New York Times smears Edwards again (as a hypocrite)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Yesterday the nation's second most influential CMSM newspaper smeared Edwards and today the most influential newspaper followed suit. I am not even going to dignify the smear job by quoting it. It recycles all the CMSM smears on his alleged hypocrisy on poverty.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/edwards-talks-tough-on-hedge-funds/

Why does the corporate media single Edwards out for such criticism? Read about it at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

==Why is the media’s scorn for the populist/progressive hypocrisy of top tier candidates – a hypocrisy that is written into the structural nature of the United States’ heavily media-focused and corporate-plutocratic “dollar democracy” – so disproportionately focused on Edwards? It’s simple. He’s not a full-blown populist progressive; no such individual could run a credible campaign under the current corporate-dominated U.S. electoral regime. But after the openly Left and officially unelectable Kucinich (who threw his Iowa caucus delegates to Edwards in 2004 and will probably do so again in 2008), Edwards is the closest thing to such a candidate in the Democratic primaries. Having attained his “wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations” (Cohen 2007), Edwards is deeply concerned (however hypocritical he might sound) about poverty and inequality. After heading a liberal poverty research center in Chapel Hill for the last three years, he announced his campaign in an impoverished section New Orleans – the nation’s leading symbol of concentrated and racialiized poverty and government neglect – and speaks insistently and repeatedly about and against the growing chasm between rich and poor within the United States. He has the most progressive and detailed health care proposal – the only truly universal plan – among the top-tier Democratic candidates. He advocates rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for people who receive more than $200,000 a year to fund truly universal coverage (6).



Edwards is the only top tier Democrat to back up Dennis Kucinich’s claim that single-payer government health insurance is good policy. His universal health care plan is to the left of the cheaper and milder copy-cat version proposed by Barack Obama in that it is more adequately funded (thanks to the proposed tax-cut rollback), truly universal and would compel private insurance companies to compete with government plans and could evolve into single payer.==

==As Jeff Cohen notes:



“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. You see, those other pols aren’t hypocrites: They don’t lecture about poverty” (Cohen 2007).



It’s not for nothing that Edwards is losing to Hillary-Obama in both the big donor dollar race and in the race for name recognition and favorable attention in dominant media. He’s speaking the languages of labor, the New Deal and the (stillborn) War on Poverty to a noteworthy extent in a time when the labor movement and the notion of positive government action for egalitarian and anti-poverty ends have been officially proclaimed dead and over (drowned in the icy individualist waters of neoliberal calculation) and in a period when the issues of inequality and economic insecurity resonate with a considerable and growing section of the ever more class-fractured citizenry.==

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. EXCELLENT article. Thank you.

It explains why Edwards is constantly attacked. The rich here are always threatened by anyone who talks about the gap between rich and poor, the real reason the rich get so rich in the U.S., and why unions are so important. I have joined Edwards' campaign. The fact that no one who doesn't have money can run in the U.S. makes it a Catch 22. Since no one who is poor can run for office, the only ones who can run, are the rich. If any of these decide to side with the poor, they get skewered by the other rich, when it's pointed out that they're rich too.

Edwards sticks his neck out. He's a brave man!!! I still haven't seen the others stick their necks out.

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. HE'S A PHONY BECAUSE HE LIVES IN A HOUSE AND GETS HAIRCUTS!!!11

God, at least we know these people have nothing.

[calteacherguy]

14. $400 haircuts. nt

[Jai4WKC08]

38. He's a phony because he did nothing about poverty when he could have

While in the Senate. For four years a Democratic-controlled Senate, I might add.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. There are people in college today because of what Edwards did

He has walked the walk on poverty, and gave $350,000 in charity last year (at least one other candidate with a legal education who speaks of our responsibility to others, being our brother and sister's keepers, etc. is known to be stingy with his money...).

[iamjoy]

3. So If He Lived Like A Mountain Man

it would be okay to talk about poverty and the environment?

:eyes:

For the 20th century, FDR was the best friend the poor had and he was very, very rich. If he were running today, would they attack him like they do Edwards? For that matter, JFK also cared about others and he too was rolling in it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Exactly, and LBJ was very wealthy too and he did a thing or too for the poor

The idea that you have to be poor to be sympathetic to the poor is as absurd as saying that if you have not had cancer you cannot sympathize with those struck by cancer.

[Clark2008]

18. No one is asking him to live like a Mountain Man

It's just hypocritical as hell to spend more on a haircut than some people make in a month, especially while you're yammering on about "Two Americas." You can get a good haircut for under $100. Hell, most people spend about a fourth of that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. He is a hypocrite for paying a worker well?

You are saying it would be better if he kept more of his money? :eyes:

Edwards, as the article I linked to points out, is being singled out because he is the only wealthy candidate aside from Kucinich who gives a damn about the poor. The others don't even bother to mention the 37 million in poverty.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. they slam everyone but, Hillary. But, the LA Tiimes is worse

[Catchawave]

5. Will the NYT be covering....

Rudy v FDNY ? That's juicy!

Oh, here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/firefighters-take-on-giuliani/

:evilgrin:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. The NYT may but will the rest of the CMSM?

Since it involves 9-11 and New York the NYT may have no choice but to report it. Will the rest of the MSM do so, though?

[littafi]

6. Same reporter

as the one who wrote the article criticizing Edwards for his work with ACORN, even though he had to admit there was nothing illegal that Edwards did. The reporter found someone to quote that said it was “close to the line.” So is driving the speed limit. It appears to be a personal vendetta by the reporter.

So when he wrote the following, he was just continuing his smear campaign:

“Mr. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, a topic that stands in sharp contrast to his own $30 million net worth and which set him up for ridicule when it became public that he had paid $400 for a haircut.”

The New York Times is attacking Edwards because Edwards is not bought and paid for by Big Business. Don't be fooled. The New York Times is not a progressive paper.

Last week, the Times got called out by the Public Editor for calling the insurgents in Iraq Al Queda all the time. Justy plain wrong, but the Times was following Bush's pattern of conflating Iraq with 9/11. The New York Times is a shadow of the newspaper it once was.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Thanks for the reminder. ACORN issued a statement defending Edwards. Did the NYT publish it?

Let me take a wild guess... :puke:

[Adelante]

25. Do you have a link to this article?

"the one who wrote the article criticizing Edwards for his work with ACORN"

I haven't seen the Times criticize Edwards for working with ACORN. Thank you.

[MontanaMaven]

7. Jeff Cohen nails it. And the pundits and press are behind the curve.

The American people have caught on and they are quietly but with determination, pulling free of the bull crap. But we can't let up. Every where we are we should mention his name and his fight. Wear a lapel pin. Put a bumper sticker on. This is the cause of your lifetime and mine. Cut to the revolution.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Amen! nt

[Divine Discontent]

12. I amen that amen KICK!

:kick:

I don't like anyone being multimillionaires, so it's not right they talk about Edwards' wealth exclusively. Sorry to anyone that disagrees. I think everyone with great wealth should disperse their funds to build better schools, colleges, parks, emergency equipment, it's my hopes that everyone will be Christ like and help others til it hurts. But I'm a realist. This is the world as it is, but people like millionaire John Edwards (did that for laughs) are a rare example of rich people that actively PUSH for the rights, well being, and future concerns of all Americans.

He gets attacked for this, because to millions of people it's all about the almighty dollar and not the Almighty!
I won't get into what I do to help, but I'l just say even people with modest means can bless others - why's it shocking then that someone with vast wealth like the honorable Mr. Edwards and his lovely better half, Elizabeth, want to do the same?

They are scared about Edwards, if anything, leveling the playing field for the workers. The corporations are terrified we'd pick him. Expect big hair bumper stickers making him sound girl-like and the talk being nothing about the issues if he's the candidate for us - which is fine by me - we can mock them for ignoring the issues and focusing on looks and money, when he's focusing on the heartbroken poor and paycheck to paycheck worker!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!

[calteacherguy]

13. Where did Edwards get the expertise to be a hedge fund advisor?

"Mr. Edwards had been a paid adviser to Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based hedge fund that recently went public. He earned $479,512"

How does somebody "earn" that kind of money, is what I'd like to know. Why was his advice so valuable to them?

[robcon]

15. It's unlikely that he was paid for 'advice' for the hedge fund.

He was most likely paid for publicity value, and for asking fellow super-millionaires to put money into the hedge fund.

He was a salesman/promoter for the fund, IMO.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Edwards still has between $11M and $24M invested in Fortress-the "bulk of his financial assets?"

(A champion of the poor deeply invested in hedge funds? It just doesn't look good.)

While he resigned as an adviser to Fortress once he decided to run for president, he still has between $11 million and $24 million of his personal wealth invested in Fortress. This represents the bulk of his financial assets. In addition, employees of Fortress are also leading contributors to Mr. Edwards campaign.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/edwards-talks-tough-on-hedge-funds/

Edited to add this from the Washington Post:

Edwards has faced questions about the hedge fund -- where he said he worked only a few days a month -- because Fortress owned offshore funds that served as tax havens for investors and because the firm's portfolio included subprime lenders, which provide high-risk loans that often target minorities. As a candidate, Edwards has railed against both practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051600811_pf.html

[DangerDave921]

17. rich

It's not that Edwards is rich. It's that he lives in a style that is SO removed from what normal people have. It's one thing to live in a big house. It's another to live in a 22,000 square feet monstrosity. It's a matter of degree. If he lived in a "typical" rich person's house, I don't think it would be an issue. Let's face it -- all the candidates are rich. But when he chooses to build this temple to wealth, I think people have a right to raise an eyebrow and ask, "You're the guy who's concerned about the common man?"

[Catchawave]

19. His house is only 10,000 sq ft

Geesh, if you're going to go for the smackdown, please check your facts :evilgrin:

[DangerDave921]

20. Correction

Perhaps it's a matter of nomenclature, depending on whether one is talking about the main house versus the entire thing.

In February 2007, MSNBC published an article stating: "Sitting on 102 secluded acres - surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs - the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy."

So it looks like I was wrong. It's not 22,000 square feet; it's 28,000. I assume this includes the indoor pool, racketball court, basketball court, and stage.

[jsamuel]

21. His house is 10,000

There is another building on the property which people include as if it were his house.

[DangerDave921]

22. OK

I don't think it's fair to only address the size of the main house, if there are other structures on the estate which he regularly uses. You have to count the whole thing. I still think it was a PR blunder to build such a house because it makes him seem removed from the plight of the common man. He has every right to do it, and I don't begrudge him one iota. But from a PR perspective, it was a bad idea. Look at what the media did to Kerry wiht his SUV's and multiple houses and the picture of him windsurfing. Image counts for a lot in today's politics and I think Edwards erred in his image by building such a spread.

[jsamuel]

23. i don't know about you, but I have a detached garage and no one includes that in my sq ft

it wasn't included on any of the estimates when I bought the house and hasn't been on any of them since.

He is removed from the plight of the common man, he is rich whether he has a big house or not. What do people want him to do? Fake it? Act like he is poor too? Throw his money into the air and let God keep whatever doesn't hit the ground?

[DangerDave921]

24. No

Look, I agree it's not fair. He's in a tough spot. But it is a simple fact of life that much of the public votes based on how they FEEL about someone, which is often a visceral judgment. Remember the poll that showed people would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry? (or was it Gore). That question makes ZERO sense to me in terms of voting for president, but apparently a lot of people make snap judgments based on whether they would feel comfortable with someone. And I will say this for Bush -- depsite being rich himself, he did a good job in 2000 of looking like a regular guy to most people. It's image, and he crafted it well.

With Edwards, I think building a 28,000 square foot spread sends a message to a lot of people that he's in another world and not someone they can identify with. It's a PR blunder in my opinion.

[Adelante]

28. The 28,000 ft share a continuous roof

That's why it's perceived as 28,000 ft instead of 10,000 ft.

[venable]

32. the buildings are connected by a covered causeway, but they are two buildings

[Jai4WKC08]

40. That "causeway" cost more than my entire house

And I don't exactly live in a shack.

I actually don't begrudge him the big house. I do object to the 50,000 trees he cut down for it.

[venable]

52. where in the world did you get this figure?

of 50k trees? I could be wrong, of course, but I believe you are off by many tens of thousands/

and unless your house costs as much as a nice garage i think your house is worth more than the causeway. I don't know, but it's just a walkway, covered.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. This has all been documented before at DU

I know you've seen it.

The causeway was reported to have cost just under $200,000. The 50K trees can be googled easily.

[venable]

27. The Truth about the house...

It is where a family lives, and where their friends and colleagues congregate. It has his office (his only office), and her office(her only office), and things for the kids to do (I realize that's a radical concept, but there you have it). And yes, there are bedrooms for them to sleep in, and a kitchen.

It is a large ranch style house, far less pompous than virtually any other property that valuable. There is a 'barn' on the property, but since they don't farm, it's used as a gym, a storage space, and a play place for the children.

they are a very sporting family, and Edwards love to play hoops, so he built a court in the gym.

this is hardly Marie Antoinette here. this is a guy from Robbins, NC who made a lot of money and has built other things as well, things having nothing to do with grandeur...

ie the first thing he built was the Wade Edwards Learning Lab....a building housing computers across from the HS where his late son went to school. These computers and the learning facilities of the building, and the staff to manage it are for the use of the poor students in Raleigh who would otherwise fall behind in resources and skills. Where is the complaining about that?

John and Elizabeth Edwards live more modestly, I would say, than 99% of those with their net worth. And for those interested, they live green.

The give a massive amount to charity, and the rest they save for their children or use to build a home that their children will enjoy.

But lordy lordy, can you imagine the hypocrisy, that this man also believes in helping the poor?

Summation: he is the only serious candidate that threatens the status quo, and so the CMSM is forever going after him. I pray Americans see past this smearing and elect the one person who truly is devoted to transforming this country and the way it treats its most needy, its middle class, its rural population, its environment, and who is willing to put America's FP on a course that brings people to us, not pushes them away from us. He is a threat to what the late Gen Eishenhower identified as the Military/Industrial Complex, which now includes the interests of American and Multinational corporations determined to use the laws and treasury of the US to line their pockets.

John Edwards should be our next president. He, alone among the serious candidates, is determined to change WHATEVER is needed to improve the lot of the nost needy throughout the world. The others are not so prepared, I believe.

Can we drop the house, please?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. Another great post from venable doling out pwnage to those citing repuke talking points on this

It is not surprising that not a single one of the "critics" of JE *gasp* being wealthy did not respond to Venable's post...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. So FDR and RFK were hypocrites because they lived in mansions and were born to wealth?

It isn't as if they did anything for the common man...

All the candidates are rich. Why is Edwards singled out? The answer is in the second article in the OP...

[Adelante]

26. Well, I read the Times blog

I don't see a smear. I see things you all don't like seeing, but point to where there is a smear, something Edwards has not actually done himself and isn't responsible for.

[venable]

29. the irrelevance of the house is what makes it a smear. nt

[DangerDave921]

30. Not a smear

The term smear generally means to villify or to slander. It is usually associated with broadcasting a false statement about someone, or exaggerating something that may be technically true but is taken out of context to portray someone in a false light. That wasn't done in this case. It was a factual piece that was all true.

Also, the relevance of the story is in the eye of the beholder. You may think it is irrelevant but others would disagree. Some could argue that Bush having a DUI 20 years ago is irrelevant. Others would broadcast it at the top of their lungs. Would that be a smear?

I think as long as the facts are correct, it's fair game to talk about.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. I don't see a smear at all...

The fact is that Edwards knows these funds better than any other candidate, and he's speaking out against their favorable tax treatment (which would include a sizeable chunk of his personal wealth). Edwards is basically saying that, if elected, he would raise his own taxes.

[Catchawave]

43. What is this "fair game" you speak of?

Carrying water for the RW is a smear, IMHO.

[WCGreen]

31. First of all, It was on the Blog and not in the main paper....

Also, it was presented as news.

Edwards did work for the Hege Fund.

He can't walk away from that.

I don't see what the problem is here.

They mentioned the 400 haircut, but get use to that, that is the way all media is going to treat Edwards now just like they did with Al Gore "inventing" the internet....

[redqueen]

33. He's not corporate-friendly, like Clinton and Obama. n/t

[NYCGirl]

34. Wait a minute — so he works for a hedge fund, makes half a million dollars from

them, they pay about $200,000 into his campaign, and he invests between $11 and $24 million with the fund, and you say he's not "corporate friendly"?

[redqueen]

36. Is it really that hard to see?

Read this part again:

"He has the most progressive and detailed health care proposal – the only truly universal plan – among the top-tier Democratic candidates. He advocates rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for people who receive more than $200,000 a year to fund truly universal coverage "

[jsamuel]

37. No, but some people would rather repeat facts out of time sequence to suggest some sort of problem.

He is raising taxes on those who make money the way he made money. It is exactly the same as raising taxes on the rich when he is rich. That isn't being a hypocrite, it is being compassionate.

[redqueen]

39. I don't care what you call it.

He's the best of the 'top tier' candidate and that's just a fact. :)

[NYCGirl]

41. And you really don't see why some people don't trust him? NT

[redqueen]

42. I don't see how anyone sees ANY of them as completely trustworthy. n/t

[Adelante]

46. You gotta point there, redqueen

They are politicians.

[Beaverhausen]

44. Clinton and Obama have wisely not taken any stands on any issues

therefore, the press can't criticize them for anything they say.

I guess Edwards mistake was to actually have a stand on issues, and have plans to help change this country.

[rndmprsn]

45. seems like edwards is the al gore for 2008

media has already made up their minds that edwards is too much of a threat...so they cling onto these stupid stories (gore makes shit up, gore is a braggart, gore lies, etc etc etc...we've heard it all before)

[benny05]

51. Greg Sargent at TPM

New York Times' Leslie Wayne Continues Twisted Jihad Against Edwards

"The journalistic titans who run The New York Times don't give a damn what I think. But I'm going to tell them this anyway: You guys are badly botching your coverage of John Edwards, in a way that raises the question of whether the paper has ceased even pretending to try to cover his campaign fairly."

Read the rest here. I'm with Sargent and the poster on this one. It's balderdash. Prominent newspapers like NYT or WP need to get a better reporter who is supposed to report, not write John Solomon-lite columns or David Brooks.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/new_york_times_leslie_wayne_continues_twisted_jihad_against_edwards

:puke: :mad:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Thanks for the link! nt