Media Out to Get Edwards

[goodhue]

Recent postings prompt me to post this commentary from a week ago . . .

Jeff Cohen: Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 05/31/2007 - 2:09pm. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Jeff Cohen

Give me a break about John Edwards' pricey haircut, mansion, lecture fees, and the rest. 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.

Is it hypocritical for the former Senator to base a presidential campaign on alleviating poverty while building himself a sprawling mansion? Perhaps. But isn't that preferable to all the millionaire candidates who neither talk about nor care about the poor? Elite media seem more comfortable with millionaire politicians who identify with their class - and half of all U.S. senators are millionaires.

* * *

You see, those other pols aren't hypocrites: They don't lecture about poverty.

* * *

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1056

[NYCGirl]

1. So all the other Democrats are being treated just peachy?

:eyes:

[goodhue]

4. no, but the author suggests the media has a special animosity toward Edwards

'Cause it bugs them when he has the audacity to talk about poverty

[NYCGirl]

5. I don't see that he's being especially singled out. NT

[goodhue]

8. Okay, so you don't see the media's rather obsessive focus on Edwards' alleged hypocrisy

I see it and like Cohen I don't find it surprising . . .

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1056

* * *

Given a national media elite that worships "free trade" and disparages Democrats for catering to "extremists" such as MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media's rather obsessive focus on Edwards' alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us.

Nor should it surprise us that we've been shown aerial pictures of Edwards' mansion in North Carolina, but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates.

Or that a snob such as Brit Hume of Fox News is chortling: "What Would Jesus Do With John Edwards' Mansion?"

Or that we've heard so much about Edwards' connection to one Wall Street firm, but relatively little about the fact that other candidates, including Democrats, are so heavily funded by Wall Street interests.

Or that Juan Williams and NPR this weekend teed off on Edwards for saying he's "so concerned about poverty" while pocketing hedge fund profits and $55,000 for a lecture at University of California, Davis. NPR emphasized that the Davis fee was for a "speech on poverty" -- but didn't mention that Davis paid other politicians the same or more for lectures. Or that Rudy Giuliani gets many times as much for speeches.

* * *

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1056

[NYCGirl]

11. All of the candidates (and non-candidates: Gore's energy use, etc.) have

taken their lumps.

[rfranklin]

2. We did very well with the blue blood FDR, thank you!

It's the nouveau riche like the Bush family that don't give a rat's ass about the rest of America.

[loyalsister]

9. There's a big difference

He spent time with common people in Georgia during his rehab.
He had to struggle to walk.

In the case of Edwards, he seems to be living a life of white priviledge while telling people he feels their pain.
I was talking to a very poor white woman yesterday who does not trust many people. She especially does not trust people who speak from an elevated removed perspective about her problems.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. What about LBJ and RFK? nt

[loyalsister]

25. okay

RFK got his empathy from being picked on. He was "the runt" his brothers piled on and picked on him. His dad didn't think much of him. While the others were groomed, he was never expected enter politics.

My understanding of LBJ is that he was one of the crudest individuals to occupy the White House. If you want to understand why working poor have voted for * read stories about the social maladaptation of LBJ.

Poor people are seperated from others not just because of money. It is because they don't have haircuts by professionals all. They buy food rather than shampoo and wash their hair with soap.
It's not always about money. Giving money is not going to change the way people look at people who live in poverty. These are the problems that people live constantly.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I think I know why.

Media removes greatest threat to Hillary, who the Media really wants as the democratic candidate because they believe they can destroy her in the general election.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. well, you can't really have it both ways

You can't make your personal life and life story part of the campaign only when it benefits you - ie, son of a millworker, my son died, I was born poor, ect ect.... and then cry foul when the media investigates your personal life and finds things that would seem to contradict what you've been saying about yourself personally.

It wouldn't be any different if say, Mike Huckabee were caught attending a church of satan meeting or something.

[goodhue]

10. What has the media found out that contradicts what Edwards has been saying?

[laureloak]

16. You can learn to read then teach others. Why not with $$$$?

[wyldwolf]

7. yeah! He has three negative books out about him... and...

... both rightwing and leftwing sources berate him every day... no... wait... that isn't Edwards.

[Cameron27]

12. lol

[BeyondGeography]

13. Not buying...he has offered plenty of grist for the mill workers

[madfloridian]

15. Well, Novak's after him today....and all the right wing blogs picking it up.

I don't have the link handy, but he slams Dean as well as Edwards. You would think Dean was running or something.

It is a hit piece on Edwards.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Robert+Novak%3A+Democratic+establishment+turning+away+from+John+Edwards&articleId=ba74f8fc-e996-4117-b912-fbca8e6e260b

[goodhue]

24. Yes, Sirota notes the Novak piece as a sign Edwards is doing something right

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/06/more_signs_edwards_is_doing_so.html

[laureloak]

17. Goal: Block the Edwards message.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Jeff Cohen makes a good argument

but I don't think the media has an exaggerated need to "get John Edwards". They have a long standing proclivity to attack ALL "Liberals" as latte drinkers who send their kids to private schools while busing working class kids to schools far away from home, who coddle criminals in courts while living in gated communities etc. Edwards is simply playing well into their preformed favorite caricature, and they are predictably taking all of the cheap shots he hands them. They also took every cheap opening John Kerry gave them also, initially mocking his choice of participatory sports (hockey and Wind surfing) rather than celebrating the fact that Kerry engaged in sports. Then when Kerry went hunting they turned around and mocked him for that. And don't cha know, John Kerry looks French!

Any rich Liberal Democrat always stands to get attacked in the media as a bleeding heart who can afford to fight for poor people because in their own life they never have to really deal with them, or suffer any meaningful negative consequences as a result of the policies they promote "on the backs of working people" blah blah blah. It is not only John Edwards, but John Edward's pattern of revealed life choices, innocent as they may be, has provided personalized ammunition to be used against him in a custom fitted version of the familiar "latte liberal" attack line.

John Edwards became an ideal target for that attack with his generation of a 4H Club cluster of non issues that none the less resonate symbolically. It is not just that John Edwards is a millionaire. These specific actions were potentially predictably self inflicted wounds given that they were initiated during the time frame of his obvious bid for the White House: The "Hair Cuts" first billed to his campaign, the massive newly built from scratch "Home", the large "Honorarium" charged to a Public University to give a speech on poverty, and the "Hedge Fund" that Edwards profited richly from, but that Edwards claims he really joined mostly so he could better understand how those problematic institutions function from the inside. Couple that with the fact that Edwards makes his empathy for the poor the cornerstone basis for his campaign, and it doesn't take a political scientist to predict the incoming Edwards was bound to receive.

So to me this is more of an issue of potential political "tin ear" rather than a matter of hypocrisy per se. Edwards will only be able to pursue his program against poverty in America if he actually gets elected. It now is guaranteed that Edwards, should he become our nominee, will get attacked as someone who projects a persona of "Do what I say, not what I do". It is baggage Edwards will have to deal with, and the Republican Party is skilled enough at pursuing hatchet jobs against Democrats that they don't need to read my post to come up with this one.

Actually I like Cohen's argument here. It is an effective come back to this type of attack, since it changes the focus onto the hypocrisy of the attacker instead of remaining on the intended victim. Put this one in our inventory for any time a rich Democrat who cares about the poor gets attacked.

[unpossibles]

20. agreed

and to say Edwards is a hypocrite for campaigning for the poor is like saying men can't campaign for the rights of women, or that white people cannot be for the rights of blacks, or that straights cannot fight for the cause of equal rights for gay people. In other words, it is incorrect.

The problem is, they play up the "everyman" image of the Republicons like Bush and Thompson, when in fact they are equally loaded and snobbish and elitist, and sometimes moreso.

I've yet to see a MSM story on Thompson's involvement with the S&L scandal which cost us taxpayers over a hundred billion dollars, but I do hear about his (rented) pickup truck. It's the new brush farm, I guess.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. And you offer a good nugget for another good counter attack here

It is along similar lines to what Cohen proposes, but with a different twist. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are two other good examples of millionaire rightists living pampered life styles who claim to speak for the "working man and woman", while acting against their interests.

[zulchzulu]

19. Media out to get (fill in the blanks) during many media cycles before 2008

It's called an election. The mainstream media is looking at the election with their obvious owners in mind. Who they attack this week should actually help see how hard the battle armor is on the campaign.

It's going to get mighty windy and cold by the time 2008 rolls around politically. Hold on to your political hats...

[OHdem10]

21. My observataions tell me we are reaching a point in

Campaigns where the Washington Media would like to
see some whitling down. If you listen carefully
and move around to different channels, the Media
believe it is inevitable that HRC is the Democratic
Candidate. There is much to back this up. The Polical
Machine, Money and most importantly, Business Interests.

They absolutely hate AL Gore and do not want him in
the race. They fear he might just hop in late.

Therefore, the faster we move to get the other candidates,
esp. EDwards and Obama, out of the way--Hilary is in
position. I think it is their thinking that if only
Hilary is there---there is no way Gore enters the race.

Too, they never cover anything really substantive in
an election, who is up who is down. They think it
is about time to start taking people down. Edwards is
first on the list.

[FrenchieCat]

23. When the MSM starts harping on the fact that Edwards was "FOR" the war

to the extreme intensity of Co-sponsoring the Blank check, and writing Op-Eds and giving speeches in support that appeared on the White House website, all the while sitting on the Intel committee but failing to read the classified NIE, praising Colin Powell for his UN Story telling, and was for the war but against how it was being fought all throughout 2004 while running for President (and suffering defeat as 2nd on the 2004 Dem ticket partially due to the point in fact that Iraq couldn't be argued as "wrong" from a principled point of view-they both voted for it)......all the way till November 2005 once the polls had turned, and now John Edwards is about intensely Anti Iraq War as they come; the other extreme......

When that happens......Then Cwall Me about media bias!

Till Then, the media is only "toying" with the deconstruction of John Edwards....

The potential as to what they are yet to do if they so choose in reference to derailing a John Edwards' candidacy is much, much more than we have yet to see.


Let's put it this way; it won't be purdy!

So to date and thus far, it's been kid's play.