I notice that there are (at least) four threads in the first two politics pages about Edwards house but I can not find one about the WaPo Ombudsman's truly amazing mea culpa. Howell actually admitted that Solomon had
no story when he published his concoction of innuendo and smear on the front page of her paper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601571.htmlConsidering the stuff she has refused to apologize for, this is pretty damn amazing. She would sound more contrite if it was a front page apology and if Solomon has being fired. However, then she would also have to fess up about who his accomplice was. A newbie like Solomon does not just waltz into the editor's office and demand "Gimme a big front page headline." Someone authorized that story. Wonder who in position of power at the WaPo decided to turn John "real estate deals of Democrats " Solomon loose on John Edwards?
Why is not a question. Edwards is going to enact single payer national health care, so the bloated health insurance industry hates his guts. That is all it would take to make a presidential candidate powerful enemies in this country. But there is more. He will keep the feds from capping lawsuit damages so ALL corporations hate his guts. He will force companies to stop shipping jobs to other countries. That has manufacturing in a snit. Plus, he does not have the demographics that scare the right wing base the way that Obama and Hillary do, meaning that the RNC would just as soon see him knocked out of the race early so that they can continue to portray the Democratic primary as a two man race, a Black man vs. a woman whom many NAASCAR dads love to hate.
The WaPo is not the only corporate media outlet to have tried funny journalism lately. After Edwards spoke at the Riverside Church for 20 minutes, in a speech in which he called upon the American people to become politically active and make their voices heard, the corporate press chose to reduce the message to "Edwards attacks Hillary" and they went running to her campaign for a response. Never mind that he criticized Congress and never mentioned Clinton by name or that the speech was delivered before an audience that
loves the Clintons and would never have tolerated any Hillary bashing, even implied. Never mind that Edwards spoke to CNN the next day and denied that he was referring to Clinton. The corporate media still stands by its version of the story.
Then there is the curious matter of Edward's house and Edward's speech to the Israelis. When Hillary made a speech about her impressions of Iraq and her policies on the Middle East, she got wall to wall corporate media coverage. When Edwards spoke to an Israeli group expressing solidarity with Israel and taking a hard line against Iran, the corporate media has pretended not to notice. Their silence is all the more surreal when you consider the clamour in the left wing bloggosphere ("Ohmygawd!The lefty candidate talked tough about Iran! Does that mean he isn't giving peace a chance?") and the fact the corporate media
is taking notice of the left wing bloggosphere's interest in the Edward's new house story. You following this? The MSM can not pretend that Edwards buying a new expensive house is newsworthy, but they can say that the consternation among his followers over him buying a new house is newsworthy, so THAT story is making its way into the local newspapers etc. But, I have yet to see the story about Edwards making a policy statement on Israel and Iran that took some people by surprise on CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, the WaPo or the regular newspapers. Nor has there been coverage of the left wing bloggo-sphere war even though it is much fiercer than the one over the house. Why not? A cynical mind like mine might wonder if the corporate media wants America to know that John Edwards is being called two faced for talking about helping the poor while buying a big mansion at the same time, but the corporate media would just as soon not have America know that Edwards has said that he supports Israel and will take a firm stand to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. What is the difference? Independent voters whom the GOP is courting might take offense at Edwards being a rich trial lawyer, but they might be attracted to a candidate who is a friend of Israel and is willing to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
There has been a tendency among Hillary supporters to treat Edward's misfortune as their good luck. I would suggest looking this gift horse in the mouth. The press is also playing another game. Remember
Gore is a Liar? This pales in comparison to
Hillary is a Bitch. This is the Big Lie that the Corporate Media is working on for her. The accusation that Edwards attacked Hillary at Riverside, even though the corporate press started it, can easily be twisted later and the blame can be laid at Hillary's door. The lefty bloggosphere's "robust" discussions of Edwards new house and his Israel speech can also be blamed on Hillary by savy member of the corporate press who want to label her a She-Devil who will do ANYTHING to become president. Look at the story they peddled about how she is supposed to have slimed Obama. Women in power have to be very careful not to appear cut throat, ruthless, cruel. Qualities that would be forgiven in a man as natural masculine aggressiveness or ambition (aka looking out for the financial well being of the family) are considered unacceptable in a woman (aka Mom). I saw this over and over when I was in medical practice. Women are held to a double standard, and it is going to be so easy for the press to paint Hillary as a witch unless she puts a dainty little foot down on it right now.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
