"This is why WE REVILE THEM" reflections on Edwards and others M$M loves to hate:

[KoKo]

(Bolded so much ...because this was such a great read kicking MSM in the places they need to be kicked)
----------------------------------------------
b]This Is Why We Revile Them

by digby

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic defends the Edwards haircut story and condemns the undue coverage of Romney's make-up thusly:

-snip for Atlantic Monthly article trashing Dems-

Now, I am not especially surprised that the press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Many of these people probably didn't like guys like him in high school either and one thing we know about the political press corps is that they have never matured beyond the 11th grade. (See: chilean bass stupidity.) But I have to ask, once again, just who in the hell these people think they are and why they think they are allowed to pick our candidates for us based upon their own "feelings" about them? I don't recall electing them to anything. (But, hey, maybe we should just poll the kewl kidz and find out which candidate they "like, totally, like" and we can cancel the election and save a lot of time and money.)

This is exactly this kind of thing that makes people like me laugh when I get lectured by professional journalists about "objectivity" and "ethics." At least I put my political biases up front. These phonies hide behind a veil of journalistic conventions so they can exercise their psychologically stunted desire to stick it to the BMOC, or the dork or whoever these catty little gossips want to skewer for their own pleasure that day. Please, please, no more hand-wringing sanctimony from reporters about the undisciplined, unethical blogosphere. Their glass houses are lying in shards all around their feet.

Each time they've pulled this puerile nonsense in the last few years, it's resulted in a mess that's going to take even more years to unravel. And they learned nothing, apparently, since they are doing exactly the same thing in this election. If the press really wants to know why they are held in lower esteem than hitmen and health insurance claims adjusters, this is it.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Don't agree with Ambinder or your thought of hating Edwards

I don't think the media hates him. they just ignore him. why. because he ran last time and so, they are not into him. They have decided Hillary is their candidate and that is what they focus on and obsess on and talk about endlessly. They puff her up and promote her to the masses.
And so the masses elect their candidate, they dismiss people like Edwards.
Besides, Edwards, like Obama, doesn't do good sound bite policy like Clinton.
When they talk substance, it's not like we think of it. They want the empty retoric of red meat sound bite 'substance'; that Hillary does.

[KoKo]

2. You don't see a biased media but one that ignores Dem Candidates because

they might have "run before and so they are not into" them? And, when you refer to masses accepting puffed up hillary stuff...but you don't blame the M$M for taking "Talking Points" from Repug Party and their many well-funded "Think Tanks" for that? :shrug:

[iamjoy]

3. Nah, They Really Go After Edwards

They may all but be coronating Hillary, but they are generally kind to Obama. The thing is, they seem to treat Obama like the kid brother. Oh, he's so popular, but can he really beat Hillary. Although (Obama is) far more presidential in temperment, I think they are making Obama out to be this cycle's Howard Dean (although they don't actually make the comparison). The way the media wants it play out Obama will be the ex you always remember fondly...

Edwards on the other hand - it seems to have become downright visceral. He makes a speech about poverty and rather than, oh, I don't know, talking about POVERTY they only want to talk about haircuts and mansions and how Edwards is a hypocrite. They would rather focus on what he doesn't do than what he does. They would rather focus on his shortcomings than that of our nation. He'll be the one your parents threatened to disown you if you ever went out with him.

The others, they ignore. Too bad, Richardson has a brilliant resume. Kucinich has some great ideas. Dodd is a real statesman and Biden has a long history of political service, which is not really a bad thing (contrary to "popular" opinion). I don't know what to say about Gravel.

[Perry Logan]

4. Edwards is very charismatic. Wingers are allergic to charisma.