Your opinion on Edwards: fair shake or a solid burning from the media?

[Zavulon]

I just remember what the media did with one insignificant incident to bury Howard Dean, and I'm thinking of the Christopher Reeve thing here. I'm hoping for opinions from people as much or more than I do about media influence on presidential campaigns, and I can't think of a better place to turn.

I admit I'm hoping for optimism here, but I value honesty more - so if you think the media's going to hang that one thing over his head, tell me. I can take it - I think.

On edit: I'm referring to "The work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What Christopher Reeve thing are you talking about?

What does Christopher Reeve have to do with John Edwards?

The fact that I don't know what you're talking about may answer your question, though-whatever it was they aren't using it to discredit Edwards yet.

[Zavulon]

5. His quote:

"The work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

[venable]

2. What he said about stem cell research and Reeve was correct

and the way he said it was correct.

nothing to see here, but that doesn't mean Rush limbaugh won't recycle the nothing as if it was something.

[Catchawave]

24. Another out of context quote, I'm sure....

Links to the original text do help with the discussions..hint to the OP :D

Last I remember, the Reeve reference was on all the freeper blogs, too bad it showed up here too :cry:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Which One Thing

There are several to choose from.

[Zavulon]

6. "The work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will

get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

[blm]

4. I read a McClatchy article today about Edwards that quoted Allan Lichtman

the presidential historian - I was pissed as hell because Lichtman claims that Edwards LOST the debate against Cheney. There is NO WAY that any fair minded person could claim that Edwards lost that debate. Come out even, maybe to be generous to Cheney, but I would have placed Edwards a few points ahead of Cheney on that debate.

THAT is where the media hurts ANY Democrat - they are perfectly willing to lie or support uncritically any storyline pursued against a Democrat by the GOP media machine.

[Stevendsmith]

7. I couldn't agree more

The bullshit talking point that Edwards lost the debate with Cheney has become recieved wisdom. I remember watching that debate at home alone. I was literally jumping up and down with glee as Edwards hammered Cheney. I was floored (but not surprised) when idiot Chris Matthews assessed the debate as a clear victory for Cheney. Since then, the myth of Edwards losing the debate has been accepted as truth among the pundits and the intellectually flabby sheeple.

[Zavulon]

8. Therein lies my problem.

The same media that paints Cheney as having won that debate (convincingly, in many reviews) could certainly find a way to make Edwards look bad after the quote I included in the edit to my OP. The right-wing bungholes never miss a chance to take a shot at it, and the media doesn't have a great history of supporting us.

[demnan]

12. You have made a really good point

Which is why I won't condemn any of our candidates who are running.

[blm]

13. EVERY Democrat will face the gauntlet if they are perceived as a threat to the real powers.

They even face it from the establishment of their own party - look how quickly Hillary sided with Bush and scolded Kerry when she knew damn well he only dropped a pronoun in his sentence. The media is out to protect their fascist paymasters and any Republican and stray Democrat who benefits the fascist agenda.

[Zavulon]

20. Right, I should have rephrased, but what I meant was

more along the lines of "will Edwards get screwed over even by the standards of today for Democrat candidates?" Is the media more against him than others?

[blm]

21. They will focus on Edwards ONLY if he becomes a more prominent threat to

their desire for a Hillary race. That way whether the race goes to the GOP candidate or Clinton, at least they have a certain coverup team in the WH.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

>>>>>

[snowbear]

22. Democratic candidates...

(oops edit- that's for zavulon who said "

standards of today for Democrat candidates"

DemocratIC candidates! :)

[Alcibiades]

9. McClatchy stinks

We seriously need some antitrust enforcement here.

[Alcibiades]

10. "Inexperienced"

That's the one label they put on Edwards that hurts the most. What Edwards needs to do is to really spend some time talking about the fact that he isn't a lifelong professional politician, unlike wherever the Repubs will run.

[Zavulon]

11. I think they're saving that one for Obama, actually. (NT)

[Sparkly]

14. I think the media is quite supportive of Edwards. nt

[Zavulon]

15. I hope you're right but fear you aren't. I'll be happy to be wrong. (NT)

[Vinca]

16. The media has already started "disappearing" Edwards.

That's what happened in 2004. They never, ever covered his events. Today I started watching his speech on MSNBC and they cut away after a couple of minutes so I turned to CNN. They, too, cut away in less than a minute. I watched the remainder on CSPAN. We'll see what happens, but I'm betting Hillary and Obama get most of the coverage.

[Zavulon]

18. Exactly what I feared.

I don't support Hillary. I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I don't support her. Edwards is someone I could support.

Please, please, please, Vice President Gore - enter the race.

[mnhtnbb]

17. I saw CNBC really going after Edwards this a.m. in live interview

They don't seem to understand that it's possible to have money and still
be in favor of creating a country that isn't divided by haves and have nots.

I think that if the media whores get a sense that Edwards is pulling away from the pack, they'll do everything possible to sabotage him. I think the media want to see Hillary nominated, because they know she won't win--and they'll do everything possible to assure her nomination (as far as I know no progressive Dems want Hillary--yet the media keep calling her the darling who's bound to get the nomination) and then do everything possible to make sure she doesn't win.

[Zavulon]

19. My gut feel is that

the media is determined to get rid of Edwards as soon as possible. I may be paranoid, but I can't see him getting a fair shake at all - hence, this thread.

[DemDogs]

25. All he needs to do is weather the racist, sexist OB v HRC obsession

It is crazy that this black man v. white woman fight gets all the media attention and then meaningless national polls show that people think it is a 2 person fight. Edwards has stuck in leading and/or competing in all the early states. Which means that he can weather this media obsession.

[Mass]

23. If he becomes a front-runner, he will have to face the scrutiny of the media, something

he never faced in 03 because the focus was on Dean, Kerry, and Clark.

We will see how he performs, but he will burn out quickly if he cannot go further than a stump speech. I think the first major interview on MTP will be essential because Tim Russert challenges his guest, often not fairly, but always with questions that are less previsible than the average other talk-show host.

We begin to see what the media are hanging over his head:
-inexperience,
-was not a good VP nominee,
-he is no more a fresh face,
-hypocrisy (linked to his house in NC),
and quite a few others like that, that I imagine he has already prepared.