Media Gangs Up On John Edwards

[babylonsister]

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=456

Media Gangs Up On John Edwards
Filed under: General, Propaganda — Mark @ 4:39 pm

In the past couple of weeks, the press has taken a decidedly negative turn on John Edwards. The ferocity of the attacks and the diversity of their origin is curious, to say the least. Their obsession with housing and haircuts and speaking fees has become all-consuming. This media phenomenon was apparent to media critic and author Jeff Cohen who wrote:

“The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known - that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear - that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.”

Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani. Here is a sampling of the assault:

Jonah Goldberg: “ gives new meaning to the term “poverty pimp.”

USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”

Sean Hannity: “ up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that’s being waged against us.”

more...

[liberal N proud]

1. Because he makes sense and is a credible candidate

[IndianaGreen]

5. Because the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party hates Edwards' pro-labour views

Or neoliberal friends from DLC/PPI share the same goals of the neocons of PNAC fame. They only disagree in tactics and on who should profit the most (it's never the people!).

[mitchum]

12. That is the correct answer (n/t)

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Don't worry. him and my candidate will make the media eat crow on sunday.

[PresidentObama]

4. I hear ya. Edwards/Obama 08' (Or Vice Versa) n/t

[iamjoy]

7. A Matter Of Time For Obama

I hope you realize it is only a matter of time before they turn on Obama too - although, since he has been in the spotlight for a shorter time than Edwards, Obama may provide them less ammo than Edwards has on stupid stuff.

OTOH, a few weeks ago I got a nasty piece about Obama's Selma Alabama speech. So, maybe it is starting already.

I like Obama, I like him a lot. I think he would make a great President, Attorney General or Ambassador.

[Bullet1987]

3. They're trying to knock him off...

Ultimately, corporate America wants Hillary Clinton as the nomination. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you know what you're getting with her as President. You know you won't have to worry about her being too Progressive, too reformist...she'll be a nice little manager-in-chief (no offense Clinton fans...but it's the truth). You don't know what you're getting with Edwards OR Obama. This is just Edwards' turn, they'll get around to Obama soon enough. Plus he leads in Iowa and it's possible he may take more states...

I'm also trying to tell people that if Gore enters this race, the media love affair for him will be over PRONTO!! They fear Gore more than anyone else running...I think he's gone a little more to the Left over the past 7 years and they fear that. Plus, you know the media always gets uber defensive when people start pointing out their BS ways.

[badgerpup]

16. Gore seems to be cutting the ground out from under the media, though...

Anyone who has read Assault on Reason...
and there's gonna be a LOT of people who have <----(mild understatement) will look at any tricks the media try to pull on Gore and just shake their heads and say something on the order of "We know how the trick is done now, guys. We aren't impressed anymore.
You are officially PATHETIC."
:boring:

[tech3149]

6. To usurp the concept of Bartcop's rules

Any time the corporate media ignore or try to take down a candidate, they're sure to be one of the best choices to support the working man. They went after Kennedy because he was Catholic and his Dad was a bootlegger. He payed the ultimate price for trying to stand up to the power structure that runs this country. We haven't gotten very far.

[necso]

8. The establishment-elite fears anything

that even hints of populism.

And they greatly fear anyone who might give form and force to a popular movement.

The towers of the mighty are normally secure against the despised masses -- that is, until the people have leaders, fighters and engineers in their ranks.

[southerncrone]

9. Because they fear him the most

By "they" I mean both Repukes & neoliberals. Agree w/Bullet1987, CorpAmerica wants Hillary. She could make both of those groups happy....she was originally a Republican.

In their eyes, Obama still carries the "not ready for a black man" curse.

So the leading "threat" is Edwards, especially w/lead in Iowa. Stay off small planes & taxi cabs, John!

[zulchzulu]

10. You provide the bait and the sharks will come and bite

Scrutiny now is a lot better than later. The MSM is just throwing stuff up and seeing what sticks...

[smalll]

15. Exactamente -

all of Edwards' troubles come from since 2004. He knew, we all knew, he would try again this time. But what has he done since then? Get $400 haicuts, built 28,000 square-foot houses AND gone to work for hedge funds to learn about poverty. All post-2004! For a guy who started running for the White House again the moment John Kerry conceded, I'd say this shows a lack of judgement, at least.

[Egnever]

11. This poor me stuff doesnt work for me

I just read a very flatering article about Edwards in time magazine today. Crying poor me just paints a larger target on your back IMHO. It wasnt a great week for Hillary in the MSM either is it ever?

I think these guys take the easy shots you hand them, do your best not to hand them to them and move ahead.

[tavalon]

13. John Edwards is the Al Gore for this go around

The so called liberal press needs a whipping boy and they see an easy target with Edwards. Too bad, but on the other hand, he provides good cover for Al for now. But it is a shame to see such a good candidate trashed for no other reason than the media wants sport.

[karynnj]

24. I don't think the media has been that hard on Edwards

Edwards is presenting himself in 2008 as a very different canddiate than he ran on in 2004. In 2004, he was the most conservative candidate and with Gephardt the most pro-war other than Leiberman. On February 29, 2004, he claimed that Kerry could not pay for his campaign promises on healthcare, environment etc, citing a Washington Post article. This was 3 days before Kerry effectively became the nominee. (From page 205 in Paul Alexander's the Candidate. Kerry's response, "Don't believe everything you read in the papers".)

On many many things, Edwards has made huge swings. He needs to offer a narrative on why he changed. Instead, he wants people to think this is who he is - but does that mean he wasn't the fiscal conservative he told us he was in 2004? He needs to integrate they 2 images or hope people really do have short memories.

[tavalon]

14. Media huh?

Sean Hannity? Media? I think not.

[Mythsaje]

17. Nothing against Edwards...

I genuinely like what he's saying.

But WTF does anyone need a $400 haircut for? That's roughly ten times what I'd EVER consider paying for one, and over 20 times what I usually pay for one now.

Even if I was a best-selling author (someday, maybe) with a couple of movie deals in the works (I can only hope) I'd LAUGH at someone who suggested I spend that much money for a haircut.

Stuff like that baffles me.

[Inspired]

19. Well, actually...

It wasn't a $400 haircut. The stylist was asked to take time out of his day to visit John Edwards at his hotel for a haircut prior to an appearance. This was to save time, which I'm sure we can agree that most candidates don't have much of.

The $400 was the charge for the haircut, the time away from his work (where he probably would have earned $400 plus) and expenses. Should the stylist have donated his time and expenses? I can tell you that under the campaign rules you cannot donate things to a campaign without disclosing the monetary value.

The stylist sent the bill to the campaign and they paid for it. That was the mistake. Edwards has since reimbursed the campaign.

I guess it is just more entertaining to say that the actual haircut was $400.

This really isn't a big deal and the fact that it won't die down is what is truly baffling.

[retread]

25. Don't fall for this bullshit. What does the price of his haircut have to do with his

qualifications for President?

[Pithy Cherub]

27. The haircut does not matter.

What does matter is that some poor staffer made the entry and some big shot who was charged with reviewing the FEC report missed it, BEFORE the submission. It has made Edwards known for something he does not want to be known for while campaigning. Sloppy staff work. (see Clinton's misspelled Tomorrow sign from Thursday.) Staff matters and those who hire sloppy staffers, get sloppy results. It speaks to Judgment.

[retread]

32. "Speaks to Judgment." Seems harsh based on a insignificant error. I do agree

it is a problem in that it feeds into the corporate media's meme.

[MGKrebs]

34. It has almost nothing to do with his qualifications for President.

It has a lot to do with his ability to run a successful campaign, which must come first.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Y'all ain't seen nothing yet........IF Edwards truly is the candidate

that the corporate suits and their media don't want to win. I tend to doubt it. The negative press on him is not based on much.....and the stupid reporting of his house, hair and hedgefund makes Dems want to "protect" him even more.....just as this thread was started and was designed to do.

When the press starts talking about Edwards Co-sponsorship of the IWR, and exactly what did he read while he was on sitting the Intelligence committee, than you'll be talking about something. Wake me up then! :boring:

[babylonsister]

20. You have it wrong, my friend. This thread was not

started to protect Edwards; I have no idea who I'm supporting at this point. I see interesting threads, on anyone, pro or con, I'll post them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

21. I posted on this a few days ago. He is really getting hit and

its all this small, niggly, petty stuff. But it leaves a curious impression of him as a huge phony. And that can be very damaging.

I still like him. Good hair and all.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

22. Quick! The neoliberal masters are fuming!

They must destroy whichever major candidate has the most progressive/populist economic views so that our elections can once again revolve around who goes to Church more, who wears cooler cowboy boots, and who has the nicest smile.

[karynnj]

23. Every candidate who is considered to have a real shot at winning is subject to this

This is a time of the political season when every candidate has most of the partisan pundits against him (her). This year because there is reason to think that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will become president, the fighting is nastier and tougher at this point than in previous years. (1992 was also this way - but I think the intensity was less).

This line sums up what is happening, "Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani" Edwards is not being treated worse than Hillary or Obama. I know it feels like that to his supporters because I know how it felt when Kerry, who I believed in was attacked. But as that sentence shows, if he were not attacked it would likely mean no one supporting another Democrat or who wants the Republicans to win takes him seriously.

I understand the emotion behind Cohen's claim that they had a special animosity toward Edwards. Every one of these negative stories stings - especially if they touch the core of the candidate's message. So far, all these stories were based on facts. This is not swiftboating by others with an agenda. These stories are placed to question Edwards' sincerity on poverty. Some seem to create a strawman that is ridiculous when explained explicitly - that if you care about poverty in this country, you would wear a hair shirt and live in a modest dwelling and probably give all your money to charity.

I may be crazy, but I think the hoopla over the hair cut and house, both of which most Americans will see as fair may immunize Edwards from this line of attack - especially if as 2006 really showed we are fed up with swiftboating. (The hair cut was reasonably explained as the candidate needs to be well groomed and bringing the stylist to him likely gave Edwards a few hours to use productively on his campaign.) They are easy to understand and if people reject them, they may tune out to other similar charges. The Hedge fund job and the bankruptcy bill vote are the more damaging issues. Fortunately for Edwards, they are harder to understand.

In 2004, Dean and then Kerry were the only candidates that were examined with the intensity that Hillary, Obama and Edwards now will. What we will need is to demand that if they really are shown to have as little genuine baggage as Kerry and Dean that the media clearly and prominently denounces claims they cover that are proven false and hold the people originating it accountable. It is fair and important that a candidate for president's life is closely examined. They are applying for a very powerful job. The media should have done this in 2000.

[retread]

26. Not every candidate. I won't hold my breath for the intense scrutiny of Mr.

Rented Red Pickup.

[karynnj]

30. "Mr red pickup?"

I thought I read a lot - but I have no idea who you are speaking of.

[retread]

31. Here you go.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011261.php

[karynnj]

33. Thanks - I really didn't get the reference

What a phony! I hope they will give him scrutiny because he needs it - I really should have limited my comment to Democrats! If Bush had much scrutiny he wouldn't be here.

I still wonder how a guy who blew up frogs, branded younger kids at Yale, and was a mean drunk until he was 40 was cast as the nice guy you would want to have a beer with. (Bush had to have spent hours laughing - when he ran against 2 of the cleanest public servants this country has ever had.)

[retread]

36. He is STILL a mean drunk. n/t

[OHdem10]

28. Kramer, Mad Money CNBC Business and Wall ST fear Edwards

6/1/07 Kramer says Business and WS are scared to death of
Edwards. He understands Hedgefunda. Hedgefund guys especially
fear him.


The Corporate Media are doing their job-- marginalize Edwrds and
bring him down. Piling on works most often.

[zulchzulu]

38. Could you break down your points about hedge funds, Edwards and Wall St. fears

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Please illustrate...

[calteacherguy]

29. Poor Edwards. Everybody picking on him.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

35. this is nothing new and I don't know why it surprises anyone

The MSM has a long and distinguished history of hamstringing Democrats with snark.

[bamacrat]

37. The media has already chosen our candidates.

By covering really only Clinton and Obama they have made it difficult for a better candidate to emerge. Edwards or Kucinich are clearly the best candidates but because they promote change they get no air time. I dont want Clinton or Obama, but will vote for them if its them against any puke.