accurate description of why the msm is afraid of Edwards

[venable]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures_b_52300.html

the comments are excellent as well.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. i read that earlier there. it is sad how they treat him.

[calteacherguy]

3. No it's not. He's being treated like any other candidate.

It's Edwards own actions and lifestyle that have formed the image and provided the story.

[venable]

12. that's an easy argument, but doesn't hold up

his haircut was due to a scheduling issue, nothing to do with opulent lifestyle - the hair cutter had to leave his office, and the high rate was due to travel, about which edwards obviously knew nothing. so drop this red herring, please.

the house is big but not grand, and is less expensive (market value) than several other candidates, I'd guess - and his was paid for with years of work defending the voiceless in courtrooms, ie he earned the money. so drop this red herring, too, please.

can you believe we are even talking about this - his house and his haircut? Are you and the msm kidding?

media watchers - this is but the latest in a series by unaffiliated media critics - seem to think that the msm is afraid of edwards, believing that he is a threat to the status quo - much like the saw Dean.

why are you right and these independent media critics wrong?

[calteacherguy]

14. Geez...."the hair cutter had to leave his office."

You have got to be kidding...do you realize how lame that sounds? Please, stop. It's embarassing to see anyone trying to argue that $400 for a man's haircut isn't extravagant, and yes....interpreted by many as feminine.

It's NOT THE MEDIA!

[venable]

20. keep hammering on the haircut, it's very astute

it's not embarassing to recount the terms and logistics of the haircut...it's embarassing that one is continually forced to do so, when Edwards message is the most substantial, detailed, progressive and lucid. but that doesn't matter to some.

but, please, yes, tell me how I should be embarassed by being forced to explain the circumstances.

now, please elaborate on how feminine he is...you're in lovely company.

sheesh.

by the way - it IS the media. do you think they are covering his policies? do you think they should?

[calteacherguy]

2. The MSM is not afraid of John Edwards.

It is John Edwards actions and lifestyle that have hurt his campaign, not the media. The media simply reacts. John Edwards provided the story.

[1932]

4. That's not entirely true. His lifewstyle and actions are more humble than all but Kucinich.

but he's the only one they attack this way.

It isn't because of the lifestyle. It's because they're trying to undermine his appeal to working people the is largely due to the policies he supports.

[calteacherguy]

6. A $400 haircut is humble? What is the evidence for what you state?

Dude, people just can't relate to that, sorry.

[1932]

7. Dude, what do you think the rest of them pay for haircuts?

[calteacherguy]

8. Obama pays $15...or was it $20? nt

[Colobo]

9. $20

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. The millionaire pays $20 for haircuts?

No real tips from the Harvard Law millionaire?

[1932]

10. But he gets it cut 20 times more often.

[calteacherguy]

11. Do you have a link for that? nt

[venable]

13. good grief, have we really been reduced to this discussion. is this faux news?

[calteacherguy]

15. I was wondering when the "Is this FOX news" card was going to be played.

FOX news did not destroy the Edwards campaign. Where Edwards is at in the polls is a result of Edwards and his own actions, for better or for worse.

There is a lot to like about Edwards, but the damage that has been done he did himself.

[venable]

23. no, Fox didn't need to...it's the msm avoidance of his policies

and there is nothing the matter with calling this line of attack (the friggin haircut!!!) faux news-like. because it is.

[calteacherguy]

27. Look, the haircut is out there...I'm not attacking him for it.

I am simply stating the truth that it makes me like him less as a candidate, that's all.

I know there are others for whom the haircut doesn't make a bit of difference, and I respect their feelings and opinion, but that's not how I feel.

The haircut isn't going to go away, and my mentioning here on DU isn't going to make a bit of difference one way or the other.

[venable]

31. feels a bit like an attack, you have to admit

especially if you review your other estimations of edwards in this thread - 'tanked', 'crap', etc.

[calteacherguy]

33. Best of luck to Mr. Edwards.

Perhaps I did get a little carried away and should have worded some opinions differently.

[venable]

34. thanks, I appreciate that.

peace.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. And the Ivy Leaguer with a Harvard wife lives in a $1.6 million house and makes $1 million a year

It is amusing how he gets a free pass for his wealth simply because he doesn't even bother to mention poverty, let alone offer a plan to deal with it. Let the 37 million eat cake!

If a candidate dares to speak of the poor--like RFK did--he is supposed to take a vow of poverty. That is the standard set, sadly, in large part by Obama supporters, not to mention the corporate media.

[calteacherguy]

17. Dude...it's the $400 haircut.

Sorry, but it has made an impression in voter's minds, and it has nothing to do with the media.

To be honest, it makes an impression in my mind. I can't relate to it, and I like to be able to relate to who I elect to represent me. I can relate to Obama. Haven't decided whether I will vote for him or not, but I can relate. There are other things as well...in the last debate (after which Edwards numbers took a dive in NH) he was perceived as being more more politically manipulative and gamesplaying than a leader. People respond to that, and the response is reflected in the polls.

It even goes back to 04' with all the Son of a Millworker crap, implying he was born into poverty himself. His family, I believe, actually owned the sawmill. It's a pattern with him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Ok. Who can you relate to then?

I accept that it hurts him. I also believe the media is giving him the shaft. Let's set that aside, though. You said you want a candidate who you can relate to. Well, that begs the question: which candidates can you relate to?

[calteacherguy]

22. Good question.

I relate to Obama, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich. Hillary I have a harder time relating to, and I have no easy answer for you on that one. Perhaps I just can't relate to someone gaining such status in large part from name recognition. I can't relate to a dynasty. I can't relate to a woman getting a $1000+ haircut; it's elitist. I prefer those who pull themselves up to the Presidency by their own bootstraps, so to speak (Hillary supporters no need to argue, remember this is just my perceptions).

I can relate to Gore, and I can relate to Clark.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. How can you relate to all of them?

==I relate to Obama==

Obama is a millionaire who went to Harvard. His wife is also a Harvard Law grad. They live in a $1.6 million house. You can relate to that?

==Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich==

I don't know the details of these candidates but I do know their incomes are well into the six figures. Kucinich is cited as the "average" candidate yet even he makes over $165,000 a year. Sadly, presidential politics is reserved only for the wealthy.

==I can't relate to a woman getting a $1000+ haircut; it's elitist.==

But you can relate to a $1.6 million house owned by a Harvard grad with a Harvard grad wife who serves on corporate boards?

==Gore==

Gore? Gore's father was a senator. Gore grew up wealthy.

==Clark==

Clark is now a millionaire as well.

It seems you are singling Edwards out for special scorn. If you don't like him, fine. Why wrap it up under the pretense of him being a wealthy elitist when you excuse the wealth of others?

==I prefer those who pull themselves up to the Presidency by their own bootstraps, so to speak ==

Like John Edwards. Edwards came from a middle-class background...

[calteacherguy]

39. Good question.

All I can tell you is that all of these people I see as self-made and authentic individuals without hypocrisy. It's not about how much money a candidate makes, it's how they live their life and the example they set.

Gore for example was the son of a senator yes, but his is an authenticated self, and the global leader on global warming. It's what he's done with his early advantage in life. And he's never put a distance between himself and the people.

I don't know the details about all of the candidates either, and all this is admittedly somewhat subjective, but I will tell you this. I had a hard time relating to Kerry. He came across to me as someone who at some point in their life had put to great a distance psychically between themselves and the common man. I felt at times....and I don't know any other words for this...but Kerry was a little "full of himself."

I know Kerry is a good man, but I always felt a distance.

And as for his running mate, Mr. Edwards, I just don't see, for lack of a better term "Presidential material." I see someone saying some good things, makign some detailed plans who really WANTS to be President. Maybe wants it too much. But I don't see him up to the job, sorry.

[LBJDemocrat]

73. 100% f--king right!

I would say, at least next to Hill Gorebama, Edwards has the least opulent lifestyle and has the most tenuous links to Wall Street, which is, let's face it, why the media (property of Viacom, Disney, General Electric, Time Warner, etc.) hates him. They can't stand it that, even when he does speak to big-money contributors, he doesn't assuage their fears that he might be not be another Clinton/Reagan.

[venable]

26. are you serious? his family 'owned' the mill? do some research.

and you call his life story 'crap'? didn't i just see you write on another thread that you will never 'hate'? what is the word 'crap' when referring to someone's very accurate account of his life. smells like hate to me.

man, you are so wrong on so many fronts here - the reaction to his forceful demeanor in NH was almost universally acclaimed.

his numbers have not tanked in NH, not according to some polls. show me some pollster or analyst who has evidence that his performance hurt him. you can't.

and hang on, you actually believe his family owned the mill. wow, this is a new one. let's put it up there with the haircut.

[calteacherguy]

30. I'm not hating...

and yes, it appears I was incorrect. His father was a supervisor, but certainly not an impoverished underpaid worker as I feel Edwards campaign implicitly implied. A lot of people see Edwards as having a pattern of trying to make himself look like something he's not.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. That is a fair point. Why do the others hide their wealth BTW?

Isn't that because they are trying to make themselves look like something they are not? Obama portrays himself as an average guy, right?

Note: I am aware of Kucinich's modest home, which is an exception to the rule. Still, he makes $165,200 a year.

[venable]

37. he was born into pretty deep poverty, and they made their way up

in the course of his teen years, to something like a lower middle class life - his mom needed to keep her postal delivery route, so they weren't sitting that pretty.

[venable]

28. 'dude' - it's people talking about the haircut, like now.

would you like to discuss his policies?

or not?

do you have any insight into what he offers?

[calteacherguy]

32. No, I don't want to discuss his "policies"

I have made up my mind about his leadership capabilities. I don't select a candidate primarily on their stated policies, though it is a consideration. I look for for character and leadership traits. I respect others who make their choice primarily on what a canddiate says, and how detailed their policy is, but for me I don't feel that is the most important determinate of who would make the best leader for the Party.

As an aside, in the end it's the Congress that writes and rewrites the policy. The most important thing is to get the strongest Democratic leader in the WH who can lead, has vision, and can best handle a crises under pressure.

[zulchzulu]

76. Success in life appears to be a bad trait for a President to you

What an amusing, yet sad outlook on life you have.

[sandyd921]

72. And this is a more important issue

than health care, poverty, the environment, etc., etc.? Geesh!!! I come to DU to be in the company of people who can see through the MSM crap not people who allow their thinking to be clouded by that stupidity!

[MannyGoldstein]

25. His 28,000 Square Foot House is Mega Humble!

Casa Mother Teresa, I believe he calls it.

And he worked for a humble hedge fund, that specialized in investing in firms that made predatory loans to humble folks - you know like the folks that cut his ginomous - yet humble - lawn.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. How big was FDR's inherited mansion and estate? nt

[calteacherguy]

40. FDR was in a wheelchair.

He was a fighter; he didn't win with just his wealth.

I guess the point is it's not just about a dollar figure...the value of a house, a person's net worth. It's about the big picture, which in the end perhaps is mostly subjective. A feeling a person's integrity and how they see themselves in relation to everyone else.

Take Warren Buffet, for example....I can relate to him!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Edwards son died and his wife is likely dying of cancer. He grew up working-class

Edwards is not someone who has had a storybook life in which everything unfolds perfectly. He lost his son. What could be worse for a parent than that? Now he is likely to lose his wife. He grew up in average circumstances.

Contrast that to the starry straight-line upward life trajectory of some others. What adversity have they faced?

I recognize your point, though.

As far as FDR goes, his family ties helped him get into politics. It isn't as if he came from nowhere to become governor of NY and then prez.

[calteacherguy]

43. You make some very good points.

Look, like I said, a lot of this is subjective and I make no excuses for that. Edwards has had some hard times in his life, very hard times. As have most people. Look...I don't know what it is but maybe who someone can relate to as a candidate is like chemistry, you know? Either it's there or it's not.

And, if there is a candidate I can "relate to" the next step is what do they bring to the Presidency? What ability do they have to turn "red states" not by compromising on principles, but by opening people up to hear what they have to say....someone "they" can relate to. As I have said, for me it's more about proven leadership, sincere progressive values, vision, and crises management ability than detailed policy proposals and who gets them printed first.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. I understand your point of view

Although I disagree with you, thanks for taking the time to explain it. This is what forums are for. :hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Edwards' Father MANAGED A Textile Factory

FDR was shunned by the Democratic Party for many years as being too Liberal (in the 1920s, as today, the Democratic party swung hard to the Right). Unlike certain candidates who, say, co-sponsor a war one week then decry it the next, FDR had solid principles that he stuck to.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. FDR was a great man

But he was born into the wealthy aristocracy. Did he take a vow of poverty? Did he renounce his wealth? Obviously, that is required in order to do anything about poverty. :sarcasm:

[MannyGoldstein]

50. I Don't Think FDR Worked For A Predatory Hedge Fund

But I'll check.

I've visited FDR's summer home in Canada. Probably 3,000 square feet, holding 15+ people at a time.

[1932]

47. His father quit his job at the mill he "manaaged" because they wouldn't promote him any higher

without a college degree.

How high up can you be if you have to quit and provide the same job as an independent contractor to other companies just to make a few more dollars an hour because you hit a glass ceiling?

[MannyGoldstein]

42. A Tiny Fraction of The Size nt

[V4Edwards]

65. I must rebut

John Edwards is a self-made millionaire. A brilliant client's advocate, he made this money defending ordinary people in lawsuits against companies that produced such shoddy equipment that they permanently disfigured or killed people.

He has chosen to live in Chapel Hill, NC - a very small college town. So he set about building his and Elizabeth's dream house. I would love to live in my dream house, wouldn't you?

So maybe we all ask ourselves the question, why would he build a house such as this? As I understand it, much of the square footage is for athletic facilities. John Edwards was a very athletic young man. He also lost his first-born son at the age of 16 in a tragic car accident. He and Elizabeth were fortunate to be blessed again with a son and a daughter quite late in life. I would imagine that he wants to keep his very young children close to the family fold. He cannot go anywhere in Chapel Hill without being instantly recognized, and perhaps hounded. He probably wants to encourage his children to be athletic and the logical way is to have the facilities on his own property. And no matter whether he becomes president or not, John Edwards is becoming a world leader on the issue of domestic and world poverty. I'm sure he will host many dignitaries at his home. No, he doesn't live the way you or I live. But he is doing so much more than the other extremely wealthy candidates, many of whom will not even broach the issue. The point is, he wants EVERYONE to live the almost defunct "American Dream". And through his commitment he will work to see that every American at every income level can live the best life possible. And yes, I even include the richest Americans in this - because reduction in U.S. and world poverty is in the best interests of EVERY American, as it will produce a more literate, more vested, and less crime-prone population.

[laureloak]

77. Humble is stupid. It's putting yourself lower than others,

It stinks of mental illness.

[zulchzulu]

75. So Obama didn't come from humble beginnings?

I guess you didn't finish your homework...

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

5. The illiberal elites hate discussions of economic policy

They want election on abortion and gay marriage. That way, no matter who wins, they keep the profits.

[Cheap_Trick]

21. maybe it's just me

but i don't give a fuck what he (or any of the other candidates) spends on a haircut.

[calteacherguy]

24. No, it's not just you.

There are others who feel the same way. But for me personally...it bugs me.

[venable]

29. thank you thank you thank you n/t

[1932]

48. I only care if they're trying to create a world where there are a few people who

can afford 400 dollar haircuts and millions and millions who can't afford a 5 dollar haircut. And that's clearly not the world Edwards is trying to create.

[venable]

53. exactly. well said n/t

[zulchzulu]

49. Yea, the mainstream media is scared of Edwards...

Gimme a break...

:rofl:

[venable]

52. so funny to you, but media analysts observe it to be true

so what do you know that they don't?

maybe they have actually looked at his policies, recognized tht they propose a shift in the status quo, and want things to remain the same.

I worked as a journalist for decades, and I can assure you there is a lust for power and authority, an admiration for money, for sameness and the most banal version of 'the good life', and a program like Edwards is upsetting. As was Dean's, because he was not 'of them', ie he did not lust for the same things.

other than Kucinich and Gravel, Edwards is the only one that is not playing 'like them'

disdain edwards all you want, but you are missing the real picture, friend. by quite a long shot.

[zulchzulu]

74. Should I join the Poor Me Brigade?

Ferchrissakes, it's election time. It's time to get vetted, see if the armor works and defend yourself if you have to.

Edwards hands the mainstream media all that they need. I won't go into the litany of gimme's that are obvious here...we all know them.

To say that the mainstream media fears Edwards is absurd. They fear him? Seriously, one has to be kidding...

[tammywammy]

51. It wasn't the haircut that threw me

It was the I wanted to learn about poverty so I worked at a Hedge Fund.

[venable]

54. he didn't say that

he said he wanted to learn how the economic forces that drove globalism worked, as he was clearly dealing with some of the effects.

it may sound like a rationalization, but I can't help but believe there is at least some element of truth in it, even if it was phrased in this funny way.

as a lawyer he worked harder, dug deeper, looked where no one else looked, and became what one journal called 'the Michael Jordan of trial law'.

It is the way he works.

He is not avaricious.

[tammywammy]

55. Oh, I don't think of Edwards as avaricious

Yet, I think it's his own missteps that will do him in, not the MSM. But who knows, I could be completely wrong. :)

[venable]

56. yeah, I think it's a combination

if the msm wants to derail him (and grant that this is not a cabal or conspiracy, it's just a sensibililty, a desire for the status quo), then anything like Fortress, the house, the haircut become the devices they use to do so.

they wll do anything to avoid policy, so they create, in the editorial offices, narratives which govern the way they cover things - ie Thompson is avuncular, HRC is powerful, Obama is charismatic, Kucinich is a nut, Giiuliani is a hero, Edwards is a hypocrite.

Notice the ones with the favorable narratives are not out to shake things up.

What I'm hoping is that Obama is the stealth-shaker-upper. I haven't seen it yet, but I hold out hope.

[tammywammy]

58. Yeah, I'd rather have a shaker-upper too

Part of me wants to like Edwards, but I don't. :shrug: I didn't particularly like him in 2004 either.

[venable]

59. maybe as time goes on, the guy behind the guy will emerge

and you'll like him more.

cuz if you like shaker-uppers, you and he would be a good match.

he is really doing politics in a different way (a la Kucinich, Dean)...he is not following the classic playbook in his approach, and definitely not in his policies - like admitting point blank that in order to get the social programs needed to restore this country, it's going to cost money. No politicians ever admit this.

And Iran - he said the most remarkable thng on Russert a few months ago:

Russert: Would a President Edwards make sure that Iran never went nuclear?
Edwards: (loosely paraphrased) We don't need to make proclamations like that. There is so much more to be done diplomatically, there are also peaceful uses of nuclear technology. We want to keep an eye on it, very closely, but we want to work to the point where we don't have to be coming to a head about this if we don't have to. Let's work through diplomatic channels to resolve this without saying, right now, 'NEVER'. Such a proclamation precludes the necessary diplomacy.

This is so counter to normal political machismo. He can lead us into a new day.

[tammywammy]

61. Possibly, but I doubt it

I have my other reasons not to back Edwards, but I chose not to share them. I don't like the "my candidate is better the your candidate" flame wars. :)


At the same time, while it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards in the polls, there's not telling what's going to happen between now and February. Look at what happened with Dean.

[venable]

67. I don't think saying why Edwards is my choice is a flame war.

I thought I was pointing out what appeals to me about Edwards. That's all.

[tammywammy]

71. I didn't mean to give you that impression at all

sorry if I did.

It just seems that that tends to happen around here. :) I've enjoyed talking with you about Edwards.

[jenmito]

57. Last time around the msm LOVED Edwards...

to the point of ignoring Wesley Clark, who was doing at LEAST as well as Edwards. The msm wanted a Kerry-Edwards race and that's what they got.

[venable]

60. disagree...I think they ignored Edwards AND Clark.

Edwards got attention way, way early - 2002/early 03, as he was the fresh face of the party. He got less and less, until he got Iowa editorial endorsements just prior to the caucus - ie the last week of the campaign. Then - despite finishing second by only 3200 votes, he was dropped in favor of coverage of the scream, and then Kerry's mounting wins.

Clark got attention PRIOR to announcing, then not much at all when he was actually running.

[jenmito]

62. I disagree...

When Edwards narrowly lost to Clark in NH they all but ignored Clark. I clearly recall Clark being ignored as if he wasn't even in the race. Anyone else remember it that way?

[chimpymustgo]

63. The problem was: Clark had skipped Iowa, and staked everything on New Hampshire.

By Edwards almost beating Clark in NH, it was clear Clark did not have to Mo to make it. Kerry and Edwards did. Sorry. Clark just didn't perform.

[jenmito]

64. You're right that his mistake was skipping Iowa...

but I think you're wrong about him not performing. He BEAT Edwards in NH! Even after Edwards ran in Iowa! But even the way YOU just put it, "by Edwards ALMOST beating Clark in NH," the MSM framed it the same way and shut Clark out of the picture, when the reality is Clark BEAT Edwards in NH. He just got in the race too late.

[venable]

66. after NH everybody was ignored except Kerry

I don't think you actually disagreed with me. I said essentially the same thing. I think.

[jenmito]

68. Well, I think I disagree slightly with that...

I think the MSM was giving Edwards way more coverage than Clark even though Clark did slightly BETTER than Edwards. I think the MSM wanted a Kerry-Edwards horse race.

[venable]

69. well, we can both agree Clark was not given much attention

I noticed it then, and I'm sure for Clark supporters that was infuriating.

[jenmito]

70. OK...

I'll go with that. It sure was. :hi: :)