How much damage to Edwards from 3H's?

[UnityDem]

First off, I an neither for nor against Edwards. My first choice is Gore (and I don't think he'll run). I will fully support our nominee, no matter who it is.
My question comes from all of the spinners on radio/tv including those who (seemingly) don't have anything against Edwards but who think he and his staff have not handled this campaign well so far.
The 3 H's that I refer to are: the large House purchase, working for the Hedge fund, and the $400 Haircut.
For those not following any of this, the conventional wisdom is that Edwards message of fighting poverty/2 America's/populism/etc. is damaged (possibly fatally) by the 3 H's.

My question for the board: Is this fair criticism of this campaign and, if so, how should his campaign move forward by addressing these subjects (or just ignore them as much as possible and hope that they fade away)?

[Gman]

1. Well, at least it's not the 3 T's

teeth, tits and tush.

[Double T]

2. Ignore this media hyped fodder and BS and get down to the really important issues.......

our failed nation needs a lot of help from a reasonable, intelligent leader.

[AndyTiedye]

4. We Cannot Ignore It

The Repiglican media can MAKE it "really important", and they will.

[UnityDem]

7. So HOW should he address it?

With humor? I think he should play off of what Huckabee said in Repub debate in the Dems next debate.
Any suggestions - play campaign manager for a moment here and give me some good lines.

[AndyTiedye]

19. The ONLY Way We Can Address it in 2008 is to Nominate AL GORE!

The Repiglican media has been utterly destroying the Democratic Party for years.
They will continue to do everything in their power to do so.

The only way is AROUND the "news" media, the way Al Gore has been doing it.

Unfortunately, that takes years to set up. None of our declared candidates can
do it in time for 2008. 2012 or 2016 maybe.

WE NEED YOU, AL GORE!

[Double T]

8. It is time to start ignoring the rethugliCON media and make THEM......

unimportant.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Sadly, a Large Proportion of Our Citizens Still BELIEVE What the TV Tells Them

[emulatorloo]

16. How Much Does Pickles Bush's Hairdo Cost? How Much Are GWB's Suits?

Why Does Karl Rove Drive A Jaguar? There is a lot for the Repiglican media to chew on their side. I will laugh in their faces.

[AndyTiedye]

17. But They're Repiglicans! It's OK for Repiglicans to Live Like Kings, but not Democrats

It sucks, but they make the rules.

[William769]

3. I don't believe any of those reasons are the cause of his not so good ratings right now.

[Missy M]

5. I don't think it's fair criticism of his campaign....

the haircut should be a non-issue, it has been way overblown. I personally don't care if he lives in a big house and I think most people think the same, he earned the money to buy it by working hard. When the story about his new house first came out I thought his house was ridiculous, but as I thought about it I felt he has the right to whatever house he wants. It's not like it's Buckingham Palace. Not sure most Americans even know what a hedge fund is. I think Edwards is very sincere about fighting poverty and having money of your own should have nothing to do with it. Who better to fight poverty than someone with money.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

6. The 3H's ... sounds so Faux News

Now Edwards 'sins' have a handy-dandy label.

btw ... 'conventional wisdom'? or just more RW talking points?

[UnityDem]

9. Some is RW talk and they

are certainly, of course, pushing it more. But, also have heard it from others such ad Gergen, Matthews, Russert.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

11. The majority of TV talking heads and MSM...

just regurgitate the RW talking points. The 'conventional wisdom' is they are corporate owned shills.

[LizW]

10. Fair criticism?

Of course not. These attacks are being pumped out 24/7 by operatives for the other campaigns.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's politics, and it's not for the weak or thin-skinned.

But for every supposedly earth-shaking revelation about Edwards, there are some very similar criticisms that could be made about any of the other candidates. Haircuts? Lets get the records and check out how much everyone spends. Homes? Lets get the tax records and see how much everyone's house cost. How do they earn their money? Is it all progressive and clean? I'm sure not.

But the big mind-boggler is when attackers say, "Well, he's vulnerable to these accusations because he presents himself as the candidate of the poor and the workers."

Well, yes. Yes, he does.

And I say to that, why the hell are the other Democrats NOT presenting themselves as the candidates of the poor and the workers????

[Clark2008]

13. In regards to Edwards, though, the problem is that he set himself

up as the "poverty candidate" and he lives extravagantly. It matters not that HRC or Obama, or Mittens or Guiliani, for that matter, pay out the nose for haircuts and houses and/or made money off hedge funds.

That's why all the fuss. The media "smells" hypocrisy.

[LizW]

27. So? He's a millionaire.

He came from a middle class upbringing and is now a self-made millionaire.

Saying he "set himself up" is just a deflection of guilt by those who seek to excuse their own behavior. You need to make it Edwards' fault that you simply must bring these things up again and again.

But let's be real for just a moment. What would you have him do? Give all his wealth away and only then run for office? Maybe he and Elizabeth should cancel their health insurance out of respect for those who have none?

It wouldn't matter, because then the smear would be that he's a hypocrite, or, more likely that he's batsh*t crazy. At this point, if he's rich, you'll attack, and if he is poor, you'll attack.

You must find things to criticize Edwards for because he's not your candidate and you don't want him to be the nominee. Fair enough. That's how the game is played. This is the big time, and you want your candidate to win. It is understandable.

It does pain me, however, to see Democrats slam a man for being the "poverty candidate". Every single one of our contenders should be "poverty candidates". We're Democrats, for Pete's sake.

In the quest to win, have we totally lost a grip on who we are?

[Rydz777]

It's unfair criticism, and it is intended to hurt him, and it does. eom

[Rydz777]

12. It's unfair criticism, and it is intended to hurt him, and it does. eom

[trayfoot]

14. Right wing talking points!

No, the criticism is not fair! Take ANY candidate for office and look at their homes, their investments, their personal grooming expenditures........you'll find that they all live on the "high end" of things. Edwards has to be criticized because he has made poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. What better way for the right wing to counter that than by calling him a hypocrite because of his lifestyle.

[UnityDem]

15. What Edwards Should Say

I do think it is hurting him.
Yes, I think it is unfair no matter who is pushing it (RW hacks, corporate media shills, or other Dem primary opponents).
I do think he needs to respond. He is basically being called a hypocrite (another H for you) and he can not let that go unchallenged.

If I was advising his campaign, I would have him make a statement like this (either in the next debate, on the stump, written statement, etc.).

"Governor Huckabee had a funny line at the last Republican debate when he talked about my expensive haircut. And, you know, that's ok. Humor is good, and Lord knows, we can all use it today. But, we also have to realize that this is a very SERIOUS campaign and there are very serious issues facing our country and the world today. Yes, me and my staff overpaid for a haircut and that won't happen again. But, what's really important is the obscene amount of money that we are spending and wasting in Iraq right now. Money that could be used to do a lot of great things in this country, etc. etc. etc."

(I think something like this would make take a lemon and make some lemonade...just my humble .02).

[Catchawave]

20. Hypocrisy is a right wing word :) n/t

[w4rma]

21. He can talk about Hillary's $1500 haircuts. (nt)

[phillysuse]

22. The MSM is aiming for Edwards

because they know he can beat any Republican out there.

They want Hillary or Obama because they know that Giuliani or Romney will beat a woman or a black man in America in 2007.

However, neither Giuliani nor Romney could beat a Southern populist who can unite labour, women, African Americans and Southern white males.

Edwards is being targetted by the media in 2008 for the same reason that the media targetted General Clark in 2004. They want to destroy whoever is the most effective Democratic candidate.

[nevergiveup]

23. I don't think the

average American gives a crap. They pretty much assume presidential candidates get expensive hair cuts and live in lavish houses and most of them probably don't know diddly squat about hedge funds. The public right now is more concerned about gas prices and whether their
insurance will cover their next medical emergency.

[skipos]

24. Go look at the general election polls. Edwards outperforms Hillary in just about all of them

So it must not be hurting him much there.

I like Edwards, but he needs to accept the fact that he will be placed under a microscope as long as he is running for President. It isn't that hard to avoid doing the things that you KNOW the media is going to jump on, and his campaign will be better for it.

[1932]

25. He hasn't dropped below third anywhere, and the endorsements roll in.

The unions still love him too.

And he hasn't lost any of his skill for convincing people that his ideas are the ideas that will solve America's problems.

I don't see how any of this will hurt him going into the early primaries.

Compare it to Bill Clinton in '92, and to Hart and Tsongas.

Gennifer Flowers didn't stop Bill from coming in third in NH and going on to win the whole thing.

H, H & H is no Gennifer Flowers. It's not Monkey Business. And it's not cancer, either.

[loyalsister]

26. Probably depends on the voter

He may have a more difficult time relating to the voters who actually live in poverty.
It creates a challenge when he claims to have made their plight a cornerstone of his campaign.

That clear disparity of lifestyle is something that may make him seem less trustworthy. I live among them and know that they want people who know their experience or at least something close to it.
From that perspective, I think that there is some fair criticism.
I don't see much ability to relate to people he claims to represent in any capacity but condescension.