Are Media Out to Get John Edwards? - Jeff Cohen @ Alternet

[1932]

Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards' unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger than during Howard Dean's rise and fall.

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.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/52764/

[liberal N proud]

1. In 1968 they assassinated Bobby Kennedy - Today they don't use bullets but

it is assassination just the same.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think they'd rather run against Hillary. Or Obama.

Sure they're trying to take Edwards out. As far as that Kucinich static in the background, unfortunately, Dennis doesn't have a prayer. If the media actually thought he had a chance, they'd have smashed him into the ground by now.

[AtomicKitten]

3. His campaign based on populism isn't being received by the MSM

nor the "system" because power to the people isn't a slogan they want to hear; it hamstrings their power. I don't support John Edwards, think the superficial haircut meme is crap, but I can see he's being assigned to second-tier status when he, in fact, is running neck-and-neck with Obama and Hillary in many places.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. He is being subjected to "death by silence." Hillary and Obama are annointed

because they scare the Republican base, being Hillary and a Black man. John Edwards is not scary at all to average Republican, and therefore he and the other Democratic contenders are kept in the closet in order to give the voting public the impression that the Democratic Party is some kind of fringe that represents only Black lesbian Muslims.

If really pressed as to why they do crap like this, the members of the MSM would say that they do it to even the playing field, since the Republican candidates are at a disadvantage, and they want to see a more exciting election.

However, we all know that big business, including the corporate media, wants a Republican in the WH.

Period.

It is 2000 redux.

The nation's reporters learned two things from "Gore is a liar." Their lies work wonders, and there are absolutely no adverse consequences for anything that they do in order to throw an election to one party.

Note the people who are participating in this game. They are the same ones who played "Gore is a liar." George Stephanopolous, for instance. He brutalized Edwards and then pitched softballs like a girl at Obama. Georgie Boy knows what side of The Path to 9/11 his corporate bonus is buttered on.

[eridani]

5. Is a bear Catholic?

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Jeebus. Of course they are. Oh, and did you know that Obama's middle name is HUSSEIN?!?!? All Dem candidates should be going on the attack to counter this stuff.

[dennis4868]

6. who gives a damn...

what Edwards does with his hard earned money. All I care about is what he is going to do for the poor who have been ignored by the rich white men who have been running this country these past 6 years.

[MGKrebs]

7. I don't understand this line of thinking.

We are to believe that something about Edwards' campaign is so far outside of the corporate mainstream that there is an automatic effort to destroy the campaign. This campaign position is so obvious that it doesn't even require a conspiracy to implement, and yet the campaign staff itself seems to be unaware of the phenomena since they are running a completely conventional campaign dependent on the MSM for their success.

Also, Edwards is among the top three candidates in pretty much any measure you want to choose, so we would have to exclude all the other candidates except the top three to even begin to make the case that he is getting special treatment. Poor DK usually isn't even taken seriously enough to attract criticism.

All this despite Edwards being a well known candidate who has served in the U.S. Senate and as a V.P. candidate and hasn't shown any radical tendancies.

[1932]

8. I think it's obvious that his policies, although not radical, would reduce concentration of wealth

in hands of a few, and that is a tremendous threat to people who own and pay for advertising in the papers that are trashing him. And in America today, that would probably be a revolution.


Did you read the New York Times article about student loans yesterday? Only now are they finally talking about this issue, and it's because Andrew Cuomo is making a big stink about it. The NYT dropped so many bombs about private student loans that they'd require a separate post to do justice. The bottom line is that student loans are basically a way to suck all the wealth out of young people trying to become middle class and shift it to the financial industry.

EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT except Edwards running in 2004 wanted to EXPAND loan programs for college students. Edwards wanted to give students one year of college for free, which would have reduced the principal and interest, and therefore the profits the financial industry gets from student loans by 25%. The other Democrats wanted to implement policies that would have INCREASED Wall St profits.

Do I need to keep writing? Do I need to connect the dots so that you have answers to your questions?

[KittyWampus]

10. yes, you need to keep writing because ALL Democratic candidates have policies that would help

redistribute wealth downwards to some extent.

And just because you can cite ONE example from Edwards' last campaign doesn't negate the fact that overall he was a moderate and is a moderate.

[1932]

12. I just gave you an example where Edwards had a policy that was different from the other Democrats

in '04 and it had significant consequences on the profits of the financial industry. Furthermore, it would have a significant impact on the quality of our democracy if there were a real middle class accumulating wealth for itself rather than transferring it all to Sallie Mae and their wall street investors.

I know all democrats have good policies. But Edwards's policies in this particular respect would have had a significant impact on a very powerful part of the economy (the financial sector) and could improve democracy significantly.

By the way, here's the NYT article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/us/10loans.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=education&pagewanted=print

[MGKrebs]

11. I just think it's more likely that the media just wants to sell papers or

get good ratings. They need drama.

You cite the NYT. Is this an example of how the MSM trashes Edwards?

[1932]

13. The horse is out of the barn on this issue. Where was the Times in 2005 when

the laws were passed allowing the financial sector to do this to students?

Why are they only talking about it now that Cuomo is making an issue of it?

And read the article for yourself...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/us/10loans.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=education&pagewanted=print...they leave a lot of dots that still need to be connected.

Those dots are the questions I ask in brackets in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1081958&mesg_id=1081958

[KittyWampus]

9. Not this stupid shit again. Was the Media against Kerry when he ran and they ignored him?

Was the media FOR Dean when he ran and they gave him unlimited glowing coverage for months on end?

Was the media against Clark when he ran and they ignored him?

The Media is against ALL Democrats in general.

And they seem heavily tilted towards having a horse race between Obama and Hillary.

That said, if Edwards can't deal with the Media, despite their bias, then he doesn't deserve to POTUS.

It's really beyond sickening the way DU'ers whine about how the Media treats Democrats but then don't demand their candidates figure out how to deal with them.

[1932]

14. Is the media for Clinton vs Obama? I think it is.

Furthermore, do you think they're not doing what's described in this article?