverty issues: people in need: in need of housing and health care and jobs, surely, and in need of dignity and respect, and in need of a voice. He, again, is their voice. Yes, he has faced death and disease in our family, but the measure of his strength is the fights he has -- for his entire adult life -- voluntarily taken on, not just those that fate would not permit him to avoid.

Marshall faults Mrs. Edward's interpretation of her husband's deeds in Four Trials as "misplaced hero-worship: that somehow the struggles, difficulties, and tragedies confronted by a principal, are transmitted and endured by their handsomely paid agent." For analogboy490, however, the theme of the New Hampshire ad is convincing : John Edwards' perseverance in the face of personal tragedy speaks to his ability to lead the nation in a time of crisis. By contrast, Dickey Roscombe finds it "a vague character spot that invites the viewer to impose any underlying meaning on the basically content-free praise that Mrs. Edwards is heaping upon her husband."

JerseyDave accuses Edwards of "sending out emissaries" instead of standing up for himself, while DGol seems for her part swayed by Elizabeth's intervention: "picturing this gallant, graceful, kind-hearted and intelligent woman as First Lady definitely seals the deal." hogiemo's passionate defense of the Edwards' sincerity is also a must-read.

Elizabeth Edwards responds to her various critics in this follow-up :

These were emotionally and physically exhausting trials where the fate of a family was in his hands, one case after another for nearly two decades. Was it as hard on him as it was on the families? Of course not. Was it a test of his perseverance when others might (and some other lawyers often had) withered? It was.

(And I wasn't suggesting Dickerson buy the book. I was suggesting, perhaps inartfully, that anyone who knows his life work would know that our personal obstacles were not the only "worsts" John has faced with strength.)

John Dickerson replies here . Whether a calculated buzz generator or the unscripted passion of a woman who sees her husband wrongly maligned by a hostile press, Mrs. Edwards' response ultimately earned props from her political opponents. Hermes issues a "hardy thank you" to the candidate's wife for sharing her thoughts. topazz also sends best wishes to Mrs. Edwards and her family for the long road ahead.

In an era of tightly-controlled political campaigns, there is perhaps an engrained cynicism in all of us that questions the possibility of unfiltered debate. For that reason, today's exchange brought out a fleeting sense of euphoria, as if we were seeing Internet-driven democracy in action—a direct line of contact to a public figure made possible by the unique reader-centric forum that is Slate's Fray.

Of course, politicians' wives have always played a strategic and integral role in responding to attacks. All things considered, Elizabeth Edwards might just be taking a page from Nancy Reagan's 1980 playbook .

Stay tuned for further developments in this exchange. AC … 3:26pm PDT

Seth Stevenson's appraisal of chemistry.com's advertising campaign—conceived as a riposte to eHarmony's rigorous screening policies (16% of its would-be love-seekers are rejected)—captured the attention of Fraysters on an otherwise sleepy week.

Much broo-ha-ha is made of the site's exclusionary policy against same-sex couples, which has sparked a discrimination suit. Oh, those litigious gays , is the exasperated reaction from L.N. Smithee. FBH & Co. hash out the legalities in this thread . Momboman defends eHarmony's business strategy of "market segmentation and niche marketing," (though at last count this "niche" comprises around 90% of the world's population). ruatango thinks "the refusal to accept gay clients, while perhaps economically foolish and of dubious legality" is justified by eHarmony's unique algorithm, carefully-honed to heterosexual proclivities. This formula revrick dismisses as the bogus science of love:

the alleged components have zero predicative power for how long any relationship will last nor how satisfying that relationship will be. Furthermore, all the scales and scoring methods used by eHarmony offer no guarantee that the couple will even click. But then, the whole premise of eHarmony – that love is something we approach rationally – is questionable.

What eHarmony does do quite effectively is market our delusion that, in affairs of the heart, our prefrontal cortex is in control. The truth is, our emotions reside in older, more primitive regions of the brain. What eHarmony does is get us to buy their service by flattering us. But really, what they are peddling is false advertising.

RML Returns also finds the algorithm justification dubious.

Meanwhile, in this testimonial, ljrmiller contests eHarmony's supposed selectivity: "In spite of admitting to mental illness, being seriously overweight, and NOT wanting to meet anyone, I was 'accepted' and presented with 'suitable' matches." A sarcastic topazz writes here the opening lines of her Confession of an eHarmony Reject, ridiculing its 29 dimensions of compatibility . This disgruntled former member advises the Web site to "disclose its Christian roots up front so atheists such as myself won't throw our money away." jack similarly accuses eHarmony of "disguis[ing] its real intentions--to create heterosexual, Christian couples--under the screen of a 'dating service.'"

But mchichi explains why chemistry.com's ad is ineffective and unintentionally highlights the virtues of its rival.

Take a looksie in Ad Report Card Fray and tell us what you think. AC … 6:05pm PDT

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Am I the only one wrestling with a case of the summer blahs?