Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
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.
Trust me when I say I don’t know many millionaires. Of course I don’t know many presidential candidates either (except my friend Dennis Kucinich, whose net worth in 2004 was reported to be below $32,000.)
But I’m growing quite suspicious about the media barrage against Edwards, who got his wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations. Among “top-tier” presidential candidates, Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties and talking about workers’ rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He’s the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he’s pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit.
Given a national media elite that worships “free trade” and disparages Democrats for catering to “extremists” like 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 like 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.
You see, those other pols aren’t hypocrites: They don’t lecture about poverty.
What’s really behind the media animus toward Edwards is his “all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base” (ABC News) or his “looking for some steam from the left” (CNN).
One of the wise men of mainstream punditry, Stuart Rothenberg, said it clearest in a Roll Call column complaining of Edwards’ “class warfare message” and his “seeming insatiable desire to run to the left”; the column pointed fingers of blame at Edwards’ progressive campaign co-chair David Bonior; consultant Joe Trippi; groups like Democrats.com and Democracy for America; and a bring-our-troops-home message “imitating either Jimmy Stewart or Cindy Sheehan.”
Leave it to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly to take the mainstream current over the cliff - bellowing Tuesday that Edwards has “sold his soul to the far left… MoveOn’s running him… His support on the Internet is coming from the far left, which is telling him what to do.”
What seems to worry pundits - whether centrist or rightist - is that Edwards is leading in polls in Iowa, where the first caucuses vote next January.
Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa - “too far left” and “unelectable” with a high “unfavorable” rating - helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)
Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards’ unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger - and have more clout vis-a-vis corporate media — than during Dean’s rise and fall.
And it’s hard for mainstream pundits to paint Edwards as “unelectable.” Polls suggest he has wide appeal to non-liberals and swing voters.
After years of pontificating about how Southern white candidates are the most electable Democrats for president, it’d be ironic for even nimble Beltway pundits to flip-flop and declare that this particular white Southerner is a bad bet simply because he talks about class issues.
Jeff Cohen http://jeffcohen.org/ is a media critic, former TV pundit and author of “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.” He was communications director of the Kucinich for President Campaign in 2003, and currently consults with Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org/.
The Repubs don’t have any strong candidates, therefore they want to go up against a woman or minority because they know that neither can win the presidency. While Kucinich or Gravel are the brightest, most honest candidates out there, they don’t have broad appeal to Americans, who are largely stupid, ignorant, selfish, dishonest and self-righteous. Ron Paul is actually a Repub with integrity, so naturally he is being shunned by the bought and sold American media whores. John Edwards is not my first choice, but he sure as hell beats ‘have a latte in Bagdad’ McCain or ‘9-11 is making me rich’ Ghouliani.
His real sin is that he is willing to take on the issues that offend those in power. The corporate media made sure that Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were never seen as viable candidates for that same sin and they will do their best to make sure that happens to Edwards as well. Given a chance to vote for candidates who supporting the little guy, voters will do that, so those in power must make sure they never get that chance by manipulating the media to either make them “unelectable” or make them appear to be “unelectable.”
Though Edwards, unlike Kucinich or Gravel, is no threat to the corporate interests that run this country, he does speak to real working class issues. The ruling elite prefer to discount his credibility than to have class issues in the national conversation.
It will be very interesting to see how the MSM and regressives attempt to sabotage JE as his standing rises and Iowa draws closer. Look for extreme exaggeration of a minor event, faux-pax, etc. (the “Dean Scream”?) or other action to discredit JE.
Meanwhile JE, for all his faults, may be our best bet for 2008.
After the media savaging of Dean in ‘04, I switched my intended vote and voted for Edwards in the SC primary. Of course he’s a compromise, but as I saw it then, he was the most progressive candidate with any possibility of success. All this talk of his having run at the time as a moderate who is now tracking left has left me puzzled, except that it too is just a gimmick of the MSM. What I fear they are successfully doing is undermining his left support. I get tired of reading about Edwards’ so-called hypocrisy on *Common Dreams*; people have to keep their heads screwed on straight and not be manipulated. I was so sick when, after Iowa in ‘04, even my progressive friends started talking about being “realistic” and dropping away from Dean. And as I noted I switched my own support as I desperately wanted someone who could win; of course when elections are stolen, that doesn’t really end up mattering, does it? If the MSM tells a story, look out for its true meaning. Cohen nailed it.
We’re looking at the same corporate-interest media attacking the one who looks like he could be the most independent and the most progressive (alongside Dennis). He is also on that “TOP TIER” of “THOSE WHO COULD GET THE NOMINATION” according to conventional thought. Therefore, much more of a target than say, Dennis (who we love for being outspoken and RIGHT from the start).
Yes, I agree that this is the SAME as what they did with DEAN last time around. I only hope that enough people can recognize this in time.
I disagree that Edwards is NOT a threat to corporate interests, however, as one above believes. He is the MAIN CANDIDATE who has STOOD UP FOR UNIONS. This alone would make him a target. One of the main agendas pushed forward significantly during the past administrations has been to undermine the union power. I make this plural, because Clinton’s NAFTA certainly has to be one of the biggest victories for the corporate takeover of our now so-called democracy.
Hearing him last year during his book tour, I do think his compassion and focus on poverty is a very real concern. It hasn’t arrived for this campaign…he spoke of the two Americas a LOT during the last campaign. And, yes, the idea of a viable middle class is also not quite what the corporations now want either (read Thom Hartmann’s “Screwed”)
###
I’m keeping my Kucinich for Present sticker on my car and hope that (in the alternative) Edwards gets the nomination.
Jeff Cohen makes absolutely valid points, some of which have been in my mind these past weeks.
For one thing, I would like to see a rundown on exactly how all the other candidates, and maybe the members of Congress, got their money.
And are they all living in log cabins without running water?
And what IS the going rate for haircuts with that crowd?
-bluebird
John Edwards has the courage of his convictions to discuss issues that need to be discussed. Health care for people with low incomes who can not afford it is a fact, and needs to be addressed. Sadly, most of the talking heads on CNN and FOX are empty suits, and love to find fault with mostl all successful peole, especially successful business people who get into politicians.
Jeff Cohen makes a decent point here, but Edwards doesn’t deserve having these good points made on his behalf. Edwards is merely a formidably smooth operator who’s chosen the novel strategy of using class issues as an electoral gimmick. As one can tell by his political record, he’s not remotely a serious advocate for the working class, nor even a faintly serious critic of corporate rule.
Consider the comparison between Kucinich (for whom Cohen worked in 2004) and Edwards. (The 2 candidates are somewhat friendly with one another.) Edwards, who only 3 years ago was pro-war & pro-PATRIOT Act, is repackaging himself as a kind of watered-down Kucinich — someone who has taken the positions that DK has championed, borrowed some of the populist rhetoric, but diluted the real thrust in a way calculated to be acceptable to corporate America.
This is a balancing act: Edwards understands perfectly that the name of the game is rhetorically leaning left to pick up votes — but not so convincingly that you alienate big business. More precisely, you pretend to lean left in your speeches, but communicate clearly to business that this is all just for show during campaign season; & they should not take it too seriously.
If Edwards leans a bit too far left with the rhetoric, the business interests will certainly come down on him. That’s what Cohen is (accurately) detecting. But what he’s ignoring is that inevitably, Edwards will back off, & prove to business that he’s really their guy after all.
The media are out to get Hillary… because they love her. Anyone who routinely visits all of the far right sources know that they portray her as the mastermind villian of the left, when in reality she is just another right wing stooge.
It serves them.
The media IS the corporations and the last thing they want is a candidate who can speak to REAL America and bridge the divide between left and right by speaking out for issues of immediate, relevant concern to all. Edwards is like Chavez to the folks who protect the bastians of wealth, anesthetizing their consciences for the bloat of money aggregating upwards as they sip their cocktails at leisure clubs.
getridofbush: It’s hard to speak for what the American public would applaud IF it had viable debates and actually got to HEAR the messages of candidates beyond soundbytes, especially if the 2 choices were not laid out for them in advance, each a slight deviation on the other, both “candidates” amenable to the status quo which of course undermines the real interests (not to mention needs & future) of most Americans. With what passes for news & debate, and the precious lack of time most give to seeking alternative media so as to make informed judgments, a great many are under a hypnotic spell, which is not to be confused with what they actually think, feel and might know if given a fair chance at it… TRUTH could set some minds free. Some are beyond teachable.
Yes, the corporate media is afraid that Edwards wouldn’t be as easy to control as Clinton and Obama, so they want him out.
I don’t why there is talk here of “bridging the divide” between the left and right. I don’t want to do that; I (in the one area I have in common with the gop) adore partisan politics, and I want to crush the right, not build bridges.
Iotellity: the right happens to have some human beings IN it. The progressive stance might be one in which we believe that when confronted with truth, minds of all sorts can risk enlightenment. What good is never ending division? There ARE common interests like sustainable ecology and a better (or at least possible) future for our offspring. Many in the right have been brainwashed by false media, false religious leaders, their own parents (ignorance) and some when faced with FACTS could make a transition. Their numbers could prove helpful to stem the tide which runs against everything good about our nation, and its ultimate viability.
Just like the media assassinated Howard Dean in the 2004 campaign. Newsweek was especially egregious– harping about Dean’s “one” suit and revealing details about Dean’s personal movements (like he usually stays at the cheapest hotel in town and gets up about 5:00am to read a newspaper in the lobby)– details that are of no value to anyone except would-be actual assassins or hasslers who could use this irresponsibly reported info to do their worst.
Murdoch has revealed himself as in Hillary’s camp. All others are on his empire’s hit list.
RichM, i think you mostly hit it on the head for JE. the problem is that even if it’s just a rhetorical/political strategy (almost certainly the case), the truth of the issue of poverty & class warfare scare the hell out of a lot of people, and resonate w/a hell of a lot more people. even though JE is in the club, he still must be shut down, for the good of the little club.
Is it too much to ask to want a Democratic candidate who speaks well, has progressive values and isn’t a hypocrite? The mansion Edwards chose to build is a big deal to me - as is Gore’s. Why are politicians so stupid? With the money that each of them have, they could have built (or modified an existing building) very comfortable houses with all the energy saving and environmental features included and kept their footprint a lot lower (say 5,000 sq ft, not 28,000 sq ft). Yes of course if the choice comes down to two people one which has a modest house but is pro-war and anti-environmental regulation (e.g. someone like Bush) and the other who builds an opulent mansion but will not start illegal wars (note that Edwards doesn’t even qualify here) and will improve the environment, I’ll take the latter. But it sure doesn’t help the better candidate’s chances of winning.
An issue that I have never heard talked about in the press but is just as important as how big a mansion you live in, if not more so, is how many kids you decide to have. Here, Edwards and Gore are big failures as environmentalists and Bush and Clinton made much better choices (not that I was keen on their other choices).
I’m sure I’ll vote Kucinich again in the primary and I’m sure (unfortunately) that he won’t win the nomination. Last time I held my nose and voted Kerry/Edwards, this time I’m not sure. It depends on how bad the Republican is - if they aren’t horrendous, I may go back to the Greens who usually aren’t hypocrites.
Dara Parsavand
Edwards with Obama as his VP for the next 8 years, and then Obama for 8 more!
I see your point Dara. Edwards (and Gore) really need to put their money where their mouths are. If only because the media will be sure to point out the inconsistencies between their rhetoric and their lifestyles.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too, as they say.
Do I wish Edwards didn’t live in a mansion and get hundred dollar haircuts? Sure. Do I wish Gore also didn’t live in a mansion? Sure.
Do those facts affect my opinion of the validity of their points of view ONE IOTA? Nope.
Repudiate the message by attacking the message, not the messenger.
It is getting to the point . . . that mysterious point, where the tide turns. When the corporate media begin to stoop to showing one candidate’s mansion, but not others, and say the things they are saying to turn public opinion away from said candidate, and everyone knows the jig is up, we — the public — get a good laugh. This time, we are the silent majority and will make our voice heard at the polls. No to corporate media and yes to the candidate who bucks the sick system to represent the people’s interest. Good for John Edwards! Keep up the heat! We are behind you!
I think the truth of the matter with Edwards rests in the fact that in 2004, without Kerry, Edwards was the choice of many conservatives/republicans who were so sick of what Bush was doing to their party, and wanted him out. I’m surrounded by members of that party, and many of the ones I know personally said they’d vote for Edwards, but with him ending up VP choice for Kerry, they ended up not voting at all.
Take heart, friends. For in the words of that other Brother Cohen, Leonard:
It’s coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It’s coming from the feel
that this ain’t exactly real,
or it’s real, but it ain’t exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It’s coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don’t pretend to understand at all.
It’s coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It’s coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin’
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
It’s coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It’s here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst.
It’s here the family’s broken
and it’s here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It’s coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we’ll be making love again.
We’ll be going down so deep
the river’s going to weep,
and the mountain’s going to shout Amen!
It’s coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on …
I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene.
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sounds too good but not too late -
Edwards/Webb in ‘08
A couple of electable southern white guys who will fight for economic justice.
I’m with you, Jaded Prole. Edwards isn’t a threat, but there are so many others much more appealing to the corporates. They don’t need to take off his head, just kneecap him.
Class warfare is the elephant in the living room. It’s going on, but it’s rude to talk about it. Progressives need to talk loudly about it. I talk to store clerks about the difference between what the minimum wage provided in 1965 and today. Everyone around me nods their heads in agreement. Trouble is, no one really knows what’s going on. It’s like they woke up this morning and just found things this way. Oh well. What can you do?
The US media hs everyone in a frenzy that Chavez has refused to renew the license of a TV station that participated in the attempt to overthrow him and no one seems to notice that the US media controls the information to the US public. And these new postal fees massively increasing the mailing costs of small publications(proposed by Time-Warner) is designed to silence criticism of corporate behavior.
We need to take our country back. Please sign on to the www.nationalinitiative.us and forward it to all you know. 50,000,000 signatures and it will be the law of the land and we can legislate control over the corporations, designate how we want our taxes spent (education, health care, addressing global warming forinstance), pass publicly financed election campaign laws. Lots of good stuff those weasels in Congress are pretending to “look at”.
Are they out to get Edwards? Of course they’re out to get Edwards. Its an election, remember? The more viable the candidate the more he must be torn down. What country do you think this is, anyway, America?
Given that America’s mess is due to foreign policy failures, don’t you want someone who doesn’t parrot what AIPAC and the neocons say. Example, Edwards on Iran: “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,”
That means using tactical nuclear weapons on a country that doesn’t have them. As Mike Gravel said, “Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?”
How is Edwards different than that trangulating fraud-monger Clinton and that weakling Obama? The fact is all three of them support and believe in American hegemony and militarism.
Give it up folks, the Dems are never going to be your progressive heroes.
Duh! Edwards is daring to talk even a little bit about working Americans and the issues we all face in our lives. Of course the corporate media is out to get him. Duh!
Let them have a gander at the Vatican alongside Edward’s mansion and then turn up their rhetoric.
John Edwards is unpopular with the corporate media because he was the first of the top tier candidates to announce that he would roll back Bush’s tax cuts. That means Brian Williams, who makes 10 million dollars per year, will be paying higher taxes. Katie Couric might have to pay more taxes.
It’s hilarious. Rich pundits in the media accuse rich politicians of being hypocrites for showing concern for the poor, but try getting elected if you’re not rich.
2nd Try! As though to prove my point about the ubiquitous censorship that permeates every form of media, this post, below, vanished shortly after it appeared:
Can a “Faggot” With A $400. haircut– break the media taboo that punishes intrepid public figures for challenging the 90’s surreptitious hard right juggernaut? It IS a bummer watching the PTB (powers that be) trash Edwards over petty, disingenuous trifles every chance they get and how the Conservative Media (republican AND! democrat) & the journalist shills who work for them are all about sly snickers at the mere mention of Bill Clinton, the Benedict Arnold of the Democratic party and yeah, they’ve gotta be having a good time with Hill & Bill’s ubiquitous assault on the people’s intelligence–. Clinton,knew what he was getting ready to do to the people would require disabling the free press (Telecommunications Act, 1996) and the massive reforms he enacted were/are a totalitarian paradise, perfect for Bush.
This is probably a dumb question but shouldn’t it be a concern to anyone who enjoys our (”wanna be?”) democratic system that public speakers trying to address, let alone expose the Clinton right wing reforms of the 90’s are peremptorily silenced or shut down? I mean, documents were confiscated from the Nat’l Archives, intimidation, bullying, censorship, disingenuous strategy and raw power utilized in all forms of media (including the internet), but all the King’s horses won’t get to rewrite history according to –Clinton’s “My Life” (his autobiography).
I mean, is it just an accident the donkey represents our party?
I think Jeff Cohen has more than a little something here. It really _feels_ to me like the press has already decided that it will be EITHER Obama OR Hillary. And I echo the late Molly Ivins in one of her last essays; please don’t make me have to decide about voting for Hillary.
I think John Edwards does make people uncomfortable talking about poverty. And while there is nothing wrong with wealth, there is a lot wrong with so few people having so much while so many have virtually nothing in a land of plenty.
Why don’t they talk about the real and obvious wealth of the other candidates?
Well, I am saddened that we will never see Dennis Kucinich in a serious run for the presidency. And while that may be in large part to his ideology, it is in no small part due to his lack of deep, deep pockets. And like Molly Ivins also said, until we get campaign financing regulations that level the paying and playing field, we will choose our candidates from among rich men.
And the interests of the rich will be disproportionately represented.
Pharma owns the airwaves. They aren’t about to let someone who would contest that ownership be seen or heard in any detail.
Seed: thank you for sharing the poem lyrics. That’s a REALLY good and apt one!
It seems if you are born to wealth your concern for the underdog is admirable and you are not a hypocrit. For example JFK’s and FDR’s wealth didn’t have the press calling them hypocrits. They were seen as champions of the working class and bigger men because they saw beyond their class. Why is Edwards wealth used diffently now by the press?
NYT 2/4/07 “Edwards…will not be able to fall back on the top-tier institutional and financial support that will rescue Mrs. Clinton if she should stumble in the early states when Mr. Edwards appears strongest..,” Podesta says Mr. Edwards will have touble overcoming Mrs. Clinton’s broad and deep support.” Is this support with real voters or the financial elites who will cushion her and ensure that she comes up with the nomination?
HERE is a blast from the past-back in 1972,the media painted sen.george mcgovern,the dem nominee for pres as some sort of hippie’s hippie,while presenting the dark,brooding republican standard bearer,dick nixon as the mainstream candidate.space does not permit me to demonstrate what a side-splitting absurdity that was.like casey stengel might say,-look it up.the media has been at this for a long time.how’d y’all enjoy that beer we had with dubya? good,ain’t it? when i start falling for that hedge fund crap,i just imagine the guys behind the scenes laughing their asses off at how credulous my yokel butt is.easy like sunday morning.
“JRE to the Presidency,
JRE to the presidency,
JRE to the presidency,
JRE to the presidency!!”
Shouldn’t be a surprise that the MSM millionaire talking-heads are going after Edwards. After all, they know which side of the class war they’re on. And no wonder they don’t report news of any use to the rest of us.
This is the scenario as believed by quite a number of folks I’ve talked to. Hillary and Obama are the current darlings of corporate America and that, of course, accounts for their dramatic fund raising efforts. The elite and Corporations do not believe that either one of these Senators is electable (discrimination in both cases) and are working for their Democratic nomination thereby guaranteeing a Bush clone in the White House.
Now to another issue. Here we are complaining among ourselves about the fools at FOX and their swift boating attempts against John Edwards. We should be organized into an effort to counter FOX’s tactics by immediately countering their claims by emailing, faxing, telephoning O’Reilly, Hannity, Hume and all the other professional liars in that organization. Thousands of people weighing in at each broadcast will overwhelm the telephone lines, crash the servers, etc. Whatever it takes to strike back and strike back in numbers. We can’t just sit idly by and watch the same thing happen to Edwards that took out Dean and Kerry. What about it folks, can a strike back campaign be organized? We need to shut them up–even momentarily? It has been shown they have very thin skins–especially O’Reilly.
I tend to think of Obama and Clinton as significantly sold out to corporate interests. Edwards occasionally will come out with a decent line in a speech. My sense is that he really is concerned about the most very poor Americans-but he doesn’t really understand the situation of Americans that are struggling to stay middle class.
Good! Sabotage Edwards! While they’re at it sabotage Hillary and Obama too….until only Kucinich is left!
The problem with Edwards is that he never comes out forcibly about Iraq by calling the current incumbants by their rightful title of ‘criminals’. Nor does he support a single payer, universal health care system. Instead he promotes a patchy, multi-tier system as a viable alternative which has been a proven failure in other developed countries that have experimented with it.
I will say though that his focus on poverty elevates him beyond the other so-called front runners. Afterall, if a candidate considers gay marriage, abortion rights and flag burning as our most pressing issues, he automatically disqualifies himself as a legitimate candidate in my books.
Siouxrose, I agree that there are “right” people that may be open to change, and we should facilitate that whenever we can. However, a great deal of them already have been exposed to correct information, and it is primarily emotional blockage that prevents them from changing. This is found not really in brainwashing, but in the various kinds of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse/trauma that was inflicted upon them by their parents and never remedied by a factor of kindness and sympathy. These people need different resources available to them in order to be able to change; it isn’t like the bush administration, after all, has no access to information proving global warming is true.
In some cases, I do feel that the right steals presidencies, runs congress with an iron fist when they are in the majority, and otherwise does everything they can to keep us down. Perhaps we need to stand just as strongly; not by adopting their ways of murder and propaganda, though.
I think, let the media scream. You must just learn to ignore it, like in the case of Venezuela. (When a progressive candidate is eventually elected into office, the real screaming will begin).
Special animosity? The corporate state is pumping all their money into Obama and Hillary, neither of whom can possibly win. Get it? Edwards can win and that’s what scares the shit out of the fascists.
I don’t think most American’s really realize how much they are being manipulated by the media. I honestly believe that is why so many people vote Republican because they are favored in the news media. They are always presented in a favorable light and most Democrat’s aren’t! That’s one of the many reasons why I don’t listen to political commercial’s or really rely on some pundit’s opinion of a candidate anymore! I read enough to know what each candidate stands for. That has served me well over the years. If Edwards manages to make it to the primary’s next January he will have my vote! I could really care less about his mansion and hair cuts! I admire the man for being the best in his field. He comes off as a smart intelligent man. The fact that he is a lawyer is a plus. Maybe he will have some idea of what is against the law. Where the average Republican these days doesn’t!
Dara: don’t worry about the Republicans: when Bush gets through with them, they won’t be a factor at all. That’s why the Dems in Congress want him in the White House, and the war to continue. The good news: their plan will probably work, and we can vote for whoever we want to.
On Edwards & the media:
If Edwards is running “to the left,” for which I applaud him, he may be in real trouble. The biggest political news of the last week is the Democratic Party’s “deal” with the Bushies to support both the Iraq war and corporate globalization/free trade. They have revealed their true agenda, and the result is massive revulsion on the Left. Compare Cohen’s piece with Amy Goodman’s interview with Cindy Sheehan, who is calling for a 3rd party campaign next year. She is hardly the only one.
In short, Edwards’ natural supporters in the Democratic Party are leaving in droves. Unless he comes on strong enough to bring them back, which I don’t see happening, he will have a hard time gaining the nomination from a right-wing party that doesn’t want him. The sabotage campaign Cohen describes is coming from the party every bit as much as from the MSM, just as it did with Dean.
At this point, “Progressive Democrat” is a contradiction in terms. The party has staked out its position right next to Bush. You don’t get to be both a progressive and a Democrat anymore, so what are you going to be?
The media and the DLC has decided it will be Hillary or Obama and we will not be able to protest. Even Salon is piling on Edwards.
Once again, the Democratic party is assuring their failure in the next presidential election. They will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s depressing to watch.
A little off subject, but, I think it is interesting.
John Edwards was picked by Bilderberg to be Kerry’s running mate.
Posted: July 8, 2004
2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Edwards’ standout “performance” at the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Italy last month may have been a key reason for his selection as John Kerry’s vice presidential running mate, according to the New York Times.
“His performance at Bilderberg was important,” said a friend of Mr. Kerry who was there. “He reported back directly to Kerry. There were other reports on his performance. Whether they reported directly or indirectly, I have no doubt the word got back to Mr. Kerry about how well he did”.
You damn well bet it did.The phone call was made, and Kerry was told Edwards would be his running mate.
I am also going leave my Dennis Kucinich for president sticker on my car.
I think the gormless Ann Coulter epithet for John Edwards is illustrative of how the radical right manipulates the collective mind of our patriarchal society to maintain their grip on power and wealth. If someone shows the compassion and wisdom to care about accelerating inequality in our society, then cast aspersions about their level of masculinity. Unfortunately, it’ll probably work. If you want to appeal to the enligthened, politically-correct crowd, then paint him as a hypocrite, because any sane candidate knows that laissez-faire capitalism is the only possible system.
Oregoncharles raised the biggest story of the 2006 election,not just the last week.
“The biggest political news of the last week is the Democratic Party’s “deal” with the Bushies to support both the Iraq war and corporate globalization/free trade.”
But where are the big stories on the globalization/free trade deal? This was worked out in secret with Bush, as was the current immigration bill. Why secrecy. Is it because they knew they were betraying the 2006 election.
I have a great deal of respect for Jeff Cohen’s analysis, but I question the need for raising the issue of a media “conspiracy” against Edwards. I think the proper explanation for MSM’s reaction to Edwards is more obvious, namely, they are always looking for ratings. And since the media are dealing with a very suggestible and uninformed population, they peddle stories that will appeal to their audience. Ask the average American what he thinks about single-payer health insurance and you’ll draw a complete blank. But ask him about a $400 haircut, and you’re sure to get a rise.
I don’t know whether it’s a media conspiracy, but I do think it may be a big corporate ‘push’. B.O.’Reilly is shameful in his outright hatred of Edwards and he spews it every chance he gets - even putting up on his bold headline ‘Edwards and O’Donnell’ as if to compare the two side by side because of Edwards’s statement about the global war on terror being a bumper sticker (an idea I actually understood as a slur on Bush’s failures at securing our country). But interesting (O’Reilly is not interesting) - was Jim Cramer (Mad Money CNBC) on Chris Matthews Hardball the other day — Chris asked him who the big corporate/Wall Street types would hate to see as President and Cramer looked at Chris like he was crazy for even asking the question before he answered ‘John Edwards’. The corporate/Wall Street guys don’t want to hear about anyone who thinks they make ‘too much’ money. I don’t necessarily support Edwards for President, but I do support his candidacy. I think we should start publicizing what Hillary pays for her highlights and cuts, which I’ll bet is over $500, and what the other candidates, like Mitt Romney, pay for theirs. I’d also like to see aerial photos like they’re showing of Edwards’ home, of all of their homes and second and third homes — including the homes of the members and former members of the Bush administration.
When the anyone influenced by this hypocritical media raises their absurd charges against Edwards, ask them this question?
What wealthy man sets about trying to raise his won taxes? John Edwards, that’s who. His own policies will end up costing himself a lot of money. But who thinks about it? Not the mindless. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the negative stuff is coming from other Democratic candidates.
Karita Hummer
I am so fascinated by the historical record of media manipulation,i’d enjoy another go at it.during the tussle for the 1860 republican presidential nomination,newspapers favoring stanton and chase portrayed lincoln as a crude,unlettered rube,and worse.this despite the fact that by this time the ‘ol railsplitter had morphed into a nationally known wealthy railroad lawyer.there is one difference,though.lincoln appointed both these men to key positions in his cabinet.they despised him,he didn’t care.especially in the case of stanton,lincoln had to humble himself to get him on board.THATS A WARTIME PRESIDENT.
Hellllooo? Are we falling for the “media is the cause” of this? Media is controlled. We are fed what they want us to believe. The sniping at John Edwards is controlled by the Democrats. They are getting rid of him just as they did Howard Dean and any others who won’t play the game with THEIR rules. Let’s face it…when we put in more Democrats in ‘04, we just put in more of the same party (Republicrats).
If anything, the big corporate-money, from the so called centrist Democrats, the ones that elected Bill Clinton in the past and benefited economically from his presidency, are the ones in the media that are still pandering to the Clintons; and are the ones that are misrepresenting John Edwards. Why they keep repeating about his $400.00 haircuts who knows; just read his web-site that states very clearly much detail about this real candidates ideas, and he really wants to help as many people as possible. Both John and his wife are some of the most genuine candidates we have ever had in the American political arena and they deserve a good and serious look at. If you like them, please start banging your political drums for them, they need it. We see CNN pandering to Hillary Clinton, while Chris Matthews of MSNBC is still searching for a candidate to favor. We the people can have a say, and the Edwards are our best shot. And any suggestions just e-mail them, they will respond. I am a Doctor, and Elizabeth Edwards hand wrote a reply to my suggestions, which is generally unheard of in this computerized automated day and age.